[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Starwaster]

Im having a bug where the LR87-H2 has no visable exhaust, while the debug menu is spammed with "[Exception]: MissingFieldException: Field '.Part.uid' not found." I have cool rockets installed for real effects, and its working fine with every other supported engine I tried, is anyone else experiencing this?

Ok the debug message is still being spammed even with the LR87-H2 uloaded, so it must be something on my 3-crew orbiter. Maybey its to do with right clicking in RCS thrusters, including the capsule, to deactivate them not actually deactivating them, even though the popup-menu says they are. None of the RCS thrusters are achnowlaged by RCS build aid, so I assume this is a problem with RCSFX not being fully compatible with 0.9?

Ive been experimenting more and have found that the debug spam is not caused by RCS thrusters but by the MK1-2 pod, possibly because I don't currently have TAC installed as its too unstable. Ive found another bug with RCS thrusters shown here:

http://i.imgur.com/Hgcx8wL.png

As you can see I am holding the H key to thrust foward with RCS, but the one on the left as you see it isn't thrusting at all, while the one to the right is thrusting at varying thrusts. I have no control systems such as SAS enabled, and the crafts center of mass is inline so I assume this is some kind of bug?

It's a graphical issue. They're all thrusting.

[Bender222]

Sounds like a solid plan.

A few things I do a little different which may or may not help... I try to put as much work on the launcher as opposed to the payloads as possible to keep their weight to a min. For example I sort out any inclination needed with the launcher so the satellites don't need that dv. Another for the orbit of the launcher releasing the satellites can be 2/3rd, 5/6th, ... of a day and I'll just do multiple orbits between releasing the satellites. Meaning that the dv the satellites will need to circularize will be significantly less. The last few times I have done that I used the launcher to raise the orbit, then released the satellite, then dropped the launchers orbit back down to 5/6th a day.

For me I just like the challenge of trying to design the lightest possible payloads for the jobs, so any work I can put on launchers as opposed to payloads I'll typically go for.

If I were to do that I would need a launcher with enough delta v to circularize 3 times. Thats about 1,000m/s each time right? plus the delta -v needed to de-circularize so you would need `9800 to orbit. another 3,000 to raise apogee to 35,786 and then the ~4000 you use for placing each satellite correct?

[maccollo]

Is that a 50 meter diameter tank? You don't say what its mass is, but 8km/s terminal velocity is about the right ball park for Mars. Mars only has an atmospheric pressure of 0.6 percent of Earth at its lowest point. (i.e 0.006 atmospheres)

That was on Earth, at sea level.

I present to you Saturn Pancake. Unfortunately Saturn Pancake only gets a terminal velocity of 2.5 km/s at sea level, but that is still quite aerodynamic.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/saturnFlat1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/saturnFlat2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/saturnFlat3.jpg

And here is a non procedural 10 meter heat-shield. It's really just a 78.5 square meter disc with a mass of 3 tonnes. That's about 38 kg per square meter. This thing should not be falling at super sonic speeds.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/terminalVelocity1.jpg

I get about 150 m/s but I'm guessing at the mass; not sure what it is in RO but I know it's different. In any event maybe your descent was too steep. That will make it harder to aerobrake. Again, that's in line with real world expectations.

If I plug in the numbers of the mk1-2 into the terminal velocity formula I get about 70-100 m/s assuming a drag coefficient between 0.5 and 1. At super sonic speeds the drag coefficient should be higher.

Edited January 3, 2015 by maccollo

[ferram4]

Yes, congrats on finding the well-known and easily exploitable issues with FAR where blunt body drag based on attach nodes is either all on or all off, never in-between due to sizing difficulties. If I could rely on nodes being sized exactly properly or figure a quick and easy way of getting it from geometry that worked in all cases that wouldn't happen, but unfortunately, I have not.

[BevoLJ]

If I were to do that I would need a launcher with enough delta v to circularize 3 times. Thats about 1,000m/s each time right? plus the delta -v needed to de-circularize so you would need `9800 to orbit. another 3,000 to raise apogee to 35,786 and then the ~4000 you use for placing each satellite correct?

I have never done the math on how I do it so no idea if it is very efficient, I just like the challenge of making payloads as small as I possibly and accomplishing the missions. And I always figure any weight I add to the payload I still have to add to the launcher anyway to carry that weight anyway. heh.

However, even though I've never done the math those numbers there don't seem right for what I experienced last time I did it so I will give it a quick check...

9800 dv launch -> LEO

2400 dv LEO -> raise apo to 35,786

940 dv GEO circularize

1800 to zero inclination (release sat 1)*

200 dv decircularize 23:56 to 19:56

200 dv circularize (release sat 2)

200 dv decircularize 23:56 to 19:56

200 dv circularize (release sat 3)

15740 total dv. // 13940 if launched into equatorial orbit.

*Inclination dv depends on launch. I myself launch from Florida and am not experienced enough in doglegged launches to reliably get a good equatorial orbit from Florida.

I prefer to do it this way to keep payload weight down. Just a personal choice, no idea if it is a good choice. If I can use 3 of my simple 150kg satellite builds rather than 3 x 500kg satellites I usually do. And pretty sure that adding 3x350kg to a payload would remove more than 2x200dv from either an Agena or Centaur upper stage. It would probably remove 1500-2000 from the upper stage.

The biggest reason I did it this way was for the inclination savings. As mentioned above, I'm just not good enough at doglegged launches to get a good equatorial orbit from Florida. The inclination change needs to happen at the GEO orbit as it is only like 1800 dv vs the 3500 dv for the higher velocity LEO inclination change. By only needing to do that once I save 3600dv.

Edited January 3, 2015 by BevoLJ

[asmi]

Try combining inclination change and curcularization into a single burn at apogee/node and be prepared to be amazed to realize how much deltaV you're wasting for not doing so (this is especially ridiculous for high-latutude launches like 51.6 from Baikonur where the difference is huge).

[Starwaster]

That was on Earth, at sea level.

I present to you Saturn Pancake. Unfortunately Saturn Pancake only gets a terminal velocity of 2.5 km/s at sea level, but that is still quite aerodynamic.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/saturnFlat1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/saturnFlat2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/saturnFlat3.jpg

And here is a non procedural 10 meter heat-shield. It's really just a 78.5 square meter disc with a mass of 3 tonnes. That's about 38 kg per square meter. This thing should not be falling at super sonic speeds.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22015656/terminalVelocity1.jpg

If I plug in the numbers of the mk1-2 into the terminal velocity formula I get about 70-100 m/s assuming a drag coefficient between 0.5 and 1. At super sonic speeds the drag coefficient should be higher.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-01hSX8C6n50/UDFC3Yd-GnI/AAAAAAAABYE/VBKZkj4Z1Ik/s1600/capsule%2Bdrag%2Beffects.bmp

Wow, I thought you were talking about its terminal velocity on Mars.

I would suggest you post those in the FAR thread, but I see that Ferram has already seen and commented.

[BevoLJ]

Try combining inclination change and curcularization into a single burn at apogee/node and be prepared to be amazed to realize how much deltaV you're wasting for not doing so (this is especially ridiculous for high-latutude launches like 51.6 from Baikonur where the difference is huge).

Asmi, you are brilliant! Orbital velocity once circularized is just over 3k m/s. But with an highly eccentric orbit with my apogee of 35,786 and perigee of ~250 the velocity at apogee would be almost half that. Around 1600-1700. The lower velocity could save me around 800-1000 dv on the inclination change.

And if I combine my inclination burn with my circulation at that lower velocity it cost around 1600 dv in all. That is 200 less than the inclination change @ 3k m/s by it self was! The way I was doing it cost 940 for circularization and 1800 for inclination. That saves me 1140 dv (or there abouts). Of course I'll have to make sure my apogee for where I will circularize from will be at the equator, but I can probably pull that off.

9800 dv launch -> LEO

2400 dv LEO -> raise apo to 35,786

1700 dv GEO circularize & zero inclination (release sat 1)

200 dv decircularize 23:56 to 19:56

200 dv circularize (release sat 2)

200 dv decircularize 23:56 to 19:56

200 dv circularize (release sat 3)

14700 total dv from Flordia

1,000 dv less. You rock asmi!

Edited January 3, 2015 by BevoLJ

[Bender222]

Try combining inclination change and curcularization into a single burn at apogee/node and be prepared to be amazed to realize how much deltaV you're wasting for not doing so (this is especially ridiculous for high-latutude launches like 51.6 from Baikonur where the difference is huge).

that was the point of boosting apogee at the dn, so I could be at the AN when I circuarised so I could change inclination too.

[Bender222]

Nathankell, or anyone else more knowledgeable on the subject than myself. Is their a specific reason why sounding rockets had super high twr booster stages that lasted a second or two instead of a longer burning boost stage? One thing I figured out from model rocketry is that an engine that burns twice as long at half the power can greatly increase the altitude.

Also how do you survive launching a sounding rocket with an srb with anything other then a low twr? An example, your aerobee 950, even launching it straight up I burn up before I can even seperate and it is only a 4.4 twr. The only way I have gotten an all SRB first stage with any decent delta-v to work without burning up on me is to raise the burn time so that the twr is as low as what I use to launch humans. My usual first mission of a new career is an aerobee type rocket with a slow burning srb booster stage on the bottom of it and even then ascent can get pretty violent.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Bender222

[CodeFantastic]

To bad I don't have enough diskspace for this mod. *crawls into corner and cries*

[Sakai]

I dont know why but whenever I try to launch a unmanned craft at day time I have "No connection" but night time theres connection? I have the RO Remote tech setting files as well.

[Bender222]

Got the sounding rocket guidance? Ive found it hazs a biult in small antenna.

[Starwaster]

Nathankell, or anyone else more knowledgeable on the subject than myself. Is their a specific reason why sounding rockets had super high twr booster stages that lasted a second or two instead of a longer burning boost stage? One thing I figured out from model rocketry is that an engine that burns twice as long at half the power can greatly increase the altitude.

Also how do you survive launching a sounding rocket with an srb with anything other then a low twr? An example, your aerobee 950, even launching it straight up I burn up before I can even seperate and it is only a 4.4 twr. The only way I have gotten an all SRB first stage with any decent delta-v to work without burning up on me is to raise the burn time so that the twr is as low as what I use to launch humans. My usual first mission of a new career is an aerobee type rocket with a slow burning srb booster stage on the bottom of it and even then ascent can get pretty violent.

Maybe that part needs heat shielding, or a nose cone with heat shielding. What part is it?

[asmi]

Asmi, you are brilliant!

It's not me - it's a basic math. Once you realize that inclination change vector and circularization vector are perpendicular to each other, you can apply Pythagorean theorem to figure out combined vector, and as we all know hypotenuse is always smaller than the sum of two other sides.

Of course I'll have to make sure my apogee for where I will circularize from will be at the equator, but I can probably pull that off.

If you won't manage to do it, prioritize changing inclination over getting circularization right - fixing apogee later is much cheaper than fixing inclination after you circularize.

[Sakai]

Got the sounding rocket guidance? Ive found it hazs a biult in small antenna.

yes. As I said it has signal at night but not in the bright day.

[NathanKell]

Bender222: right now DRE is a bit too harsh (it's primarily for making Kerbin-scale stuff deadly) so you should turn down the multiplier a bit. As for TWR, the reason for the short sharp kick is to get the (unguided) sounding rocket going fast enough that aerodynamics will keep it stably pointing the way it's meant to.

[Miximix]

Hello! Have anyone tried using OLDD Saturn V mod? If yes, did anyone have a problem, where the game couldn't load the craft file. When i click on a craft, the game loads only a command module (which i can't move at all) and the craft name on top changes "Vessel Name" and none of the part categories in the editor are available. Can anyone answer what;s wrong, please?

Edited January 4, 2015 by Miximix

[Blipser]

Hello! Have anyone tried using OLDD Saturn V mod? If yes, did anyone have a problem, where the game couldn't load the craft file. When i click on a craft, the game loads only a command module (which i can't move at all) and the craft name on top changes "Vessel Name" and none of the part categories in the editor are available. Can anyone answer what;s wrong, please?

Non-RO craft files dont work with RO-parts, your going to have to build it yourself

[Starwaster]

Bender222: right now DRE is a bit too harsh (it's primarily for making Kerbin-scale stuff deadly) so you should turn down the multiplier a bit. As for TWR, the reason for the short sharp kick is to get the (unguided) sounding rocket going fast enough that aerodynamics will keep it stably pointing the way it's meant to.

Actually, I find that on Hard setting, DRE feels just about right with Real Solar System. But that's without the RO modified keys in the loss curve.

[Miximix]

Has anyone tried to build OLDD saturn v in realism overhaul? I'm having problems with attachment nodes in the decoupler between LEM and 3-rd stage...

[Felger]

Update 7.0.5

v7.0.5 -- \/

* Stock now supported with plume configs

* Updates to FASA configs for changes with 0.90 (Mostly in Apollo, some elsewhere) (Note, if you want to use FASA, for the time being you may need to install manually, until RPM updates to 0.90 on CKAN)

* Other smaller bugfixes.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello! Have anyone tried using OLDD Saturn V mod? If yes, did anyone have a problem, where the game couldn't load the craft file. When i click on a craft, the game loads only a command module (which i can't move at all) and the craft name on top changes "Vessel Name" and none of the part categories in the editor are available. Can anyone answer what;s wrong, please?

Basically, Realism Overhaul rekajiggers all the parts, resizes, moves nodes around, the whole shoot'n'match. Unfortunately, the game saves crafts in a manner which doesn't really deal well with resizing and moving nodes around, so it'll be pretty broken.

Actually, I find that on Hard setting, DRE feels just about right with Real Solar System. But that's without the RO modified keys in the loss curve.

In my experience, DRE is about right (on default settings) for re-entry, but tends to overcook my vessels on launch, which is not expected behavior in simulating real life.

Has anyone tried to build OLDD saturn v in realism overhaul? I'm having problems with attachment nodes in the decoupler between LEM and 3-rd stage...

I have not, can you post some screenshots of what you're seeing?

[Starwaster]

In my experience, DRE is about right (on default settings) for re-entry, but tends to overcook my vessels on launch, which is not expected behavior in simulating real life.

Which is why Hard uses a greatly reduced density in its calculations. Then shifts temperature calculations to other variable changes. The density trick is something you have to be careful with; if it were enabled on Normal mode with no other changes to compensate, then it would result in undercooked vessels. (never eat your vessels raw or undercooked as you can contract parasites)

[Kitspace]

Hello!

Are there any known memory leaks issues that have been reported with the current version?

Thank you!

[BLUAV8R]

Hello!

Are there any known memory leaks issues that have been reported with the current version?

Thank you!

I don't think I've had any

Also: What kind of ascent profile do you use?

I've been reading and i've learned to go straight until you hit ~100 m/s and then pitch over 5 or so degrees and then to just follow the surface velocity vector

However, I always seem to be going too fast too shallow (hitting 1000 m/s at ~20 km). I design all my rockets to have a TWR of about 1.3-4 MAYBE 1.5 if I can't find a more optimized engine. Yet, I always seem to start heating up too much during ascent

Also, does anybody here use mechjeb to launch? If so, what does your ascent profile look like? I've been trying for hours and not making a lot of progress, and yes, I read the page on the RSS wiki about it that is here: https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/MechJeb-Ascents