[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd respectfully be inclined to not circumventing the checks if the mod creator asked me not to do so.

I think there are RO Win64 users that are curious to know how RO may work in KSP x64, and they'd think this information is helpful.

That the checks exist at all should be a strong hint that the mod creator doesn't want it to run on Win64. Most have done so to reduce the amount of support requests in their threads caused by Win64 issues, so posting about Win64 workarounds in those threads is, generally speaking, unwelcome. It would be better for all involved to post your results in the Win64 Community Workaround thread.

[Agathorn]

I'd respectfully be inclined to not circumventing the checks if the mod creator asked me not to do so.

I think there are RO Win64 users that are curious to know how RO may work in KSP x64, and they'd think this information is helpful.

Why the rude remarks?

I *am* one of the maintainers of RO. If you can personally get a version working that is fine, as I said just keep it to yourself, but we don't need it posted about in here for others to try and do the same. We intentionally do not distribute an x64 binary for a reason, and that reason is we don't want the support nightmare that comes with it.

Again the bottom line is that if you are technically skilled enough to get it working then great on you, and you can enjoy it and support yourself, but no one else needs to be told about it or how to do it.

Also as previously stated, Squad itself is removing Windows x64 support, or actually did already in 1.0. **They** said it was too unstable, so I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish unless you plan to stay on old versions of RO and company forever.

[FennexFox]

Will there be RO for 1.0? I heard that Squad is working on transition to Unity 5 which must make a far greater different then between 0.90 and 1.00. Unless Unity 5 KSP comes in months, then just skip RO for 1.0 isn`t good enough?

[FennexFox]

RemoteTech Setting File link in OP is broken! (the file is in github of course but link is broken)

[Motokid600]

Will there be RO for 1.0? I heard that Squad is working on transition to Unity 5 which must make a far greater different then between 0.90 and 1.00. Unless Unity 5 KSP comes in months, then just skip RO for 1.0 isn`t good enough?

Huh? No. Don't worry about it. Just give people the time they need to update the mod its simple as that.

[NathanKell]

Fixed, thanks.

And yes, there is a RO for KSP 1.0 in progress. See this checklist here, and everyone, please, help if you can!

[O Nerd]

Now do it, Nathan/contributors. 2 kg probes! NAOW!

Just kidding though, it would be nice to have some light probes, but take your time developing what you consider important.

It is very nice to see the mod growing. ^^

(Yes, i know i can change the parts' masses in their .cfg files.)

(No, I don't know if this has been discussed before.)

[FennexFox]

Now do it, Nathan/contributors. 2 kg probes! NAOW!

Just kidding though, it would be nice to have some light probes, but take your time developing what you consider important.

It is very nice to see the mod growing. ^^

(Yes, i know i can change the parts' masses in their .cfg files.)

(No, I don't know if this has been discussed before.)

There is a really little cube Sat core in AIES mod which is supported by RO now. It weighs well...1.33kg?

- - - Updated - - -

Huh? No. Don't worry about it. Just give people the time they need to update the mod its simple as that.

Oh, I understand that my post could be heard as passive-aggressive. No, I didn't meant that. In fact I'm working on my first contribution on this mod, that's why I wanna know it will be there soon or not. Sorry for being rude. I'm not native English so may my words heard in weird way.

Edited May 24, 2015 by FennexFox

[Niemand303]

Fixed, thanks.

And yes, there is a RO for KSP 1.0 in progress. See this checklist here, and everyone, please, help if you can!

Helped from my part with the Tantares configs (except for effects, I don't think they should be top priority, compatibility first, but if you say so I can add some too), though I might take a look into RaiderNick ones too.

About solid fuel, is it really needed? I'm not sure the info is available for launch escape systems and stuff. How are we supposed to find it? Also, what about the fuels non-present in the CRP? While integration is good, getting rid of SolidFuel I think is really bad. I'll use some random abbreviations anyway for LES and Gemini retro for a while.

[frisch]

Is KSP likely to be more stable in the sense that RO mods will continue to work for a longer time? One frustration (NOT the fault of the RO guys) is that with new releases old saves are no longer valuable. It takes a LONG time to develop an interplanetary space program under full RO.

I can run old versions, but they seem to rot. Right now Tantares (ckan version) no longer works for me in 0.90, some update (for 0.9) causes kerbal to crash. The developers are presumably concentrating on 1.0.

Will mods for 1.0, likely work on 1.02, and the inevitable 1.03, 1.04 etc? Of course I guess when unity 5 is used, everything will need to be redone again.

This is in no way a complaint about the fantastic RO stuff. Kerbal just seems to be a constantly moving target. Their declaring a alpha version as 1.0 is a bit frustrating.

- - - Updated - - -

Throttle-able engines:

There are not a lot of throttleable and restartable engines in RO (needed fop landers) presumably because there a not a lot in real life - there hasn't been much application. There are the old lunar module engines but they are not well optimized for a larger lander. The space-X hypergolic engines feel like cheating because they have an ISP that only makes sense with a huge nozzle extension that is not included in the part.

There used to be a set of realistic parameter, but not actually real engines that worked in RO, is that still supported?

[NathanKell]

FennexFox: no worries.

Niemand303: We've configured most solids so far for non-Tantares packs; you can look at what we did for FASA for the LES and for Gemini bits. However, there's no real harm in keeping things as SolidFuel; it's certainly still supported, it's just you won't have the right thermal mass (when hsp is added for all resources, SolidFuel's will be some 'average' hsp).

It's like LiquidFuel: you can use it if you need to.

frisch: Oh, the save breaking is in good part the fault of RO. We've taken the opportunity a few times to synergize with KSP updates and make save-breaking changes to RO. The forthcoming RO for 1.0 is another example of this. However, the way we break saves can usually be solved with a bit of text editing work (mostly changing names of resources, or engine configs).

Stockalike RF engine configs may be what you're thinking of? If not, there's RftS, but I haven't had a chance to update it in about a year (!)...

[Niemand303]

FennexFox: no worries.

Niemand303: We've configured most solids so far for non-Tantares packs; you can look at what we did for FASA for the LES and for Gemini bits. However, there's no real harm in keeping things as SolidFuel; it's certainly still supported, it's just you won't have the right thermal mass (when hsp is added for all resources, SolidFuel's will be some 'average' hsp).

It's like LiquidFuel: you can use it if you need to.

frisch: Oh, the save breaking is in good part the fault of RO. We've taken the opportunity a few times to synergize with KSP updates and make save-breaking changes to RO. The forthcoming RO for 1.0 is another example of this. However, the way we break saves can usually be solved with a bit of text editing work (mostly changing names of resources, or engine configs).

Stockalike RF engine configs may be what you're thinking of? If not, there's RftS, but I haven't had a chance to update it in about a year (!)...

Thanks for explaining! Haven't notices SF in CRP, so I was worried.

I will take a look then at OMSK, it needs some RO configs too.

Edit: oops, apparently I messed up my RO fork while merging. No configs while I'm fixing that. :c

[FennexFox]

I think I missed something: Are contributors working *with* KSP 1.0 now?

I made some configs with KSP 0.90, and it crossed my mind that I must be wrong,

because if you wanna make RO for 1.0 then you must work *with* KSP 1.0.

if so, the problem is that with some dependencies which aren't updated to 1.0, how you could work on RO with 1.0?

[arisian]

So, not to distract everyone from The Noble Quest for 1.0, but is there any way to get mechjeb to use RCS properly for (non-docking) manoeuvres? I totally understand that real spacecraft use RCS for rotation, rather than "magic reaction wheels", and I think it's admirable that RO encourages us to do the same. Unfortunately, MechJeb seems built on the assumption that stock-like reaction wheels are present. When you're under thrust (and using a vectoring engine), this isn't a problem, but any time you're not under thrust (e.g. trying to orient to a manoeuvre node) it's a giant mess. Firstly, RCS needs to be enabled manually or it will sit there forever doing nothing. Second, once RCS mode is on, it spends far more fuel than is necessary, thrusting continuously (rather than an initial burst of thrust, patiently waiting, and then a final burst to stabilize, with perhaps a small correction or two if needed midway). Third, once the orientation is correct, it will continue to waste fuel indefinitely, making tiny oscillatory changes around the desired heading. Also, MechJeb has a tendency to make large shifts to heading during engine start/stops, which results in large and undesired rotations at the beginning or end of burns.

So far as I can tell, all of this is a result of the fact that MechJeb assumes it has stock engines and reaction wheels, meaning that it thinks everything is infinitely throttle-able (including rotation), and that applying rotational torque is basically "free" (since electricity in stock isn't very hard to come by, this is generally an okay assumption), as well as assuming that most craft will have enough torque to rotate to any desired heading relatively quickly.

Since none of these assumptions hold in RO, we have problems, especially with large craft. Is there something I'm missing that would get MechJeb to behave nicely, or is this just something I should go beg for on the MechJeb thread?

[KasraHashemi]

What I always do is turn the RCS on and off. So let's say if you want to turn your spacecraft by 180 degrees, turn the RCS on for maybe around 2-3 seconds and then turn if off. Once you're near the end of the turn, turn the RCS back on to stop the rotation. As for docking using Mechjeb, you are absolutely right. Mechjeb goes crazy with RCS! However, I don't think a "fix" would be as easy as it sounds for Mechjeb to use RCS properly. But who knows... maybe one will come up with it someday.

[NathanKell]

FennexFox: Yes, we're working on RO for 1.0. It's getting there, see https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/250

AFAIK all dependencies are either released for 1.0 or "WIP but testable" in 1.0.

[FennexFox]

FennexFox: Yes, we're working on RO for 1.0. It's getting there, see https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/250

AFAIK all dependencies are either released for 1.0 or "WIP but testable" in 1.0.

Thank you for always being a good teacher. I'm a kind of well-educated-man as far as I use my mother tongue, but learning so much things at once in a different language makes me a toddler. It seems that thinking in other language occupies my mind and get rid of other things from my mind. I'm gonna redo my work on this weekend.

Edited May 27, 2015 by FennexFox

[NathanKell]

No worries. You're doing fine, and I'm happy to help.

[JoseEduardo]

Does the KSP10 folder works as it is now? I know you guys are updating it, but I thought I could try the dev build

EDIT: also, why there isn't a config for Mir? I could make one myself, but I was wondering why there isn't one

Edited May 28, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[samhuk]

looking forward to KSP 1.0 RO support

Shame it's gonna be a few months until a good group of mods are supported

[Robotengineer]

I tried the dev version yesterday, works pretty well. KWRocketry engine sorting is borked though, engines show up in the fuel tanks tab instead of engines, don't know if its RO though.

[replica17]

I tried the dev version yesterday, works pretty well. KWRocketry engine sorting is borked though, engines show up in the fuel tanks tab instead of engines, don't know if its RO though.

We are aware of that. A fix was already made.

[JoseEduardo]

not only KW, but FASA and a few stock aswell

one thing about FASA, it's easier and save part count to merge the plate and the tank, but would it be possible to offer the tanks merged and a separate plate, like the IB version, but for the Nova and Saturn V plates? i kinda like building Saturn C-3 and C-4

[FennexFox]

Does the KSP10 folder works as it is now? I know you guys are updating it, but I thought I could try the dev build

EDIT: also, why there isn't a config for Mir? I could make one myself, but I was wondering why there isn't one

If you could make one, then contribute it for everybody`s sake! If something which deserves to be is not then there could be several reasons...having no time to make it, not yet proven its sanity or whatever. Also there`s some configs in WIP folder which just works fine, I think they just not seen and clarified yet. Checking those things is also very awesome contribution, I think.

Edited May 29, 2015 by FennexFox

[rkman]

Is it just me or is it a bit odd that the fact that the mod replaces the entire solar system and scales it up by a factor 10 is not in the short list of "overview of the changes"?