[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Ravenchant]

I was thinking that RD-107/108 engines could use a mass increase since they're more efficient than IRL as we don't have to schlepp all the peroxide around. Or a HTP consumption rate could be added, maybe without the need for high pressurisation so everything could fit in one regular tank.

[chrisl]

Avast!

I am loving KSP RO, but I am running into problems on my Mars Mission. The liquid boiloff rates are just too high, no matter what I do all of the fuel boils off within 100 days. Radiators, sunshields, pointing the craft at the sun, cryogenic and ballon-cryo tank. The planned misson to Mars using NASA's former MTV Copernicus (Shown in this Stanford study) uses ~230t Liquid Hydrogen tanks with NTR rockets, just as my testing article does. The Misson at its shortest would last about 545 days which means that in Realism Overhaul's current state, it is highly difficult (if not impossible) to use cryogenic fuels for long term missions. This is highly unfortunate, as in real life cryogenic fuels present an excellent option for manned solar system exploration.

Tl;Dr

The boiloff rate for liquid hydrogen (and possibly Lox) is highly exaggerated, with no present way to slow boiloff.

(Extra Sauce: http://imgur.com/a/Ph2lJ )

(Real life comparison for standard: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/gerrard2/docs/20120009207.pdf )

*in stanford study, source mainly near page 11*

I've been wondering, in the current "boil off" system, liquid cryogenic fuels just "disappear" right? Is it possible to change that system so that rather then simply disappearing, the liquid fuel instead changes into it's gaseous version? Then we could create freezers using systems similar to the resource generators in TACLS to convert the gas back into liquid. Presumably a real Mars mission that relied on cryogenic fuels would resolve the boil off problem with freezers and being able to convert "boiled off" gases back to liquid would be a way we could represent that in game. Plus having the boil off system create cases would allow us to create systems such as the UA proposed Integrated Fuel System.

[StoryMusgrave]

I've been wondering, in the current "boil off" system, liquid cryogenic fuels just "disappear" right? Is it possible to change that system so that rather then simply disappearing, the liquid fuel instead changes into it's gaseous version? Then we could create freezers using systems similar to the resource generators in TACLS to convert the gas back into liquid. Presumably a real Mars mission that relied on cryogenic fuels would resolve the boil off problem with freezers and being able to convert "boiled off" gases back to liquid would be a way we could represent that in game. Plus having the boil off system create cases would allow us to create systems such as the UA proposed Integrated Fuel System.

Bring this up in the RealFuels thread. They are the ones responsible for boil off.

[BevoLJ]

Well I hope something is figured out, I'll have to keep looking into the problem.

I'd love to see some active refrigeration with realfuels.

*Edit* and yes, I do believe it is, the tanks only last 100 days but maybe that is just due to a lack of refrigeration.

Here is my understanding.

And temp changes all the above.

Lilienthal is 100% right about the temperature delta (part internal temp - boiling point) being a multiplier to loss rate. If you're cruising at around 100 K above boiling point (about what it is for LOX in LEO) that's a factor of 100 to the stated loss rate.

[NathanKell]

Ravenchant: It's totally possible to add HTP consumption, look at what I did with the Taerobee V-2 engine.

[regex]

The only thing I've been able to find so far on peroxide mass is this for the Soyuz ST. This post also has some information and should probably work for the earlier version of the engines, although the ratio will have to be by mass rather than by volume. This will make the RD-107/108 a "tri-propellant" engine, far more preferred than simply upping the mass since the HTP was used up as the rocket did its thing.

E: Also, if the isps for an engine are "off" for a particular version, please add an issue in github or provide the correct values. We may need to create a new engine config or two as well. This is much preferred to simply fudging values for "game balance" as "game balance" does not exist in real life, which we are trying to model.

Edited October 14, 2015 by regex

[Bekiekutmoar]

Tried RSS and it's like I'm playing a totally different game compared to stock KSP. Its like ... rocket science ... ! Had some memory crashes, but I gotta admit I downloaded a large number of parts (FASA, KW Rocketry and such). Gonna install RSS again with a rather low amount of parts and see if I can master hardcore realism ... !

[Eastshire]

I am apparently doing something very simple wrong but I can't get any rocket engine other than separation motors to fire. I'm putting the engine onto the tank and then selecting the fuel for the engine but when I stage it it says it activates but it never uses any fuel or generates any thrust. It's very frustrating and I can't see what I'm doing wrong.

[Ravenchant]

Ravenchant: It's totally possible to add HTP consumption, look at what I did with the Taerobee V-2 engine.

The only thing I've been able to find so far on peroxide mass is this for the Soyuz ST. This post also has some information and should probably work for the earlier version of the engines, although the ratio will have to be by mass rather than by volume. This will make the RD-107/108 a "tri-propellant" engine, far more preferred than simply upping the mass since the HTP was used up as the rocket did its thing.

E: Also, if the isps for an engine are "off" for a particular version, please add an issue in github or provide the correct values. We may need to create a new engine config or two as well. This is much preferred to simply fudging values for "game balance" as "game balance" does not exist in real life, which we are trying to model.

Thanks! I know "tri-propellants" are supported, like on Aerobee (wasn't aware of the new V-2 engine, Nathan! I'll take a look at it tomorrow ), only wasn't sure it it's worth it since I figured if it were it would have been done already. I can try to make something semi-usable.

I am apparently doing something very simple wrong but I can't get any rocket engine other than separation motors to fire. I'm putting the engine onto the tank and then selecting the fuel for the engine but when I stage it it says it activates but it never uses any fuel or generates any thrust. It's very frustrating and I can't see what I'm doing wrong.

If you're using pressure-fed engines, make sure the tank type is set to "Service Module". Do SRBs other than separation motors work? I once solved a similar issue by reinstalling RealFuels.

[chrisl]

It looks like the surface attach information for the FASA_RO_UA1207 SRB might be off. It looks like it's currently set to 0.7012 but when I try attaching it to a "TT-70 Radial Decoupler", half the decoupler disappears inside the SRB.

[chrisl]

Is there a way to change the number of nodes available in Symmetry Mode? A lot of Delta rockets use 9 strap on boosters. So far what I've done to mount those is use the 6 way symmetry mode to place the first 6, then use the 3 way symmetry mode for the remaining 3. This works fine for Castor 2 strap on's but the larger Castor 4/4A strap on's are a bit too close.

[jandcando]

Is there a way to change the number of nodes available in Symmetry Mode? A lot of Delta rockets use 9 strap on boosters. So far what I've done to mount those is use the 6 way symmetry mode to place the first 6, then use the 3 way symmetry mode for the remaining 3. This works fine for Castor 2 strap on's but the larger Castor 4/4A strap on's are a bit too close.

Use the Editor Extensions mod, it adds more symmetry options, among other things.

[chrisl]

Use the Editor Extensions mod, it adds more symmetry options, among other things.

I tried that but still don't have the option for more than 8 way symmetry mode.

EDIT: NM. I got it to wok

Edited October 15, 2015 by chrisl

[Yukon0009]

I'm having a bit of trouble while reinstalling RSS/RO, the load just stops while loading the stock MK1-2 command pod and debug toolbar shows a long stack of NREs. Anyhelp?

[StoryMusgrave]

Yukon0009: Without a log, anything is pure conjecture.

[Yukon0009]

Nevermind, I got it working.

[gruneisen]

I'm having a problem with the FASA Fairing configurations and parts which are added by RO (ref :RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/FASA/RO_FASA_New_Fairings.cfg). My problem is that none of the fairings added or modified by this cfg file show up in my parts list in the VAB. I don't know if this issue has been addressed before (I saw a fleeting referenced to something that sounded similar on this thread, but it didn't really take me anywhere...)

Is this a known issue? My KSP.log file shows ModuleManager is applying the patches to create the parts, they're just not showing up. I'm playing in SandBox mode and do not use RP-0, so it is not a tech tree availability issue.

Anyway - just curious if I'm a unique snowflake here or if there's a fix for this.

Cheers!

--edit--

It appears as though the NoseCones are properly reproducing into the parts list....just not the NoseConeHalfs or the FairingWallHalfs...

Edited October 16, 2015 by gruneisen

[chrisl]

I've not had this happen for awhile but all of a sudden the procedural fairings I've got on my rocket don't seem to be blocking atmospheric pressures. When I launch, about the time I hit 100m/s, I get a notice that, "Pioneer 10/11 Probe was ripped off by strong airflow." Since the probe in question is inside a closed fairing, this shouldn't be happening. Any suggestions?

[StoryMusgrave]

You be better off talking to the procedural fairings people. RO doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[nablabla]

is it possible that RO does something strage with remote tech? Something similar to the avionics like you need a number of antennaes or more powerful antennaes for bigger vessels?

I often have a green line but it says that there is no connection. This often happens when I am further out and my vessel is big. Or is it a problem with the avionics unit(the 0.14t small one)?, but I did not find anything about it. Is it a bug?

I saw people with two antennaes, but maybe because it looks cool.

[BevoLJ]

is it possible that RO does something strage with remote tech? Something similar to the avionics like you need a number of antennaes or more powerful antennaes for bigger vessels?

I often have a green line but it says that there is no connection. This often happens when I am further out and my vessel is big. Or is it a problem with the avionics unit(the 0.14t small one)?, but I did not find anything about it. Is it a bug?

I saw people with two antennaes, but maybe because it looks cool.

This might help. Ask if you have any further question. =)

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/FAQ#my-antenna-says-it-has-a-range-of-200km-but-i-can-connect-farther-than-that-why

[nablabla]

bevooo! U just saved my life (because my life currently consists of playing KSP )

anyways, I think there should be a notice in game that the nominal range is not the real range.

And indeed I have a question.

1.) If there is a (lime) green line, is it considered to be connected? So if the lime green line is there there should not be any "no connection" message, right?

But it keeps saying that

2.) And is it on purpuse that the steering commands arrive instantly without the delay?

3.) is there a comfortable way to distinguish the stations? i tried to modify the cfg like this

STATION { [...]

MarkColor = 0.996078,0.5,0.15,1

Antennas { ANTENNA { Omni = 7.5E+07 } } }

to make the weaker ones orange but they are still red

remark: The caluculations on the page: It says that sqrt(500,000,000km * 200km) resolves to 10000200km which is incorrect (its ~316227km)

And another thing:

With 1x agena-d i should have 100x 6000km = 600,000km range ot the 500Gm deep space stations

and for the weak stations: min(75Mm, 6Mm) + sqrt(75,000km * 6,000km) = 6000km + sqrt(450,000,000km) = 6000km + 21,213km = 27,213km

with 2x agena-d its min(75Mm, 12Mm) + sqrt(75,000km * 12,000km) = 12,000km + sqrt(900,000,000km) = 12,000km + 30,000km = 42km

with 3x agena-d its min(75Mm, 18Mm) + sqrt(75,000km * 18,000km) = 18,000km + sqrt(1,350,000,000,000km) = 12,000km + 36,742km = 48,742km

I am currently at 280,000km, so connecting to a weak tracking station should not even work with 3 antennaes but one is enogth for the deep space statons.

But my vessel connects by using two antennas but not when using one antenna.. that is odd?

I am quite shure now that it is very buggy

oh and in the settings file its 1 * 10^12 not 0.5 * 10^12

How about a signal strengh indicator?

Edited October 17, 2015 by nablabla

[Laie]

2.) And is it on purpuse that the steering commands arrive instantly without the delay?

I guess so, or how should you ever land a vessel? The flight computer thingy is already quite cumbersome when you only want to execute a maneuver. I wouldn't want to plan a landing with it.

The solution to have command delay for some things but not for others is neither here nor there, I grant that. For the full experience, I suggest you get the kOS scriptable autopilot. Be warned that programming your own landing scripts can be a huge timesink, though. Personally, I've just disabled command delay.

[nablabla]

http://i.imgur.com/1A0sdi2.png

so maybe this is the problem

it says not enough electric charge

but it has electric charge. I think that is the reason for the "no connection to send command on"

[nablabla]

i think the command delay was there for realism I know that it makes it impossible to land a vessel, I think it is supposed to be near impossible with 1950 technology, this kOS scriptable autopilot sounds good. And for executing manouvers you can use the flight computer.