[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[replica17]

Love this overhaul. Can't wait for the update. Keep it going mate!

[A1Ch1]

Sorry for the dumb question, but what makes Engine Group Controller?

And what does "Assign group id"?

Engine Group Controller allows you to select groups of engines to throttle at the same time. Just assign engines arbitrary group names, then the EGC button on the toolbar lets you throttle all engines with the same group name at the same time. An example is the Delta 4 Heavy (https://youtu.be/yYUfKutMjNg) where EGC is located at the upper left side of the screen. Here it is used to reduce core throttle at around 35 s and could be used to reduce booster throttle to control G forces, though it wasn't needed in this case. This lets you easily throttle groups of engines separately from the global throttle.

Edited May 6, 2015 by A1Ch1

[Wuwuk]

Engine Group Controller allows you to select groups of engines to throttle at the same time. Just assign engines arbitrary group names, then the EGC button on the toolbar lets you throttle all engines with the same group name at the same time. An example is the Delta 4 Heavy (https://youtu.be/yYUfKutMjNg) where EGC is located at the upper left side of the screen. Here it is used to reduce core throttle at around 35 s and could be used to reduce booster throttle to control G forces, though it wasn't needed in this case. This lets you easily throttle groups of engines separately from the global throttle.

Thank you.

[Kurbis]

When installing via ckan realism overhaul recommends both real plume and hot rockets(ok AJE does that but RO depends on it) and they apparently conflict. not a big deal but I just noticed this.

ps. which one should I install?

[Insanitic]

When installing via ckan realism overhaul recommends both real plume and hot rockets(ok AJE does that but RO depends on it) and they apparently conflict. not a big deal but I just noticed this.

ps. which one should I install?

I installed real plume but the problem with real plume + smokescreen for 0.90 is that some engines, like the RS 68 engines, have a bug where the smoke+engine effects stay on even after the engine has run out of fuel or turned off. It's kinda weird. I'm not sure if others have this also.

I know that Hotrockets does not work with Real Fuels.

UPDATE: nevermind, my RO install was corrupt and I clean installed it again. All effects are working fine.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Insanitic

[sisyphean]

hey guys so the bug with parts re-sizing after unloading then reloading has occured with the mk2 lander can

i tried working out what rabada did (post 1455) to fix the science lab issue but the code is gibberish to me and i cant find anything that looks similar for the mk2 lander can,

anyone able to help?

[A1Ch1]

I installed real plume but the problem with real plume + smokescreen for 0.90 is that some engines, like the RS 68 engines, have a bug where the smoke+engine effects stay on even after the engine has run out of fuel or turned off. It's kinda weird. I'm not sure if others have this also.

I know that Hotrockets does not work with Real Fuels.

UPDATE: nevermind, my RO install was corrupt and I clean installed it again. All effects are working fine.

The sound on the RS-68 was actually fixed in a recent RO update. Leave a note if you find any other engines with the same problem

[curiousepic]

What are the plans to Realismify the resource system? I'd like to at least see ice/water from asteroids and small moons, the simple basis for an entire space infrastructure.

[jrandom]

What are the plans to Realismify the resource system? I'd like to at least see ice/water from asteroids and small moons, the simple basis for an entire space infrastructure.

It would be nice to be able to through some large-energy machinery at it to crack it apart into LiquidH2/LOX at the very least.

[sisyphean]

so i spent a few hours trying to fix the mk2 lander can re-scale issue based off rabadas work with the science lab,

and i seem to have fixed it for my install, this is what i came up with

}
@PART[mk2LanderCabin]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp]{
	%MODEL 
	{
		scale = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6
	}
	@node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.64571904, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 4
	@node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.20308688, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}
@PART[mk2LanderCabin]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp]
{


	%rescaleFactor = 1
	@node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.64571904, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 4
	@node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.20308688, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}


@PART[mk2LanderCabin]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]
{
	%RSSROConfig = True


	!MODULE[TweakScale]


	{


	}


	!RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]


	{


	}
	!MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel]


	{


	}


	MODULE


	{


		name = ModuleFuelTanks


		volume = 750


		basemass = -1
		type = ServiceModule


		TANK


		{


			name = ElectricCharge


			amount = 43200


			maxAmount = 43200


		}


		TANK


		{


			name = Oxygen


			amount = 26460


			maxAmount = 26460


		}


		TANK


		{


			name = Food


			amount = 126


			maxAmount = 126

	}


		TANK


		{


			name = Water


			amount = 71.4


			maxAmount = 71.4


		}


		TANK


		{


			name = CarbonDioxide


			amount = 0


			maxAmount = 900


		}


		TANK


		{


			name = Waste


			amount = 0


			maxAmount = 63


		}


		TANK


		{


			name = WasteWater


			amount = 0


			maxAmount = 113.4


		}


		TANK


		{


			name = LithiumHydroxide


			amount = 67.5


			maxAmount = 67.5


		}


	}


	MODULE


	{


		name = TacGenericConverter


		converterName = CO2 Scrubber


		conversionRate = 3.0	// # of people - Figures based on per/person


		inputResources = CarbonDioxide, 0.0062500000, ElectricCharge, 0.010, LithiumHydroxide, 0.0000085683


		outputResources = Water, 0.0032924498, true, Waste, 0.0000191062, false


	}


}

i was really confused when i tried to replicate rabadas work directly (below) because the pod became 7m in diameter but im assuming it was just scaling up 1.6 then scaling up the scaled up version

}@PART[mk2LanderCabin]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp]
{
	%MODEL 
	{
		scale = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6
	}
	@node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.64571904, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 4
	@node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.20308688, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}
@PART[mk2LanderCabin]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp]
{


	%rescaleFactor = 1.6
	@node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.4035744, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 4


	@node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.7519293, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}


@PART[mk2LanderCabin]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]
{
	%RSSROConfig = True


	!MODULE[TweakScale]


	{

anyway if anyone who knows what they are doing with this stuff can look at it and point out any issues that would be great.

[PatPL]

Update, PLEASE!

[sisyphean]

Update, PLEASE!

well im pretty sure the developer of this mod pack was gonna just let it update itself, or perhaps you have a time machine that you can use to magically give him some of the time back that he ploughs into this modpack without asking for a reward.

do you honestly think the update is not in progress? do you really think that in some way your comment is in any way helpful or constructive? or is it most likely going to be more insulting and frustrating?

if you want the modpack updated so badly why dont you devote some of your time to help update it (for free) or do you just expect everyone else to do things for you for free because you want them to?

[Insanitic]

The sound on the RS-68 was actually fixed in a recent RO update. Leave a note if you find any other engines with the same problem

The RS-68 sounds and looks smexy .

But I do notice something weird with SRB's, like the GEM 60 found in the Delta IV. I noticed that during ascent, even as I see Kerbal engineer's delta V values for the SRB nearing 0, it suddenly rises back up again. It seems like at that moment the engines stop (I know this by the TWR suddenly dropping) but the smoke/particle effects are still on and the delta v of the SRB stage keeps rising even though logically, the SRB have run out of fuel.

[StoryMusgrave]

That's called a thrust profile. Solids don't just burn full thrust then suddenly stop. Well, ok, they CAN, but boosters tend to be designed so that they burn at different rates, different thrust, and try to decrease their thrust during peak loads (MaxQ), then increase again. Then as they near their end they have residuals that continue to burn providing very little thrust.

[Insanitic]

That's called a thrust profile. Solids don't just burn full thrust then suddenly stop. Well, ok, they CAN, but boosters tend to be designed so that they burn at different rates, different thrust, and try to decrease their thrust during peak loads (MaxQ), then increase again. Then as they near their end they have residuals that continue to burn providing very little thrust.

That makes sense. This mod truly is a realistic overhaul to the nth degree.

[A1Ch1]

But I do notice something weird with SRB's, like the GEM 60 found in the Delta IV. I noticed that during ascent, even as I see Kerbal engineer's delta V values for the SRB nearing 0, it suddenly rises back up again. It seems like at that moment the engines stop (I know this by the TWR suddenly dropping) but the smoke/particle effects are still on and the delta v of the SRB stage keeps rising even though logically, the SRB have run out of fuel.

This actually will change with the next RO update - since the plume effects can't be made to fade out as thrust tails off (at least not to my knowledge) the GEM60 and GEM46 will now trail off to zero thrust by the end of their burn time. It just looks too weird to have the engines producing virtually no thrust but still look like they're at full throttle, especially when it's time to jettison and they go tumbling away with the huge plumes still firing in every direction.

Edit: This is the current burnout situation and this is how it will look

Edit 2: I've been informed that linking plume effects to thrust should be possible in the future, allowing more realistic-looking SRM burnouts

Edited May 8, 2015 by A1Ch1

[Hattivat]

Time for the obligatory illustration:

[Insanitic]

This actually will change with the next RO update - since the plume effects can't be made to fade out as thrust tails off (at least not to my knowledge) the GEM60 and GEM46 will now trail off to zero thrust by the end of their burn time. It just looks too weird to have the engines producing virtually no thrust but still look like they're at full throttle, especially when it's time to jettison and they go tumbling away with the huge plumes still firing in every direction. Edit: This is the current burnout situation and this is how it will look

I think that's what made me confused ultimately with the SRB when flying my Delta IV medium with 4 SRBs. However I noticed that the Space Shuttle's SRB had some residual exhaust/smoke plumes left even after separation. So I wouldn't think the exhaust completely disappears like in the second video you posted even after there is no more fuel right?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Insanitic

[A1Ch1]

I think that's what made me confused ultimately with the SRB when flying my Delta IV medium with 4 SRBs. However I noticed that the Space Shuttle's SRB had some residual exhaust/smoke plumes left even after separation. So I wouldn't think the exhaust completely disappears like in the second video you posted even after there is no more fuel right?

Depends - the shuttle SRBs were jettisoned while still producing something like 250 kN so the orbiter's main engines didn't have to drag along their inert mass any longer than necessary. Additionally, large boosters like those on Shuttle or Ariane 5 call for a long, gentle trail-off that is less sensitive to variation in burn rate between the boosters than a faster tail-off would be. Smaller boosters can tail-off more quickly and have a low burnout mass compared to the vehicle so they aren't jettisoned until they've stopped producing thrust (and exhaust). The boosters on the Delta 4, for example, are little more than empty casings at separation: https://youtu.be/JOfuKw7XEy4?t=124

Edited May 8, 2015 by A1Ch1

[Insanitic]

Depends - the shuttle SRBs were jettisoned while still producing something like 250 kN so the orbiter's main engines didn't have to drag along their inert mass any longer than necessary. Additionally, large boosters like those on Shuttle or Ariane 5 call for a long, gentle trail-off that is less sensitive to variation in burn rate between the boosters than a faster tail-off would be. Smaller boosters can tail-off more quickly and have a low burnout mass compared to the vehicle so they aren't jettisoned until they've stopped producing thrust (and exhaust). The boosters on the Delta 4, for example, are little more than empty casings at separation: https://youtu.be/JOfuKw7XEy4?t=124

I see. But since the GEM 60 SRBs are smaller and therefore have low burnout mass and as you say they are jettisoned when they've stopped producing thrust, why does my Delta IV medium in RO not do this? My GEM 60s as they approach around 20 m/s left in their delta V's, have their delta V's gradually go up again to 1200 m/s. At the same time, the SRB's thrust remains very low, to the point that it lowers my TWR. When I try jettisoning them when they're at around 20m/s delta-V left, they collide with the Central core booster due to them having some thrust left, instead of cleanly falling away.

I understand there are thrust curves and changes in delta-V and what not, but the delta V to suddenly go up again whenever the SRB's reach a certain minimum delta-V point at higher altitudes? I don't get it.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Insanitic

[GiantTank]

Is there any possible way I can help you guys? I, like everyone else, want this mod back, and forgot about auto-updates on steam. So, any way I can pitch in? I dont know about coding, but do know how to make bugs happen.

[A1Ch1]

I see. But since the GEM 60 SRBs are smaller and therefore have low burnout mass and as you say they are jettisoned when they've stopped producing thrust, why does my Delta IV medium in RO not do this? I mean my GEM 60s as they approach around 20 m/s left in their delta V's, the delta V gradually go up again to 1200 m/s all the while the SRB's thrust remains very low, to the point that it lower my TWR. When I try jettisoning them when they're at around 20m/s left, they collide with the Central core booster as they still have some thrust left, instead of cleanly falling away.

That collision is actually a bug, you can fix it with the Stock Bug Fix Modules mod. The GEM60 as currently implemented don't burn out completely but fall to a very small %thrust and stay that way for a loooooong time. The reason the dv jumps up at the end is because dv is calculated using current thrust, and includes the thrust from the Delta 4 core stage. When the SRM thrust tails off, Mechjeb or KE calculates a new time to burnout and therefore the dv remaining increases because they'll be attached to the core longer. The updated thrust curves tail-off but stay high enough to deplete the propellant and actually burn out like the actual GEM60 (thrust and burn rate are related to pressure inside the SRM, once pressure falls below a certain level the burn rate declines even further and thrust terminates, it doesn't decline to a fraction of a % and stay that way).

[Insanitic]

So real GEM 60's burn out slowly, where they stay at a very small % thrust for a decent amount of time? Or is that just the thrust curve implemented in the mod?

Also I've been wondering, does RO take into account the effects of grain geometry within each SRB? Specifically how the grain geometry inside of each SRB affects thrust as it nears fuel cutoff?

The increase delta-V makes sense. Thanks for explaining that well.

I'll try out the Stock Bug fix mod. I thought the SRB's collided on separation was because they had some residual thrust left during separation which would cause them to bump the side of the main stage.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Insanitic

[A1Ch1]

So real GEM 60's burn out slowly, where they stay at a very small % thrust for a decent amount of time? Or is that just the thrust curve implemented in the mod?

Also I've been wondering, does RO take into account the effects of grain geometry within each SRB? Specifically how the grain geometry inside of each SRB affects thrust as it nears fuel cutoff?

The increase delta-V makes sense. Thanks for explaining that well.

I'll try out the Stock Bug fix mod. I thought the SRB's collided on separation was because they had some residual thrust left during separation which would cause them to bump the side of the main stage.

Oh, if the SRM T/W is still over 1 then that's not the bug, the bug is that radial decouplers impart a slightly asymmetrical thrust that can cause SRMs ejected in an airstream to come right back at the core. I'd still recommend the bug fix module though. But real GEM60s burn out relatively quickly, going from ~70% max thrust to 0 within 10 seconds or so. It's the RO GEM60 goes from 70% to 0.06% in about 10 seconds but then stays that way for a long time.

[arisian]

SirKerplan: Cool! Regarding the question, the problem that altitude-compensating nozzles often have is lack of thrust vector control. If you have data showing that the J-2T had switched to multiple thrust chambers (allowing differential throttling) let us know; I certainly can't imagine SASSTO would work without TVC, but I haven't seen anything on how J-2T was supposed to have TVC...

As I was playing around with the J-2T, I ran into this issue, and I agree that I can't imagine actually using this engine for its intended purpose without any kind of vectoring. Some searching on the internet found the following paper:

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=spacegrant

It looks fairly recent, and clearly they haven't actually flown rockets with this configuration, but they did actually do experimental testing (as well as theoretical modelling). The effective vectoring range may be more limited than some types of bell-engine gimbals, but it looks like it's at least possible to do this kind of TVC on a toroidal aerospike type engine. The study wasn't specific to the J-2T, and it was pretty recent, so I doubt this was really part of the "original" J-2T design. But given that the J-2T was never put into production anyway, it seems reasonable to me that we could extrapolate these results to let the RO version of of the J-2T have at least a few degrees worth of thrust vectoring control. It would make it a heck of a lot more useful; without any kind of TVC, it's pretty useless in atmosphere (since you can't compensate for drag while doing a gravity turn), which rather defeats the point of it being altitude-compensating.

Baring that, we could postulate a HydroLOX version of a vernier (e.g. LR-101 or equivalent), which could help compensate, but it would be significantly less elegant.