[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Felger]

Added some links to the OP to some wiki pages with help on some of the items people commonly have questions about. Have a look!

[AlmightyR]

if you have the mods it tells you to have then you don't have the problems you describe.

You could have asked me if I had all the mods before making that assertion, because I in fact do have most of them installed. And the problem is not only "there", it screams in my hears in the day and pulls on my heels from under my bed at night...It stalks and haunts my gameplay like no other mod ever did.

I have all dependencies mods (obviously), All recommended mods with exception to EngineIgnitor, and the following suggested mods:

6S Service Compartments

AIES Aerospace

DMagic Orbital Science

FASA

Kerbal Attachment System

KW Rocketry

LazTek SpaceX

Near Future Technologies

Porkworks Habitation

RLA Stockalike

Soviet Engines

Universal Storage

And the variety of engines is still not nearly enough...Because there is a MAJOR lack of engines for payload-stage...

I don't need a 2.5m+ engine that looks monstrously powerful because it's long, but that has a 60~ maxThrust stat as if it was meant to be used for landing (It's long...Long engines are a bad, and ugly, idea for landing-stage designs!!!)...

I also don't need a 2.5m+ engine for transfers when some of the smaller engines are actually both more powerful and more efficient...

I also don't need a 2.5m+, but 60~ maxThrust engine for 1st-stage on liftoff...Because it has just 60~ maxThrust and is therefore a terrible idea for use in liftoff...

What is a 2.5m+, 60~ maxThrust engine good for? Well, it's good for being useless...At least in my opinion...

I' exaggerating the figures to highlight the problem, but you do get the point that many of the engines end up having this same problem, right?

You're probably not the intended audience anyway

If you are being specific to how RO is right now, then I completely agree! However, I am target audience for something close to RO, probably "realistic like RO but not a full real-life simulator" or "RO just a tiny little slightly less hardcore", and right now, the only mod that has any serious approach to realism is RO. And I think a great many people are just like me...They want to play KSP+RO, but KSP+RO as a KSP game with a realism overhaul (more realistic), rather than KSP "total-conversion to a real-life simulation".

and the rest of us having to read the ranting and uninstall it.

You have no obligation of reading my rants, nor of "uninstall it", whatever you meant by that...I simply had to get it off my chest...And have the authors receive this request from myself too...

I'm not saying RO's official approach should change...I'm just saying..."Give me some alternatives!"...

I mostly do my own config tweakings and MM patches here, to get the RO's changes to be more acceptable for what I consider to be more realistic and aesthetically pleasing for my rocket designs...It's just that every time RO updates, I have to re-do my tweakings...And it feels like RO should have/make it's own official "soft-core" configs instead of making all the "soft-core" users roll out their own configs...

Orbit Manipulator, and it's listed on the front page.

OM seems to be a bit unstable here sometimes...And I used the TimeControl mod before, to accelerate past x4 physics time-warp while maintaining physics accuracy; Even at the x8 I manage to get, it still takes a freaking eternity to do even the most basic maneuvers with Ion engines...

I sincerely prefer to just have a 100x or 1000x thrust in relation to real-life...It gets the job done while still keeping the maxThrust several magnitudes below that of chemical rockets, and while still feeling realistic...And I think any "soft-core" RO player would agree...

=====

The engines in RO are EXACTLY the size they are in real life. Engines in real life do not "match radial size", they are usually much smaller in diameter than the tanks they attach to.

That argument would be valid, if it wasn't for the fact that most, if not all KSP engine models come with their own "adapters" at the top of the engine, and those were modelled to fit the standardized radial sizes...Most real-life engines do not have those adapters, just support beams and frames.

While real-life engines look and work right with real-life, and KSP's work and look right with KSP, when you try to mix both, it looks like and ugly duckling and it works like a drunken peasant. The end-result just isn't good...

As for fuel tanks, if you are trying to use the stock ones, then I'm afraid you are not smart enough for this mod. You are supposed to use the procedural ones, or the ones that come with mods that simulate real rockets (such as FASA).

I'm not smart enough huh? Such a very subtle way of calling someone dumb...Except that I never stated to be using stock tanks, and you just wrongly assumed that...I guess you are not smart enough to have a constructive debate...Nor are you smart enough to realize that the procedural tanks don't have any preset that matches the (RO-modified stock KSP's) engine's sizes, unlike most of the engines introduced by mods, which are 0.5m, 0.625m, 1m, 1.25m, and so on...Of all engines I have, practically only the "stock" engines are completely off any kind of standardized size...Being like 1.776m...Which need to be directly and painstakingly adjusted with the slider to still not really match.

Yes, they would. Again, the engines are exactly the size they are in real life. The size of the nozzle has very little to do with how much thrust the engine has. Instead, it's mostly the function of whether the engine is optimized for vacuum efficiency. Engines optimized for vacuum tend to have huge nozzles, engines optimized for sea-level performance - small ones. The sizes of fuel pumps may be wrong, but there are limits to how much we can modify the models. In any case, the general dimensions of engines are always correct, feel free to google any particular engine and let us know if its real life dimensions or performance are different.

You have again completely misrepresented my argument...I never stated that the nozzle-size defined the thrust of the engines...I said that engines that have big combustion chambers, fuel pumps and fuel lines cannot be seriously portrayed as being weak...

If RO needs models that match reality better, I will be more than happy to volunteer...Just give me enough visual reference-images and data about the overall size and it will be my pleasure to assist...And I bet many people here in the community feel the same way...The problem is that that kind of "it's ok as it is" attitude, even though it clearly isn't ok (at least aesthetically), isn't going to help anyone...

Real life is not "balanced". If you think the performance of one of the engines is wrong, you are free to google its real-life performance and let us know if anything is off.

I've never seen a gigantic engine being used for a minor propulsion role, or under a stack of tanks several orders of magnitude thinner than the engine, in real-life.

I have never seen a small engine being used to lift a long, and proportionally much wider fuel tank on top of it, in real life.

And I don't think I'll ever see either case ever happen in real-life.

Yet, according to the stats of the engines in RO, any sensible real-life rocket engineer would design rockets like that in order to get the most out of their equipment or budget...And players have to mindfully and willingly "ignore" such fact in order to keep the designs looking realistic...

I don't think RO should work like that. And if things should be changed in order to fix that, then I advocate for changing them, rather than arguing "but this engine model that looks nothing like the real life engine, and that doesn't really fit well with the fuel-tanks it attaches to, has the real life stats, so it's ok". I rest my case.

In the time it took you to spout this crap you could've googled the fact that one of the recommended mods, Orbital Manipulator, which you quite possible already have installed, enables you to use time warp during ion engine burns. Next time think before you write.

In the time you took to be a complete "J-word", you could have actually tried to read my arguments for what they are rather than for what you need them to be in order to bash on them in completely non constructive manner. You could also use a little bit of that supposedly superior intellect to figure out that if I'm not using OM, I probably have my reasons, and asked me what those reasons were rather than replying as if it's set in stone that your assumptions of what and why I am or am not using the mods I'm using were correct. Next time, be quiet and don't reply at all. Replies like yours are not welcome by me and should not be welcome by this community.

Edited November 25, 2014 by AlmightyR

[AlmightyR]

I'll add some notes, and if AlmightyR is willing I'll include his config file as an option with a note that it won't be very realistic.

You, and anyone else, is free to use that with or without credit.

Also, I will have some free time in the following months, and although I am not superbly-good with 3d modelling an texturing, I think I am good enough to make the real-life engine models with an acceptable detail (up) and poly-count (down)...So if you want me to get started with that, just send me a few reference images, preferably orthographic...And I'll give it a try...

[Felger]

You could have asked me if I had all the mods before making that assertion, because I in fact do have most of them installed. And the problem is not only "there", it screams in my hears in the day and pulls on my heels from under my bed at night...It stalks and haunts my gameplay like no other mod ever did.

I have all dependencies mods (obviously), All recommended mods with exception to EngineIgnitor, and the following suggested mods:

And the variety of engines is still not nearly enough...Because there is a MAJOR lack of engines for payload-stage...

I don't need a 2.5m+ engine that looks monstrously powerful because it's long, but that has a 60~ maxThrust stat as if it was meant to be used for landing (It's long...Long engines are a bad, and ugly, idea for landing-stage designs!!!)...

I also don't need a 2.5m+ engine for transfers when some of the smaller engines are actually both more powerful and more efficient...

I also don't need a 2.5m+, but 60~ maxThrust engine for 1st-stage on liftoff...Because it has just 60~ maxThrust and is therefore a terrible idea for use in liftoff...

What is a 2.5m+, 60~ maxThrust engine good for? Well, it's good for being useless...

I' exaggerating the figures to highlight the problem, but you do get the point that many of the engines end up having this same problem, right?

These are excellent points, would you like to help us solve them? One of the major issues we've been discussing on the IRC channel is the redundancy of representation we have for launch engines, and the lack of upper stage engines. Come join us!

Angry response to some inflammatory words from another poster

Y'all both need some cuddles!

I'm not saying RO's official approach should change...I'm just saying..."Give me some alternatives!"...

I mostly do my own config tweakings and MM patches here, to get the RO's changes to be more acceptable for what I consider to be more realistic and aesthetically pleasing for my rocket designs...It's just that every time RO updates, I have to re-do my tweakings...And it feels like RO should have/make it's own official "soft-core" configs instead of making all the "soft-core" users roll out their own configs...

OM seems to be a bit unstable here sometimes...And I used the TimeControl mod before, to accelerate past x4 physics time-warp while maintaining physics accuracy; Even at the x8 I manage to get, it still takes a freaking eternity to do even the most basic maneuvers with Ion engines...

I sincerely prefer to just have a 100x or 1000x thrust in relation to real-life...It gets the job done while still keeping the maxThrust several magnitudes below that of chemical rockets, and while still feeling realistic...And I think any "soft-core" RO player would agree...

Heck, even I agree sometimes. I did a just-for-fun with a far-future hypothetical VASIMR config that used way too much power, but provided way too much thrust, in Realism Overhaul. Check your PMs, I sent you some ideas on how you can help us make this stuff more accessible.

That argument would be valid, if it wasn't for the fact that most, if not all KSP engine models come with their own "adapters" at the top of the engine, and those were modelled to fit the standardized radial sizes...Most real-life engines do not have those adapters, just support beams and frames.

While real-life engines look and work right with real-life, and KSP's work and look right with KSP, when you try to mix both, it looks like and ugly duckling and it works like a drunken peasant. The end-result just isn't good...

Agreed, for a while we tried hiding the tankbutt inside the fuel tanks by moving the upper node, not sure why we stopped, but that might be something to look at again. What I often find myself doing is using Procedural Parts to bridge the gap between the larger upper fuel tank and the smaller tankbutted engine, works pretty well aesthetically!

The procedural tanks don't have any preset that matches the (RO-modified stock KSP's) engine's sizes, unlike most of the engines introduced by mods, which are 0.5m, 0.625m, 1m, 1.25m, and so on...Of all engines I have, practically only the "stock" engines are completely off any kind of standardized size...Being like 1.776m...Which need to be directly and painstakingly adjusted with the slider to still not really match.

THAT is an excellent point. Anyone have an idea how hard / easy it would be to adjust the presets in Procedural parts? Perhaps replicating some of the functionality of the Procedural Wings when you join two wings together (where the joint automatically matches size)?

You have again completely misrepresented my argument...I never stated that the nozzle-size defined the thrust of the engines...I said that engines that have big combustion chambers, fuel pumps and fuel lines cannot be seriously portrayed as being weak...

If RO needs models that match reality better, I will be more than happy to volunteer...Just give me enough visual reference-images and data about the overall size and it will be my pleasure to assist...And I bet many people here in the community feel the same way...The problem is that that kind of "it's ok as it is" attitude, even though it clearly isn't ok (at least aesthetically), isn't going to help anyone...

That would be super awesome! Though a lot of our problem isn't necessarily in finding mods that provide parts, but in producing good config files for them because there're so many. If you want to do that, go for it! Join us on the IRC channel and we can chat about what kinds of engines you'd like to produce.

I've never seen a gigantic engine being used for a minor propulsion role, or under a stack of tanks several orders of magnitude thinner than the engine, in real-life.

I have never seen a small engine being used to lift a long, and proportionally much wider fuel tank on top of it, in real life.

And I don't think I'll ever see either case ever happen in real-life.

Yet, according to the stats of the engines in RO, any sensible real-life rocket engineer would design rockets like that in order to get the most out of their equipment or budget...And players have to mindfully and willingly "ignore" such fact in order to keep the designs looking realistic...

A lot of these problems stem from the models we use to get the job done (It's not like we can just not apply configs to parts that don't look right, or ask the user to delete certain parts out of the part pack) But in general, I agree. Engines should 'look right'. Per

I don't think RO should work like that. And if things should be changed in order to fix that, then I advocate for changing them, rather than arguing "but this engine model that looks nothing like the real life engine, and that doesn't really fit well with the fuel-tanks it attaches to, has the real life stats, so it's ok". I rest my case.

Absolutely! When do you start helping us fix these things?

[Specialist290]

Alright, before this little argument escalates any further:

Offering up criticism on an add-on, when done constructively and in good faith, is acceptable. Refuting that criticism, when also done in good faith, is also acceptable. Insulting other users' intelligence, name-calling, and other forms of harassment, are not acceptable, and we of the moderation staff will assess and punish it accordingly if it continues.

Please keep this in mind as you continue this discussion.

[ThorBeorn]

Felger: Great job on the OP, very clean and informative!

AlmightyR: Didn't read all of your posts here, but check out RftS engines if you haven't already. Another option is to just make a couple of "payload engines" using MM patches. Use radial attachment and symmetry to manage TWR and you should be fine.

[Hattivat]

I don't need a 2.5m+ engine that looks monstrously powerful because it's long, but that has a 60~ maxThrust stat as if it was meant to be used for landing (It's long...Long engines are a bad, and ugly, idea for landing-stage designs!!!)...

I also don't need a 2.5m+ engine for transfers when some of the smaller engines are actually both more powerful and more efficient...

I also don't need a 2.5m+, but 60~ maxThrust engine for 1st-stage on liftoff...Because it has just 60~ maxThrust and is therefore a terrible idea for use in liftoff...

What is a 2.5m+, 60~ maxThrust engine good for? Well, it's good for being useless...At least in my opinion...

I' exaggerating the figures to highlight the problem, but you do get the point that many of the engines end up having this same problem, right?

It's a fair point, but one that you should bring up with real-life rocket engineers. The basic premise of RO, at least in its "default" version is that it provides real-life engines as they are actually used, or at least proposed in serious engineering studies, not some fantasy ones for "balance" purposes.

I'm not saying RO's official approach should change...I'm just saying..."Give me some alternatives!"...

Fair enough. There used to be one, called Reaching for the Stars, courtesy of NathanKell, which functioned as an alternative config for RO. It had an "alternative history" approach, with a more varied and"balanced" set of engines than real life provides. I guess you could ask him about updating it and/or extending it into something bigger.

I sincerely prefer to just have a 100x or 1000x thrust in relation to real-life...It gets the job done while still keeping the maxThrust several magnitudes below that of chemical rockets, and while still feeling realistic...And I think any "soft-core" RO player would agree...

I think Felger had something like this in mind as an alternative option for a while now. It used to be like that a versions back, before Orbital Manipulator was introduced.

That argument would be valid, if it wasn't for the fact that most, if not all KSP engine models come with their own "adapters" at the top of the engine, and those were modelled to fit the standardized radial sizes...Most real-life engines do not have those adapters, just support beams and frames.

While real-life engines look and work right with real-life, and KSP's work and look right with KSP, when you try to mix both, it looks like and ugly duckling and it works like a drunken peasant. The end-result just isn't good...

People here are working with what they have, and make the most of it. I don't think it merits the kind of passive-agressive rant you've published a few hours ago. We are very well aware that real engines don't come with silly cupolas, and believe me, all the authors and helpers would love to have more of cupola-free ones.

I'm not smart enough huh? Such a very subtle way of calling someone dumb...Except that I never stated to be using stock tanks, and you just wrongly assumed that...I guess you are not smart enough to have a constructive debate...

You come into the thread for a mod that people maintain by sacrificing their own free time and publish a passive aggressive rant as if you were owed something. What do you expect then? Flowers? Kisses? A hero's welcome? Rest assured that I was relatively mild, the previous lead maintainer of this mod (RedAV8R) would in all likelihood have been much less friendly in his reply to your initial post.

You have again completely misrepresented my argument...I never stated that the nozzle-size defined the thrust of the engines...I said that engines that have big combustion chambers, fuel pumps and fuel lines cannot be seriously portrayed as being weak...

And I admitted that pump sizes are wrong if you care to notice. However, isn't it better for the general dimensions to be correct, with only some more specific ones being off, than to have completely wrong general size just to match the size of the fuel pump?

If RO needs models that match reality better, I will be more than happy to volunteer...Just give me enough visual reference-images and data about the overall size and it will be my pleasure to assist...And I bet many people here in the community feel the same way...The problem is that that kind of "it's ok as it is" attitude, even though it clearly isn't ok (at least aesthetically), isn't going to help anyone...

Absolutely, everyone would love that. In fact, the lack of modelers willing to make realistically-looking crafts is one of the biggest hindrances to the development of RO. I would certainly be willing to do the research for you if you volunteered to create the models, as I'm sure would be many other people.

I've never seen a gigantic engine being used for a minor propulsion role, or under a stack of tanks several orders of magnitude thinner than the engine, in real-life.

You have never seen an Apollo launch? Service Propulsion System engine was much bigger than the J-2 of the third stage.

I have never seen a small engine being used to lift a long, and proportionally much wider fuel tank on top of it, in real life.

Soyuz core.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Hattivat

[Felger]

Felger: Great job on the OP, very clean and informative!

AlmightyR: Didn't read all of your posts here, but check out RftS engines if you haven't already. Another option is to just make a couple of "payload engines" using MM patches. Use radial attachment and symmetry to manage TWR and you should be fine.

Thanks!

And a note on RftS engines, you may want to add a %RSSROConfig = True to the parts you're using, or they'll get tagged by the loader as non-RO

[Guest]

I've actually made a rough list of engines that have configs, but no realistic model anywhere. Those are:

Aestus (present in LH, but welded to the stage).

Vulcain (Vulcain 2 is available in LH Aerospace, pending RO integration).

HM-7B (All available versions are welded to the stage).

CECE

RD-0256 (Dnepr upper stage).

RD-264 (Dnepr lower stage. Heck, just make the Dnepr, it's a nice LV ).

Late-model RL-10 versions (A4 and B2).

RD-855 (Tsyklon vernier).

RD-107/108 (R-7 booster and sustainer. All available R-7s have engines welded to the stages).

RD-0110 (Vostok/Soyuz 3rd stage. Same problem as above, available aplenty, but only with the upper stage).

RS-88 (CST-100 engine, NovaPunch has an almost-realistic version, though).

J-2T (an aerospike version of J-2).

S5.92/98M (Briz and Fregat. Again, Fregat exists, but the engine is welded on).

For the rest of the real engines, I recommend:

FASA

Soviet Engine Pack

OLDD Proton (coming this weekend).

OLDD N1 (has the RD-58 and a bunch of other, old engines. I'll eventually make it an RO config).

LazTek

They will literally give you every real engine supported by RO besides those in the list above. They all have highly realistic models.

[Felger]

I've actually made a rough list of engines that have configs, but no realistic model anywhere. Those are:

Aestus (present in LH, but welded to the stage).

Vulcain (Vulcain 2 is available in LH Aerospace, pending RO integration).

HM-7B (All available versions are welded to the stage).

CECE

RD-0256 (Dnepr upper stage).

RD-264 (Dnepr lower stage. Heck, just make the Dnepr, it's a nice LV ).

Late-model RL-10 versions (A4 and B2).

RD-855 (Tsyklon vernier).

RD-107/108 (R-7 booster and sustainer. All available R-7s have engines welded to the stages).

RD-0110 (Vostok/Soyuz 3rd stage. Same problem as above, available aplenty, but only with the upper stage).

RS-88 (CST-100 engine, NovaPunch has an almost-realistic version, though).

J-2T (an aerospike version of J-2).

S5.92/98M (Briz and Fregat. Again, Fregat exists, but the engine is welded on).

For the rest of the real engines, I recommend:

FASA

Soviet Engine Pack

OLDD Proton (coming this weekend).

OLDD N1 (has the RD-58 and a bunch of other, old engines. I'll eventually make it an RO config).

LazTek

They will literally give you every real engine supported by RO besides those in the list above. They all have highly realistic models.

You sir, are awesome! Can't wait to get some OLDD into Realism Overhaul!

[AlmightyR]

Agreed, for a while we tried hiding the tankbutt inside the fuel tanks by moving the upper node, not sure why we stopped, but that might be something to look at again.

Please don't...

Remember that "ugly duckling and drunker peasant" analogy I used? Well, Shifting the nodes down so that the "caps" are hidden up makes the ugly duckling uglier, and the drunken peasant drunker...

I think we need an actual solution for this...And I think that solution is an engine models pack designed specifically to match RO or reality without trying to be friendly to vanilla KSP's FTs (without the standardized adapters/caps)...

Give me the name of an engine you think would be a good start, and I'll actually go ahead and make a 3D model for it...If you like it, we can maybe start a sibling mod like "RO-Remodel Project" just to add RO-oriented, uncapped engines...

As for how to solve the aesthetic problem of switching from the flat end of the FTs to the "shouldn't be so flat" top of the engines...We can either make a script for "procedural engine-to-FT adapters", which would be harder but ideal...Or we can devise a way to use existing stuff, like having the engine's support frames designed in a way that allows them to fit existing adapters or procedural-parts' generated rounded ends with more aesthetic accuracy and/or acceptance. At least those are the solutions I can think of...Others might be possible...

THAT is an excellent point. Anyone have an idea how hard / easy it would be to adjust the presets in Procedural parts? Perhaps replicating some of the functionality of the Procedural Wings when you join two wings together (where the joint automatically matches size)?

RO already modifies some of the standard "steps" in TweakScale...Well...More like it adds lots and lots of steps...

I believe the same could be done to PP without too much of a hassle...The first step needed is knowing whether PP has any scripting capability regarding it's standard sizes...And from there, it's either a request to the author if it doesn't, or learning how to use it if it does...

That would be super awesome! Though a lot of our problem isn't necessarily in finding mods that provide parts, but in producing good config files for them because there're so many. If you want to do that, go for it! Join us on the IRC channel and we can chat about what kinds of engines you'd like to produce.

Ok...I'll talk to you on the IRC then...

Basically I want at least the name of an engine to start modelling, and, preferably, if you have any images I can use as reference, that saves me the trouble of finding references on my own...

A lot of these problems stem from the models we use to get the job done (It's not like we can just not apply configs to parts that don't look right, or ask the user to delete certain parts out of the part pack) But in general, I agree. Engines should 'look right'.

That's exactly what bothers me so much with RO...And precisely my point...

I know the current engines' models are being used because there just isn't any alternative...But being a player who likes my rockets to not only play realistic, but look-&-feel realistic, I am just not at all satisfied with how my designs look, and I've reached a point where it's basically impossible to continue to willingly ignore the ugliness...

So if we need better engine models (actually, we just need engine models with more acceptable proportions and aesthetically acceptable engine-to-tank transitions), the sooner we start working on it, the sooner we get to experience RO as it should be...

Absolutely! When do you start helping us fix these things?

I think the main problem is the engines not fitting the tanks, so I'd like to start with that engine-to-tank transition problem...The solution is probably to make new 3D models without the "vanilla-friendly" adapters on top, and since the modelling work will be done anyways, there is no reason to not do the full engines (rather than just cutting the adapters off...Remember: Uglier ugly ducklings and drunker drunken peasants aren't really going to help )...From there, we can start adding more engines...

A cool possible side-effect is that if we manage to make enough models, we may be able to decouple RO from the additional parts-packs mods (of which most are basically there just for the engines models anyways)...So that RO no longer needs to adapt/update it's "compatibility patches" when those mods change...

I can start modelling as soon as you give me an engine to start with...Preferably one of the most commonly used...And we progress to the more rare or to the experimental/development engines later...

[EDIT]

I've actually made a rough list of engines that have configs, but no realistic model anywhere. Those are: (List here)

Great! I will start working on those then, if @Felger has no objections...

Edited November 25, 2014 by AlmightyR

[AlmightyR]

It's a fair point, but one that you should bring up with real-life rocket engineers. The basic premise of RO, at least in its "default" version is that it provides real-life engines as they are actually used, or at least proposed in serious engineering studies, not some fantasy ones for "balance" purposes.

And, as I stated before, I have no problems with that. However, RO is the only mod of it's kind currently in the community, and no alternatives are being presented for people who want to keep KSP+RO's Ion-powered probes playable...And I think it's easier and more productive for RO to provide it's own "soft-core" configs rather than make all the "soft-core" players roll out their own configs.

Also, RO itself has a serious problem regarding the engine models used...They many times don't visually match their thrust output (and, again, no, I'm not talking about the nozzles...I'm actually mostly talking about the components related to fuel-output into the combustion-chamber, or the CC itself), their adapters' sizes don't match that of the FTs that they would be useful with, and pretty much all of them have other, serious, aesthetics problems.

Again:

1) I'm not advocating for RO to change in order to present a more forgiving balance; I'm advocating for the creation of an official, but non-default ("separate") soft-core alternative config-set.

2) I'm not advocating for RO to change in order to compensate for the inappropriate models or for the lacking models; It's the contrary; I'm advocating for the community's help in order to create more appropriate ones and fill in the gaps.

There used to be one, called Reaching for the Stars, courtesy of NathanKell, which functioned as an alternative config for RO. (...)

I'm aware of RftS. But it's no longer supported, and it didn't really get RO's "problems" to a situation significantly different from current.

People here are working with what they have, and make the most of it. (...) We are very well aware that real engines don't come with silly cupolas, and believe me, all the authors and helpers would love to have more of cupola-free ones.

And that's precisely why I'm advocating that we should try to make proper models rather than "making the most of what we have", because we are clearly reaching the limits of "making the most of what we have", and it's time to "have more to work with"...

If all authors and helpers are in support for the creation or remodel of the engine models to fit RO better, why aren't we working on this already? I actually know the answer for that: "Because the configs alone already take up all the time we have!", but in that case why isn't there at least a note in the OP stating that need, so that other people can work on it?

(All the stuff about passive-aggressiveness)

As per moderators instructions, I'll keep this brief, and address the facts and POVs in friendly manner:

I was describing the problems I see in RO, and demonstrating why I think so in a brief manner. And with the adapters in mind, my point about how real engineers wouldn't make each part in a way that would fit only it's own standard should be clearer than ever. If the engines don't fit the FTs because of the adapters in the 3D models, then the problem is not with my argument, it's with the existence of the adapters. And if the current models are being used because there is no alternative, then, again, the problem lies with the lack of the alternatives and not with my argument (which, from the beginning, is that alternatives should be created ).

If my argument was perceived as passive-aggressive, I apologise; That was not the intention.

I come to this thread as a user of RO and as a member of the community. I have a right to expressing my discontent with (some aspects of) the current state of the mod, specially if I specify which parts have problems, as well as how and why I think so.

You seem to argue that "people maintain (this mod) by sacrificing their own free time" without realizing that my post took part of my own free time to be written, and that I am not simply bashing on the mod (and certainly not bashing on people's effort to create/maintain it), but specifying what I think is wrong, why I think it's wrong, and how I reached that state of thinking.

At no point did I present an "you owe me something" attitude, and I don't expect to have to present my arguments as if I owed you, or anyone, anything either; Because you work on the mods out of your own free will and de-facto, people can be grateful that you create and maintain the mods, but they don't owe you anything for it. Even if I had presented my arguments in passive-aggressive manner, if my points are valid, then you don't get the right to bash on me or on my arguments just because of it. And the previous lead maintainer can be as "less friendly" as he wants...That would only make him even more wrong in focusing on being "less friendly", rather than focusing on the points being presented.

Absolutely, everyone would love that. In fact, the lack of modelers willing to make realistically-looking crafts is one of the biggest hindrances to the development of RO. I would certainly be willing to do the research for you if you volunteered to create the models, as I'm sure would be many other people.

Now we are talking! I am in fact volunteering to do modelling...Modelling isn't my forte, but I have a little experience with 3Ds Max, and it should be enough to make the engines with acceptable quality. So give me an engine to work on and I'll get started!

You have never seen an Apollo launch? Service Propulsion System engine was much bigger than the J-2 of the third stage.

Nope. The engine nozzle was gigantic, but the engine, as an overall, was very small, and, as per my argument, very short.

Also, even if just the nozzles are considered, they are roughly the same size...The "difference" coming from optical illusion due to proportion of other objects in the photos (J-2's look small in comparison, but it's because it's contrasted with BIG stuff)...

Take a look at this per-stage cut-out representation of the full Saturn V...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lBvCHGWYHfg/UDn0DtQscWI/AAAAAAAABZ8/cIEzk7xzX4w/s1600/saturn_v_poster_1_13.jpg

As you can see, the 3rd stage's J-2', and the Service Module's engine' nozzles are roughly the same size, but the J-2, with it's other external components, is something like 2 times longer...3 times (~), if you consider the rounded "adaptor" to the FT...

Soyuz core.

Again, nope. I said one engine. Soyuz uses a quad-mount. But as I explained, unlike real-life, in current RO, sometimes a single small engine will be more powerful and efficient than a big engine or a quad-mount design...Which leads players to need to willfully ignore that fact and go for a realistic-looking design even though, like any real-life engineer would, they know that the "ridiculous-looking" design with the small engine would be, performance-wise, better.

[pingopete]

Felger: Great job on the OP, very clean and informative!

I agree with theor, nice job!

I'd just say however might be worth including some form of massive disclaimer for RVE in its current state, I've noticed allot of people having issues with the current releases. Thanks for the rep tho! I should have a much better release up in the near future

[Hattivat]

Awesome! If you have any questions about the Russian engines on the list, that you can't find answers to in English, feel free to ask me, I might be able to help (I can read Russian).

In other news, here's a beta version of a new visual guide to explain the very basics and hopefully make the first few hours of using Realism Overhaul a little less confusing to new players:

http://imgur.com/a/zWFvd

Comments, including constructive criticism, are very much welcome.

[Hattivat]

If all authors and helpers are in support for the creation or remodel of the engine models to fit RO better, why aren't we working on this already? I actually know the answer for that: "Because the configs alone already take up all the time we have!", but in that case why isn't there at least a note in the OP stating that need, so that other people can work on it?

It's only been a week or so since this mod came under Felger's care, so it's still in a flux. You guessed correctly, all the collaborators are doing what they can to regain the mod compabilities that used to in place in the 24.2 version. You are right that there should be a notice, but we simply haven't thought of that yet (outside of some jokes about kidnapping Bobcat and chaining him to a computer on irc ).

As per moderators instructions, I'll keep this brief, and address the facts and POVs in friendly manner: (...)

Fair enough. I apologize for getting a little carried away, but to me (and not just to me, AFAIK) your rant sounded dismissive of other people's hard work. I reacted the way I did because I've witnessed how this kind of rants and unrealistic expectations made several distinguished modders quit in recent months, including the very guy who created most of RO as it currently exists, RedAV8R. Now that we know that you are willing to actively contribute towards solving the problems, and not just passively complain, that entirely changes the way I perceive your initial post. But alas, such is the nature of internet communication: we are strangers who don't know what to expect from each other, and can't even see each other's faces for clues.

Now we are talking! I am in fact volunteering to do modelling...Modelling isn't my forte, but I have a little experience with 3Ds Max, and it should be enough to make the engines with acceptable quality. So give me an engine to work on and I'll get started!

As I said above, awesome! I think any of the engines from that list above would be good. If you pick a Russian one, I'm probably the person to ask to conduct research. My Russian isn't stellar, but it seems it's the best we currently have.

Nope. The engine nozzle was gigantic, but the engine, as an overall, was very small, and, as per my argument, very short.

Fine, that is true. We are both right in a way, depending on what one chooses to prioritize (the size of the engine in the strict sense, or the size of the whole package).

Also, even if just the nozzles are considered, they are roughly the same size...The "difference" coming from optical illusion due to proportion of other objects in the photos (J-2's look small in comparison, but it's because it's contrasted with BIG stuff)...

I'd say SPS's nozzle is noticeably bigger, but you are right that the difference is not big, I realized it myself after checking wikipedia after writing that post (I was writing from memory then), but decided it would be unfair to edit my post after the time that has passed, since you could've already been in the process of replying.

Again, nope. I said one engine. Soyuz uses a quad-mount. But as I explained, unlike real-life, in current RO, sometimes a single small engine will be more powerful and efficient than a big engine or a quad-mount design...Which leads players to need to willfully ignore that fact and go for a realistic-looking design even though, like any real-life engineer would, they know that the "ridiculous-looking" design with the small engine would be, performance-wise, better.

It's not a quad-mount, it's a single engine, especially per your own definition. It has four nozzles, yes, but it's a single engine. The rest of your point is correct, let's hope we can fix that together.

[AlmightyR]

In other news, here's a beta version of a new visual guide to explain the very basics and hopefully make the first few hours of using Realism Overhaul a little less confusing to new players:

http://imgur.com/a/zWFvd

Comments, including constructive criticism, are very much welcome.

Nice guide! If only there was anything like that when I first started playing RO...Let's just say many virtual lives were lost until I learned to make my rockets stable with FAR...

A couple of notes, none of which really affect the tutorial's purpose (all aesthetic):

1) Maybe make the 1st screenshot, which relates to the probe/sat, a bit shifted to the side, so that a better perspective of the probe/sat is achieved. But as stated in the tutorial, the probe design is not the focus...So it would just be a little visual improvement, in my opinion.

2) Maybe round off the underside of the 1st-stage FT, with a short conical or rounded Procedural-Part (either FT or structural)...There is a bit too much flat on the sides of the engine in my opinion (one of the problems we were discussing ).

Other than that, the guide is perfect! Each step is presented in a clear and concise manner, and everything exemplified with screenshots.

[Hattivat]

Thanks! I like that second suggestion of yours a lot, but I'm afraid it would push my TWR below 1.2. I could probably make that work, but it's not desirable in general, so I don't want to show that in a guide that is supposed to teach the "proper" way of building a rocket

[Kitspace]

I am Russian in case anybody is still interested.

And the guide is quite brief but really nice!

[Hattivat]

I am Russian in case anybody is still interested.

And the guide is quite brief but really nice!

That's great, I'm sure you would be a useful addition to the team! I can read Russian, but not very well, and I don't have a Russian keyboard, which makes typing hard. Feel free to join the #RO IRC channel as described in the OP of this thread (the same applies to AlmigthyR and anyone else who wants to help, of course!)

As for the guide, it's short on purpose, to make sure that even those people who have short attention spans can get to the end of it. There will be other, more in-depth guides in the future. There is already a lot of info in a text-only form on the RO wiki.

[Scarsz]

AlmightyR, if you wqnt/need any help modeling or texturing I am happy to help. That is quite a long list and to make all of them on your own is quite a lot as engines are some of the most complicated models for ksp.

[AlmightyR]

AlmightyR, if you wqnt/need any help modeling or texturing I am happy to help. That is quite a long list and to make all of them on your own is quite a lot as engines are some of the most complicated models for ksp.

It really depends what level of detail the modeller aims for...I'll try to make em with baked normal-maps, which require a high-res model...But doing em all low-res seems doable within a month or a couple...

I've only worked on it for about 15 minutes, but here is a look at the Vulcain 2's progress:

Of course, this has a lot of poly waste (specially on the nozzle), because I'm making the base-mesh for a high-poly, which I can use to bake normals so that the low-poly can "fake" a lot of the minor details...So don't take it as a lead to the final product...It isn't...

I'm working on the Aestus and Vulcan 2...If you want to start with another one, I have no doubts you will be welcome!

Edited November 25, 2014 by AlmightyR

[..wesker..]

Hi guys I am new to Realism Overhaul and I have a question maybe a stupid one . So I am building my first rocket and I can't hide my engines , it's a small detail but it irritates me ! Here some images : Is there a solution ?

[eggrobin]

As mentioned on on the #RO IRC channel, here is a list of European engines (pictures by clicking on the engine names).

Of particular relevance are the engines used in variants of Ariane 4 and 5 (the other launchers are more anecdotic), i.e., in addition to the previously-mentioned Vulcain, Vulcain 2, Aestus, and HM-7B,

Viking 4B+,

Viking 5C,

Viking 6 (only used on the variant of Ariane 4 with LRBs).

Note that while these do not have configs yet, there is a lot of data available, so this could be done.

[Guest]

Please also consider the Vinci engine. It has a neat movable nozzle extension (always been a fan of those) and is supposed to be used on the Ariane 5 ECB and Ariane 6.

In general, I like how that engine is looking so far. I know you're focusing on engines, but considering that it's all Ariane 5 hardware, how about some tanks to match? Depending on the amount of detail you want, fuel tanks, fairings and adapters might be quite easy to make, as far as parts go. Engines, especially realistic ones, are usually the most complex parts to make, and it's not hard to make a tank that looks better than anything you can get with procedural ones.

[Hattivat]

Couldn't we have some of them (such as the Vikings) as variants of one model? Real Fuels allows for this option, and we already make use of it. (trying to keep the memory load reasonable)