[1.1.2] Realism Overhaul v11.0.0 May 8

[Adune]

IIRC Felger was describing a project of his that would do this on irc a few days ago. You should ask him about that, perhaps you could combine forces

A while back I wrote a c# programm for parsing ksp config file with exactly this in mind, never came to the automation stage though, deleted everything by hand in the end...

I could finish it, maybe even add some sort of autotagging, or just send you the sources if you like.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Adune

[Carraux]

Hi folks!

I have installed RO yesterday (along with RSS, FASA and some other mods) and rund into troubles using RCS while building a service module for my command pod.

When I build a service module for my command pod, only the RCS thrusters build into the CM will fire. The ones put onto the SM will not.

RCS thrusters will fire ONLY if the tank on which there are placed contains the appropriate monopropellant. It seemed they need a direct connection. Because, if I put the monopropellant into radial mounted tanks instead, the thrusters will not fire.

I can reproduce this whith tanks from procedural parts and with stock tanks. Is this related to RO (or RSS) or did I mess up something?

[Bender222]

On EVE and RVE, they're still in a WIP place, so it's understandable that the authors have opted not to offer a download through CKAN.

I haven't heard of FASA crafts loading invisible, what's that about?

I Use Fasa_Sandbox save because I think that is what its for but when I go to load any of the pre-made craft in the vab they are invisible. a few training/scenarios that functioned correctly would be nice. Id make some my self but I don't know how and If I did, it would take forever for me to feel like it was refined enough to release them. On the same subject, I was thinking that a training scenario would be a much better introductory guide then a written one because you could assure the exact craft for each person. The only non-stock training scenarios I have seen rare the ones made by blizzy for stock ksp.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Bender222

[Carraux]

The FASA Apollo command module needs roll authority. Without it reentry in descent mode will only result in a fiery death.

I can recreate this problem (along with using DRE), During reentry, the pod is spinning uncontrollable. When i put an additional heat shield under the pod, it will automatically turn the nose retrogard. Id do it now, but the additional heat shield will cost me an additional 0.8 metric tons.

[boosters++]

I'm getting a strange bug with an RO install, which seems to exist in two parts:

1. I put together a fairly complex lunar rocket with 8 stages. I checked and double-checked and everything radially-mounted is in same action group - everything is in the action group I want.

1a. On launch, when I use FASA launch clamps, staging doesn't seem to work when done manually or by MechJeb. I have to hit spacebar maybe a dozen times to ignite the initial stage. But once that happens, ascent seems to proceed normally, until the next stage. Let's call the staging thing Problem 1.

Gratuitous image of rocket before Problem 2.

Problem 2 occurs on SRB burnout. Firstly, MechJeb shuts off the main 1st-stage engine, which is bad. Then the radial boosters stay on, which is bad. Then the rocket proceeds along its trajectory without having staged anything at all. Then the radially-mounted boosters - all of which, again, occupy the same action group - seem to slide off (slide off, despite having separation engines also in the same action group) one at a time.

So I have invented a massive, flying hunk of metal, with no engines burning on booster burnout, with the spent boosters very slowly sliding down the sides of the rocket, one at a time.

Ideas, anyone? What's up with the staging and/or the sudden engine shutoff? I don't have MJ set to limit acceleration, so it should be burning full-throttle until it hits desired apoapsis, right...?

(Further manual staging will ignite and decouple the upper stages, so I have high hopes for this one not killing everyone eventually)

[boosters++]

Relevant aside: I can also reproduce this problem on the launchpad.

As you can see, one of the radial boosters took off before the others...

Edited November 26, 2014 by boosters++

[ToyToy]

I noticed a bug (hopefully I didn't do anything wrong) : The Rocketdyne F-1 engine (reproduction of the Saturn V F-1 engine) from KW Rocketry pack has it's nodes miplaced with RO :

The J-2 engine is buggy too ! Any idea for me to solve this and let me build my saturn V ? xD

[JT2227]

Game crashes every time while loading the moon.

Pretty sure it's a memory issue... These come up often now.

[Starwaster]

I noticed a bug (hopefully I didn't do anything wrong) : The Rocketdyne F-1 engine (reproduction of the Saturn V F-1 engine) from KW Rocketry pack has it's nodes miplaced with RO :

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/475748buggy.png

The J-2 engine is buggy too ! Any idea for me to solve this and let me build my saturn V ? xD

As far as the node scaling, you might need to update KW Rocketry. And delete any hotfix hacks for node size that you might have downloaded after 0.25.

[boosters++]

Game crashes every time while loading the moon.

Pretty sure it's a memory issue... These come up often now.

Are you using ActiveTextureManagement and the "force opengl" trick? (Here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84203-Less-memory-usage-by-using-OpenGL)

Both of those help a lot, but beyond that, you still have to mind how many textures you are loading.

[Bender222]

Probably been asked before but how can you see if an engine is pressure fed or not? I do not have the text on mouseover.

[plasmeus]

I can recreate this problem (along with using DRE), During reentry, the pod is spinning uncontrollable. When i put an additional heat shield under the pod, it will automatically turn the nose retrogard. Id do it now, but the additional heat shield will cost me an additional 0.8 metric tons.

Perhaps the config file that adds in the built-heat shield doesn't account for its mass.

I will go check on that now.

Edit: I checked the CM's mass, and the COM seems about right but I'm not sure if the actual mass is correct

Edited November 26, 2014 by plasmeus

[Hattivat]

I noticed a bug (hopefully I didn't do anything wrong) : The Rocketdyne F-1 engine (reproduction of the Saturn V F-1 engine) from KW Rocketry pack has it's nodes miplaced with RO

Edited November 26, 2014 by Hattivat

[Hattivat]

Probably been asked before but how can you see if an engine is pressure fed or not? I do not have the text on mouseover.

This particular aspect of rocketry is simulated by the Engine Ignitor mod. Since you don't see the text on mouseover, I'm guessing you don't have it installed? If you don't, then you don't have to worry about this. If you want to role-play it anyway for fun, generally low-thrust engines fueled with hypergolic propellants (such as aerozine, n204, or UMDH) are pressure-fed, since they are intended to be ignited in orbit, and being pressure-fed makes that easier.

[JT2227]

Thanks! Also, I've been having issues with the realfuel SRB's where the nozzle is offset from the actual booster, not vertically, but on the side far away from the rocket... Any tips on that?

[Felger]

A couple of questions regarding the automated install.

1. Does it ensure that the mods will have the latest patches?
   
2. Are those exactly the same versions and builds of all the mods that one would get from their respective threads manually?
   
3. Some mods have optional things that are in many cases not supposed to be installed with the pack but otherwise would be installed commonly.
   
4. What does it do with these sorts of things?
   
5. So generally is there any difference to the experience at all between a manual and an automatic copy?
   

Regarding the engine domes why not just enable part clipping and add a procedural cap that would fit to the tank an cover what we do not want to the same attachment node the engine sits on or the tank central node in case of a cluster? That is just exactly what I usually do if possible. If it adds to the fuel capacity that is good and if it is impossible for balance reasons I make it a structural part that is both light and does not affect the fuel flow. Also is it technically possible to edit the visual models already compiled for the game? I have a little experience with objects modelling in general and if the authors of the packs let us I could cut the offending parts of the engines as a temporary workaround.

Thank you!

1. Sort of. It ensures the mods have the most recent patch available to it at the time of installation. As soon as KSP Automatic Version Checker is available on CKAN, I want to add that as a recommended mod to help everyone keep track of their installation and keeping it up to date.
   
2. Very typically yes, it depends on where the mod owner hosts their downloads, and how the mod owner built the package file that tells CKAN how to install it. A lot of the mods for Realism Overhaul I had to build the package files myself, and have handed a few off to the owners of mods. We'll see how that goes, however.
   
3. I assume you're referring to AJE recommending HotRockets, and the like. I agree, it's a little annoying, but nothing gamebreaking.
   
4. It'll install them anyway, you can always opt to not install it if it's in the 'recommended' list. Or just delete it yourself later. I'm not aware of any, outside of HotRockets, that Realism Overhaul asks to install.
   
5. In-game? No, there shouldn't be. Out of game? Absolutely, hopefully managing your installation is 500 metric tonnes easier.
   

That is exactly what we want to get, and why we are (and will be for some time) working on (re-)making the engine models without the annoying "tankbutts" (lol...Didn't know that expression existed within KSP community...It describes it so perfectly! ).

RO looking like it should: Coming soon, in a launchpad near you!

On other news...

I'm also thinking about making a small java program to automatically clean-up the FTs that come with the "extra" mods...Don't know if it has already been done before...And it takes quite a while to map the dirs and files that need removing...

IIRC Felger was describing a project of his that would do this on irc a few days ago. You should ask him about that, perhaps you could combine forces

A while back I wrote a c# programm for parsing ksp config file with exactly this in mind, never came to the automation stage though, deleted everything by hand in the end...

I could finish it, maybe even add some sort of autotagging, or just send you the sources if you like.

Yeah, I have that done, just need to make a file for all the RO supported part packs to prune things, and then post it.

Hi folks!

I have installed RO yesterday (along with RSS, FASA and some other mods) and rund into troubles using RCS while building a service module for my command pod.

When I build a service module for my command pod, only the RCS thrusters build into the CM will fire. The ones put onto the SM will not.

RCS thrusters will fire ONLY if the tank on which there are placed contains the appropriate monopropellant. It seemed they need a direct connection. Because, if I put the monopropellant into radial mounted tanks instead, the thrusters will not fire.

I can reproduce this whith tanks from procedural parts and with stock tanks. Is this related to RO (or RSS) or did I mess up something?

If you don't have CrossfeedEnabler, you'll run into this problem, if you do have Crossfeed Enabler, perhaps something's not working right...

As far as the node scaling, you might need to update KW Rocketry. And delete any hotfix hacks for node size that you might have downloaded after 0.25.

Absolutely this, the node move happened in the most recent update to KW Rocketry.

Probably been asked before but how can you see if an engine is pressure fed or not? I do not have the text on mouseover.

If you're not using Engine Ignitors, you don't have to worry about it (I personally don't use Engine Ignitors, so tbh I'm not sure. I'd imagine it would say in the description of the engine.)

[ToyToy]

I solved my problem by updating RO itself. Everything is working, that's great !

[Felger]

Note to everyone, check out the new CKAN release (the newest experimental) It adds the ability to select suggested mods with the GUI, and a host of other features!

[AlmightyR]

Yeah, I have that done, just need to make a file for all the RO supported part packs to prune things, and then post it.

Can you send me a list of the files that should be removed? And/or the source for the program?

I started modeling the CECE. I love the nozzle, but It does mean the high poly is very high poly! If anyone has any plan views or technical drawings of this engine it would be much appreciated. You don't have to use it if you don't want.http://puu.sh/d5qHA/789343de40.png

Did you do (most of) those details "procedurally" somehow? I actually don't know how to, and would like to learn to do ogive shapes mathematically/procedurally (I guess using Splines + Lathe modifier?)! And I imagine there is some other modifier or method like the Lathe to do repeating(/patterned) 3D shapes around an axis/point...Maybe it's even the lathe itself, but I only know how to do basic/smooth stuff (from the tutorials on making class cups)...
You seem to have more knowledge on 3D-modelling...Mind sharing some?

Edited November 27, 2014 by AlmightyR

[Felger]

Can you send me a list of the files that should be removed? And/or the source for the program?

I plan on posting it later tonight once I have prunelists. It does the pruning by renaming files and folders so KSP doesn't load them in the first place, but keeping the data intact to make the process completely reversible. I'm working my way through FASA's fuel tanks, fairings, and thrustplates.

[Guest]

Just keep in mind that a lot of FASA is actually very useful. There are a few generics, but I'd prefer to keep the ability to built every real rocket and spacecraft that can be built now.

[AlmightyR]

Just keep in mind that a lot of FASA is actually very useful. There are a few generics, but I'd prefer to keep the ability to built every real rocket and spacecraft that can be built now.

Almost all FASA's FTs either can be done through PP or already have (very) similar models from vanilla, KSPX or RLA...While FASA's models are considerably higher-poly and not considerably visually different (sizes can be adjusted with MM patches or TweakScale)...

I agree that we should keep the more unique stuff (mostly not FTs, fairings, RCS thrusters, and the likes)...But this kind of finer selection will come with time as the community suggests and presents arguments for/against keeping or removing specific parts from specific mods...

[Felger]

Almost all FASA's FTs either can be done through PP or already have (very) similar models from vanilla, KSPX or RLA...While FASA's models are considerably higher-poly and not considerably visually different (sizes can be adjusted with MM patches or TweakScale)...

I agree that we should keep the more unique stuff (mostly not FTs, fairings, RCS thrusters, and the likes)...But this kind of finer selection will come with time as the community suggests and presents arguments for/against keeping or removing specific parts from specific mods...

And that's why the Pruning configs are completely separate from the pruner, you can change what gets pruned or not pruned to your heart's content. If someone wants to make a GUI For it, that'd be awesome too! But for the time being, you just run:

pruner -prune RO_FASA_Tanks.prnl

And it prunes everything in the prunelist (.prnl)

And to undo what you just did, you run:

pruner -unprune RO_FASA_Tanks.prnl

Inside the prunelist, you can define whole directories to be pruned, or specific files:

FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_J2.cfg
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_J2.mu
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_J2.png
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_J2Nova
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_S1B_Stage1
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_S1B_Stage1
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_SV_Stage1
FASA/Apollo/FASA_Apollo_Str/LFT_SV_Stage2
FASA/Gemini2/FASA_Agena/Agena_LFT

Do note that it's doing a simple matching to figure out what files you want pruned, so if there're several files with a similar base, say several files that all start with:

FASA/Gemini2/FASA_Gemini_LR91_Pack/Fairing

The pruner will prune every file that matches that path you select. Heck, if you just want to prune every file that has the word 'fairing' somewhere in its path you could put:

Fairing

As an entry in the file and it'll remove those suckers.

[Guest]

No matter the configurability, there has to be a default list, or the pruner won't be good for anyone but advanced users. Not everyone cares to snooping about folders and finding out what needs to be gone and what not.

Almost all FASA's FTs either can be done through PP or already have (very) similar models from vanilla, KSPX or RLA...While FASA's models are considerably higher-poly and not considerably visually different (sizes can be adjusted with MM patches or TweakScale)...

I agree that we should keep the more unique stuff (mostly not FTs, fairings, RCS thrusters, and the likes)...But this kind of finer selection will come with time as the community suggests and presents arguments for/against keeping or removing specific parts from specific mods...

Actually, my argument is that FASA tanks are necessary for FASA stages. Those are more unique, and are, in fact, historical replicas. You can throw out generic tanks, but if you want to make, say, an Atlas rocket, you'd have a hard time without FASA. Titan parts might look somewhat generic, but remember those are welded into complete stages (sans engine) and given historical data. You simply can't get this sort of accuracy with PP. Also, procedural tanks look hideous compared to FASA ones (indeed, to most other tanks). Everything that doesn't make up historical configurations can go away, though.

Another argument would be for career purposes. Off the shelf is cheaper than bespoke. IMO, this is an interesting choice for career. If you can't do with what you're provided, you have to fork over your cash. Probably a lot of cash, too. I don't like procedurals, because it seems like I'm making a bespoke LV for every payload, which is not how they do it IRL. Fitting your payloads into available fairings should IMO be a gameplay mechanic in any realistic career mode. Its particularly interesting with FASA, which would give you an option to either use a historical (off the shelf) LV or make your own, at a higher price. There are a lot of configurations for historical rockets (they were pretty modular even back in the day), and you could also try using historical stage (Centaur, most often) on an otherwise bespoke LV for costs reason.

[Felger]

No matter the configurability, there has to be a default list, or the pruner won't be good for anyone but advanced users. Not everyone cares to snooping about folders and finding out what needs to be gone and what not.

Actually, my argument is that FASA tanks are necessary for FASA stages. Those are more unique, and are, in fact, historical replicas. You can throw out generic tanks, but if you want to make, say, an Atlas rocket, you'd have a hard time without FASA. Titan parts might look somewhat generic, but remember those are welded into complete stages (sans engine) and given historical data. You simply can't get this sort of accuracy with PP. Also, procedural tanks look hideous compared to FASA ones (indeed, to most other tanks). Everything that doesn't make up historical configurations can go away, though.

Another argument would be for career purposes. Off the shelf is cheaper than bespoke. IMO, this is an interesting choice for career. If you can't do with what you're provided, you have to fork over your cash. Probably a lot of cash, too. I don't like procedurals, because it seems like I'm making a bespoke LV for every payload, which is not how they do it IRL. Fitting your payloads into available fairings should IMO be a gameplay mechanic in any realistic career mode. Its particularly interesting with FASA, which would give you an option to either use a historical (off the shelf) LV or make your own, at a higher price. There are a lot of configurations for historical rockets (they were pretty modular even back in the day), and you could also try using historical stage (Centaur, most often) on an otherwise bespoke LV for costs reason.

On the first point, absolutely. I have the prunelists done and ready to go, just working out how to package the thing.

On the second, I agree, you should bring that point up on the RP-0 discussion thread, that's a pretty cool idea and fairly easy to implement (just raise the cost density of procedural fuel tanks)