[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Aviator17]

I installed this via CKAN. It installed normally and as far as I can tell the Realism Overhaul aspect of the install works properly.

I also reinstalled CSS (after having reinstalled KSP itself in order to get a fresh start on mods). Before downloading Realism Overhaul, my CSS was working properly and with no issues. I have noticed that Realism Overhaul automatically (from what I can tell) updated the fuel burn rates of the CSS so that it is able to obtain orbit.

Unfortunately there is an issue with my install that is causing my CSS.craft file (and as far as I have noticed, all other .craft files) to not properly build. There are parts within other parts and it appears as tho it is a scaling issue in that the parts are attempting to connect to hardpoints from the original scaling. This is a minor problem that does not affect me too much because I was able to rebuild the CSS manually. However, if there is a fix for this, I would like to know it.

The bigger issue is that MechJeb2 does not appear to work with this mod (or series of mods rather). When I select the "limit to terminal velocity" option, it is incapable of doing so. It does not even reduce the power setting. The shuttle also is unable to maintain a vertical attitude, and unless I use the in-game SAS, continues to nose down during the ascent. I checked the aerodynamic information of FAR and found that the CSS was encountering a series of "minor stalls". I am not sure if the CSS is incompatible with FAR or if the issue is that my manual assembly is not "perfect".

To sum this up I would like fixes (even if they are edits that I must make in my own files, or certain aspects of the mod that must be removed) for:

CSS breaching terminal velocity

CSS minor stalling/inability to maintain vertical

.craft file clipping issue (due to scaling changes?)

Thank you, and otherwise, awesome mod collection!

[regex]

However, if there is a fix for this, I would like to know it.

RO rescales pretty much every part it touches, stock craft files are not going to load correctly and should be rebuilt.

The bigger issue is that MechJeb2 does not appear to work with this mod (or series of mods rather).

Strange, I've been told that you simply cannot play RO without MechJeb2 (even though I do just that)...

When I select the "limit to terminal velocity" option, it is incapable of doing so.

Does the CSS ever reach terminal velocity?

The shuttle also is unable to maintain a vertical attitude, and unless I use the in-game SAS, continues to nose down during the ascent.

Sounds about right, generally you'll want the craft to do this during launch anyway. The Space Shuttle probably started nosing over fairly soon off the pad IRL, you might want to look up its ascent profile on the web. I generally start nosing any craft over at 100m/s in an RO install.

I checked the aerodynamic information of FAR and found that the CSS was encountering a series of "minor stalls".

This should be fine for launch. Does it get to orbit? Edited March 24, 2015 by regex

[Aviator17]

Does the CSS ever reach terminal velocity?

Sounds about right, generally you'll want the craft to do this during launch anyway. The Space Shuttle probably started nosing over fairly soon off the pad IRL, you might want to look up its ascent profile on the web. I generally start nosing any craft over at 100m/s in an RO install.

This should be fine for launch. Does it get to orbit?

The CSS definitely reaches terminal velocity, it encounters aerodynamic heating (which thanks to deadly reentry, destroys the shuttle).

Yes the shuttle in real life climbs at a slightly nose low attitude (probably about 3 degrees), but it does not continue to pitch down further and further. In fact, in real life, the shuttle rotates to opposite its planned course and pitches up so that it is inverted. I am unable to keep the nose from lowering and as such don't have the ability to rotate it to opposite its planned course. I am not saying that it is pitching due to the planned course by mechjeb, as I have a lot of experience with mechjeb I know that this is not a maneuver that is under the control of mechjeb, but instead some unplanned pitching. My best guess is that the CSS is not compatible with FAR, so I will try uninstalling FAR. I will post after doing this to state whether or not this fixed the issue.

As a result of all of these issues, I have yet to get it to orbit (although using the in-game SAS I was able to escape the atmosphere, but was unable to maneuver it into orbit, because as soon as I turned SAS off the shuttle started rolling and pitching all over the place).

[regex]

Yes the shuttle in real life climbs at a slightly nose low attitude (probably about 3 degrees), but it does not continue to pitch down further and further. In fact, in real life, the shuttle rotates to opposite its planned course and pitches up so that it is inverted.

Excuse me for the lack of technicality, I used the term "nose-over" to indicate an inclination towards the desired prograde vector.

I am unable to keep the nose from lowering and as such don't have the ability to rotate it to opposite its planned course. I am not saying that it is pitching due to the planned course by mechjeb, as I have a lot of experience with mechjeb I know that this is not a maneuver that is under the control of mechjeb, but instead some unplanned pitching. My best guess is that the CSS is not compatible with FAR, so I will try uninstalling FAR.

Your install might be missing a plugin, maybe something to do with engine gimballing. Either that or the CSS isn't entirely compatible. How much delta-V shows for the craft in the VAB? Does the TWR look correct? It might be light.

[Hattivat]

Considering the "limit to terminal velocity" thing, you can forget about that option. First of all, since 90%+ of large rocket engines in real life do not throttle, it will not work. The few that can throttle usually have a very limited range in which they can do that, for example the space shuttle main engines can throttle down to about 60% of maximum thrust IIRC, any lower and they flame out. Second, it would not be useful anyway, since terminal velocity is not really a limiting factor for real launches. You seem to be assuming that rockets burning up on ascent due to deadly reentry is right, and your inability to limit acceleration is wrong, while in reality the precise opposity is true - it is the deadly reentry that is the less realistic part here. Real rockets do not throttle (save a few exceptions), but they do not burn up on ascent either, even the ones with very high TWRs. If Deadly Reentry is making your rockets burn up on ascent, then it's wrong and needs to have its settings toned down.

As for uninstalling FAR - that is a horrible idea. First, because it is the corenerstone of the whole Realism Overhaul project and everything is configured with the assumption that you are using it, and second, because it will actually make things needlessly harder - with stock soupodynamics you will need more delta-v to achieve orbit and the reentries will likely be deadlier.

[regex]

It's also worth noting that CSS is marked as "WIP" insofar as an RSS version is concerned. You might want to get ahold of Dragon01 to help the project out.

Edited March 24, 2015 by regex

[Aviator17]

I understand that not all rocket engines have the ability to throttle. I am speaking exclusively about the SSME's of the CSS. The speeds do not seem excessive from my knowledge of shuttle launches (max q at approx. 6km and 350m/s, however, when the shuttle reaches about 1,000 m/s (roughly 2,000 mph) it begins to "burn up". The orange glow can be seen around the craft, which is definitely something that does not occur during a shuttle launch. Should I try limiting the acceleration to 3g instead of using limit to terminal velocity? Also, what could be causing the aerodynamic heating if the speeds are appropriate for real life?

Note: this still does not correct the issue of a continuous nose over (arcs so badly that it does not get to "second layer" of atmosphere before being at 0 degrees of pitch). If the cause of this is not FAR, then what could be causing it?

- - - Updated - - -

It's also worth noting that CSS is marked as "WIP" insofar as an RSS version is concerned. You might want to get ahold of Dragon01 to help the project out.

Thank you, I did not notice that. I saw it on the list of recommended additions and assumed (wrongly so) that it was all set. I will certainly do so.

- - - Updated - - -

Your install might be missing a plugin, maybe something to do with engine gimballing. Either that or the CSS isn't entirely compatible. How much delta-V shows for the craft in the VAB? Does the TWR look correct? It might be light.

The SSME's appear to be functioning properly, so it is most likely that CSS is not yet entirely compatible. I will get back to you on the accuracy of the figures.

EDIT: The TWR is off by .2 at launch. The value should be approximately 1.5, but is 1.7 at launch. I am not sure what the rate of change is on this as the shuttle climbs, but the launch values are definitely off. I will just have to wait until CSS is fully compatible. Thanks for trying to help, regex.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Aviator17

[-Velocity-]

OK, this is beginning to get game breaking. I can't undock my lunar module again after returning it to the command module. Now, no matter how I edit the save file, my craft just explodes a few seconds after loading

Does docking work OK in RO for anyone? Sorry, but I cannot believe that this is not related to RO. I had NO undocking bugs for the whole last six months of playing stock KSP, and now, my only two dockings/undockings in RO have both resulted in major bugs. I guess I will have to delete the entire lunar module from the save file in order to proceed

Edit- yea, deleting the lunar module saved the mission. Good thing I was able to edit the save file and undock without deleting the lunar module on the way down. It's really gonna suck if all my undockings in RO have to be done via Notepad++.

Edited March 25, 2015 by |Velocity|

[regex]

Does docking work OK in RO for anyone?

So, I noticed that you haven't really provided any information to this thread other than "it doesn't work", which isn't helpful in the slightest. What docking parts are you using? Have you modified them? Do you have a log file from the time where it failed? Do you have a picture of the craft before and after? What OS and version of KSP are you using? Etc...

Please submit a support request in the appropriate forum following the guidelines posted here.

[NathanKell]

Kitspace: Yes, I agree the engine did not change. The LR-91 provides roll control by gimbaling its turbopump exhaust nozzle, as I mentioned. Because that roll control was sufficient, (evidently) in practice verniers proved unecessary. The X-405 is the main engine used by Vanguard, and modeled in SXT.

If the RCS issue is purely visual, my understanding is that may be an issue with the model, not code.

A_Burnt_Rodent: That perigee sounds too high actually. Basically, if your initial perigee is too high, you will enter at a very shallow angle indeed and then bleed off speed, rapidly increasing your entry angle and increasing vertical velocity. Instead, try a perigee of around 60km if your apogee is 1-200km.

Oksbad: Unity does not support textures of higher resolution than 8192x8192. RVE (the visual enhancements mod for RSS) uses EVE Overhaul to apply detail textures to improve the look, however. That's about it for options. For contracts, RO does not support career mode at all, for that you need the submod for RO called RP-0.

sisyphean: you need to launch when your launch site is in the same plane as the moon. Use KER or MJ to show the relative inclination between you and the Moon, and launch when it's < 1.0 degrees.

ajones209: Because the FASA version of the LR-105 includes a sizable portion of Atlas tank with it (the "tankbutt" that addon authors annoyingly add to their engines).

Aviator17: The thermal (visual) effects aren't necessarily tied to heating, they're just eyecandy. Unless parts start exploding, don't worry.

|Velocity|: KJR release version has a docking bug. Get the development version from git (read the last few pages of the KJR thread for context).

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

I understand that not all rocket engines have the ability to throttle. I am speaking exclusively about the SSME's of the CSS. The speeds do not seem excessive from my knowledge of shuttle launches (max q at approx. 6km and 350m/s, however, when the shuttle reaches about 1,000 m/s (roughly 2,000 mph) it begins to "burn up". The orange glow can be seen around the craft, which is definitely something that does not occur during a shuttle launch. Should I try limiting the acceleration to 3g instead of using limit to terminal velocity? Also, what could be causing the aerodynamic heating if the speeds are appropriate for real life?

EDIT: The TWR is off by .2 at launch. The value should be approximately 1.5, but is 1.7 at launch. I am not sure what the rate of change is on this as the shuttle climbs, but the launch values are definitely off. I will just have to wait until CSS is fully compatible. Thanks for trying to help, regex.

[-Velocity-]

So, I noticed that you haven't really provided any information to this thread other than "it doesn't work", which isn't helpful in the slightest. What docking parts are you using? Have you modified them? Do you have a log file from the time where it failed? Do you have a picture of the craft before and after? What OS and version of KSP are you using? Etc...

Please submit a support request in the appropriate forum following the guidelines posted here.

Actually, I didn't realize there was a support forum for modded installs, or that there was some kind of log file. And I did, in fact, provide significantly more information than just "it doesn't work". See my earlier post. Additionally, it wastes a lot of my time to go through some extensive bug reporting process if the bug is already known. Which I why I asked first.

|Velocity|: KJR release version has a docking bug. Get the development version from git (read the last few pages of the KJR thread for context).

Thanks! I'll try it out.

Licenses complicate the issue you're trying to solve; you simply cannot reconcile GNU GPL vs. CC-SA. Furthermore, including GPL items into a BSD licensed codebase necessitates the change from BSD to GPL for the entire project (for instance). The fact is that people make parts not only for RO players but also for stock players, increasing their visibility (most mods are made for stock players to begin with). Then you have the issue of differing systems and who can run what, and how many mods. RO has a bug tracker and ongoing discussions on Github already; we're already well coordinated. The sad fact of the matter is that the entire situation is much more complicated than simply getting a few people into a room and having them make mods for you.

Oh, I didn't realize it was already so organized. That's great news!

[A_Burnt_Rodent]

A_Burnt_Rodent: That perigee sounds too high actually. Basically, if your initial perigee is too high, you will enter at a very shallow angle indeed and then bleed off speed, rapidly increasing your entry angle and increasing vertical velocity. Instead, try a perigee of around 60km if your apogee is 1-200km.

Well that seemed counter-intuitive to me, but clearly that's because I know Sweet F.A about how real space craft work. Thanks for your help.

[snipemanmike]

Why am I missing the J58 engine. The sr71 one. I have every other one, including the british old ones, J57 and J85 but no J58? Please help!

[frisch]

I don't know if this is a RO issue or a Laz Tek issue. The super-draco engines seem to have much higher ISP in the game than I find listed in various online sources. Considering the high thrust to nozzle size ratio I would not expect these to be high Isp in vacuum

They do make landers easy - too easy .

[chrisl]

I I'm using FASA along with RO and I'm finally to a point where I'm ready to try and do Saturn V/Apollo launch. But I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what all parts are supposed to be used. Is there a build list or something? Also, as far as I can tell there isn't a heat shield built into the Apollo Command Module but I also can't seem to find a "generic" shield that works. They all seem to attach "inside" the CM.

[sp1989]

I I'm using FASA along with RO and I'm finally to a point where I'm ready to try and do Saturn V/Apollo launch. But I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what all parts are supposed to be used. Is there a build list or something? Also, as far as I can tell there isn't a heat shield built into the Apollo Command Module but I also can't seem to find a "generic" shield that works. They all seem to attach "inside" the CM.

Am I the only one that doesn't have any engine effects with the FASA engines?

- - - Updated - - -

Am I the only one that doesn't have any engine effects with the FASA engines?

Edit: totally overlooked the smokescreen dependency

[stratochief66]

that can be an issue, chrisl. there is one specifically for the Apollo that is in an unusual place (read: not with the other heatshields) that specifics it is for the Apollo. I will be posting some of my RO craft files this weekend, which should useful for those having trouble assembling them.

I did a little digging, it is under 'Utility'

Edited March 28, 2015 by stratochief66

[stratochief66]

Craft File incoming!

The FASA Saturn 5 with LEM installed.

http://emailattachment.net/get/152640/8214e9d722bc30526a4e17ed3281fbb9

And a video showing my own method for construction. Any omni-decoupling device under the LEM should do.

Edited March 29, 2015 by stratochief66
Addition of video

[Coga19000]

I like the mod itself a lot, but the engines are kinda lazily-made. Any realistic engines mods you advice?

[Motokid600]

I like the mod itself a lot, but the engines are kinda lazily-made. Any realistic engines mods you advice?

The stock engines? Yes there just rescalled and configured to be the size and perform like real engines. But... My god man how can you miss the gigantic list of recommended mods in the OP? The Soviet engines for starters are really nice. You can also get Vens stock part revamp to pretty up the stock, rescalled parts. ( not in the op ).

______________________________________

Question. Now I don't think this warrants its own thread and it is realism related so... Is it at all possible to get rid of the fish eye lense effect ksp has? I can't stand my planets turning into eggs at the edge of my screen.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Motokid600

[Coga19000]

The stock engines? Yes there just rescalled and configured to be the size and perform like real engines. But... My god man how can you miss the gigantic list of recommended mods in the OP? The Soviet engines for starters are really nice. You can also get Vens stock part revamp to pretty up the stock, rescalled parts. ( not in the op ).

Yeahh, I knew I should have clarified a bit more. My bad.

See, I have seen the Reccomended Mods list. However, I would actually want real-life engines, with eal Isp and thrust -and I'm not sure how this works out with KW Rocketry, though I love it.

No, the Soviet ENgines Pack looks nice, but the engines are, well, Soviet. Unless the included engines are still used, I would prefer a bit more modern technology.

[Motokid600]

All engines in RO are configured to the exact statistics of real engines. ( isp/thrust/weight )real life engines. And the Soviet engines are more or less still used on rockets today.

[Coga19000]

All engines in RO are configured to the exact statistics of real engines. ( isp/thrust/weight )real life engines. And the Soviet engines are more or less still used on rockets today.

Yeaaaaah, but the whole point is that I would prefer not to use THEM. And if they're still used, then I'll for sure use 'em.

[Motokid600]

Coga I do appologise for my shortness earlier for what it counts. Now I'd continue to help you out, but apparently I may or may not be stalking you. I'm not sure I haven't figured it out yet. But I'll take a chance.

Most part mods that RO uses and reconfigures contain engines that are indeed still in active use, engines that aren't and my favorite... Concept engines that never flew.

For instance FASA has the F1 engines that aren't in use anymore and the RL-10 which are in use.The Soviet pack has the RD180 which is still in use ( though it may be called RD170 in the soviet pack I forget ) Then there's the NK-33 upon which again I can't recal if the soviet pack has that or not. I know you can get the modern AJ36 version from the AerojetKerbodyne mod. ( The ones that just exploded the Antares months ago Iirc )

I imagine you could pluck the space shuttle main engines out of the component space shuttle mod as well. There not in active use, but they will be soon. Anything beyond that, well it's actually a good bit of work to go through each mod and say exactly what engines and variants of those engines are still in use. I recommend installing a mod pack. Then go through and see what engines you like and dont like. Simply remove the ones you don't want.

Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but most rockets today use soviet engines or variants of them.