Jump to content

[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8


Felger

Recommended Posts

Motokid600: I think I have an idea. Did you extract the zipped configs inside the Engine Ignitor folder? It seems you did, and you shouldn't have, RO provides its own configs, so it would give you duplicate and probably contradictory configs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello I installed only the required mods but the liquid engine does not have any effects (works but you cant see it) and the "30XL SRM" and "Thiokol caster" solid boosters don't work at all.

This only happens when the realism overhaul mod is added.

Got any tips for me? :D (PS Awesome mod)

Edited by BroBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello I installed only the required mods but the liquid engine does not have any effects (works but you cant see it) and the "30XL SRM" and "Thiokol caster" solid boosters don't work at all.

This only happens when the realism overhaul mod is added.

Got any tips for me? :D (PS Awesome mod)

Sounds like you didn't install SmokeScreen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I figured I'd take the plunge and give this a try; fresh 32bit install, installed RO using CKAN, but I've noticed that when I get above a certain altitude the kerbin texture becomes incredibly low-res; I've tried both the 4k and 8k versions of the texture pack from the RSS thread, but they both look the same:

0D272B582D0B185E92DF832FFCBE60D4432F9CA1

Not using ATM at the moment. I've tried doing a completely fresh install, didn't seem to help. Anyone know how to fix this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

today I've tried to fulfill the geosynchrounous-satellite-contract, which I did - in my eyes - successfully. But the game doesn't recognize it. Can you tell me what I've did wrong? Or is there a known bug regarding this contract?

http://i.imgur.com/1j6PffE.jpg

For the contract to be fulfilled, the probe you launch needs to be a new file that didn't exist before the contract was accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I am trying to launch the Zarya/OLDD Proton using RSS and RO. What should the best flight profile be to get this to an apoapsis of 416 km? I plan to plug the info into Mechjeb and have IT fly the launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

I have found a strange thing that is in my opinion likely to be a bug of some sort.

Many parts most of which are command pods both from different mods and stock ones have stock modules and resources duplicating the modded custom modules and resources with the same functions.

For exapmle some of the command pods have stock monoprop resource and a stock thruster module to consume it.

Others even have stock reaction wheels.

All these parts are the supported ones they come from different mods and they do have custom modules added by the mods.

This happened with the latest release after an automatic install. Is it really a bug or something intended or whatever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing that makes me think something is wrong.

The masses and volumes of the procedural tanks. I have always had an annoying problem in the current state of the mod with quite insane ranges of thrust to weight ratios between ignition and burnout with small payloads. Also in its current state for me it nearly always looks like the payload mass fractions are too big for the empty stages.

Then I decided to compare the data to real world launchers data as taken from the wikipedia and the other websites they use as sources by replicating the launchers with procedural tanks and the applicable engines.

What came out from all these comparsions is that the procedural tanks are just way too light for their usable volume.

It looks like a fueled launcher weighs more than it is supposed to but the empty one weighs a lot less than it should.

Like really a lot less. Up to three times less than real ones sometimes.

What is even more weird but could be bugs of some sort is that sometimes adding up the mass of the fuels and resources in the tanks comes out more than the full launcher weight as shown by the engineer redux and the stock tool.

Meaning that such a result is physically impossible.

I will test the different combinations more but it seems that something is really wrong.

It should also be noted that the launchers compared in the tests are mostly the early historical ones.

But I think it should not make such an extreme difference despite the tank technology evolution.

Am I doing something wrong or what is going on?

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I am trying to launch the Zarya/OLDD Proton using RSS and RO. What should the best flight profile be to get this to an apoapsis of 416 km? I plan to plug the info into Mechjeb and have IT fly the launch.

Is anyone willing to help me out with this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone willing to help me out with this one?

I haven't a clue about how MechJeb handles ascent profiles in RO/RSS. You should learn about how gravity turns from the RO wiki and try launching using those guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't a clue about how MechJeb handles ascent profiles in RO/RSS. You should learn about how gravity turns from the RO wiki and try launching using those guidelines.

From what I can glean about it, I would need fins, but the Proton rocket lacked fins and instead relied on its own thrust to get somewhere! Guess I may have to manually fly the thing into orbit and hope for the best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can glean about it, I would need fins, but the Proton rocket lacked fins and instead relied on its own thrust to get somewhere! Guess I may have to manually fly the thing into orbit and hope for the best!

Good luck.

- - - Updated - - -

And another thing that makes me think something is wrong.

The masses and volumes of the procedural tanks. I have always had an annoying problem in the current state of the mod with quite insane ranges of thrust to weight ratios between ignition and burnout with small payloads. Also in its current state for me it nearly always looks like the payload mass fractions are too big for the empty stages.

Then I decided to compare the data to real world launchers data as taken from the wikipedia and the other websites they use as sources by replicating the launchers with procedural tanks and the applicable engines.

What came out from all these comparsions is that the procedural tanks are just way too light for their usable volume.

It looks like a fueled launcher weighs more than it is supposed to but the empty one weighs a lot less than it should.

Like really a lot less. Up to three times less than real ones sometimes.

What is even more weird but could be bugs of some sort is that sometimes adding up the mass of the fuels and resources in the tanks comes out more than the full launcher weight as shown by the engineer redux and the stock tool.

Meaning that such a result is physically impossible.

I will test the different combinations more but it seems that something is really wrong.

It should also be noted that the launchers compared in the tests are mostly the early historical ones.

But I think it should not make such an extreme difference despite the tank technology evolution.

Am I doing something wrong or what is going on?

Thank you!

I haven't noticed anything too out of the ordinary myself, but I haven't checked specifically for this issue. If you think something is awry, you should go over to the Procedural Parts page. If its not that, it could be the RealFuels configs for PP instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello!

I have found a strange thing that is in my opinion likely to be a bug of some sort.

Many parts most of which are command pods both from different mods and stock ones have stock modules and resources duplicating the modded custom modules and resources with the same functions.

For exapmle some of the command pods have stock monoprop resource and a stock thruster module to consume it.

Others even have stock reaction wheels.

All these parts are the supported ones they come from different mods and they do have custom modules added by the mods.

This happened with the latest release after an automatic install. Is it really a bug or something intended or whatever?

Are these other mods you installed on the supported mods list on the OP? If not, you can't expect them to compatible. Otherwise, you should make sure that you don't have 2 Realism Overhaul folders in your GameData or 2 module managers, or something silly like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck.

Thanks, though, now I am a little worried about the entire project, because, let's face it; I suck at rendezvous and subsequent docking. However, if I can limit the amount of fuel usage to a minimum...I might have enough to perform the rendezvous of the other pieces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the tanks I think that this awesome mod provides a lot of configs of its own and that this thread is the right place to report issues that happen with this mod as a whole as it is too global to speak about these things out of the context.

And regarding the suspected bug it was a fully automatic installation with the stuff being as described and it is always better in my opinion to double check for stupid things that the automatic install may spam so they are to the best of my knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, though, now I am a little worried about the entire project, because, let's face it; I suck at rendezvous and subsequent docking. However, if I can limit the amount of fuel usage to a minimum...I might have enough to perform the rendezvous of the other pieces

There are some excellent resources on the Wiki here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki that walk you through how to do a gravity turn with MechJeb.

The general gist of it is:

  • Set gravity turn around 100m
  • Set turn end altitude a little below your intended orbit
  • Set intended orbit
  • Set final angle to ~5-10 degrees
  • Set "Keep within X degrees of Angle of Attack" to something relatively small, 5 degrees works well.
  • Turn "Corrective Steering" off.

That should be a decent starting point, from there you should just need to fine-tune the curvature of the trajectory, and maybe your final altitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discovered that Remote Tech has MM configs that override some of RO's configs for antennae. It would seem that RO successfully changes the stock antennae, but the AIES antennae seem to be configured for stock. Should I just delete all the config files inside of the RemoteTech folder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...