[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.53 June 12

[mecki]

The size of a RealChute casing has no effect on how large or small the actual parachute can be or is. It's just a case.

Thanks!

that's what I thought, thanks for clarifying.

there are stack chutes and there are cone chutes. The latter could use a smaller housing for RP-0 in my opinion. The stack chutes would also be neat in a smaller size but it seems they only get unlocked after the "sounding rockets" period.

anyone else having Tweakscale modules on the Squad chutes?

before action groups become available the squad chutes also have a "previous size" and "next size" button on right click but they don't change the size of the case for me…

do the chutes also auto-scale before pressing "apply"? (In early careers)

I guess Real chutes could really do with a wiki or a small tutorial…

It would also be great to have a small paragraph about recommended settings for RP-0 (not only the career settings but also DRE, RC, KCT, etc.)

and a Bug report / feature request: no matter where you locate your launch site, the contracts for doing science at specific sites always spawn near the Cape. Would there be a way to optimize that? To make them appear near the currently chosen launch site…

Edited January 23, 2015 by mecki

[Bender222]

@mecki: you probably already know this, but others reading this may not, so I think it's a good time for Real Chutes 101:

First, enter the VAB, pick a real chute and place it anywhere.

In the top left corner you have the button to switch to the "action groups" mode. Click it.

Now click the parachute you have placed in the VAB. This should open a big Real Chute menu on the left side of the screen.

There is plenty of options you could tweak manually, but for now it should be sufficient to scroll down and click "apply". This will automatically adjust the size of the chute to the mass of your payload and your desired landing speed.

Actually, I think we need to add a tutorial on such things to the wiki, might do it myself over the weekend.

with .90 you need an upgraded Vab just to use action group menu. By the time you have the money to upgrade it once you probably have access to larger diameter cores. that is of course If you don't use the modified assemblyfile (thanks Nathan)

I agree that a .3m stacks chute (with proper node and not an invisible gap between parts) would be awesome. Possibly make the stack chute start at .3m so it is not even required to use action groups on those early sounding rockets.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Bender222

[Hattivat]

Ah, yes, I'm also using that assemblyfile, forgot what it's like without it.

[mecki]

Ah, yes, I'm also using that assemblyfile, forgot what it's like without it.

What "assemblyfile" is it you're talking about?

So you would prefer smaller stack chutes over smaller radial / cone chutes?

[NathanKell]

The one that can't be distributed on the forums because it breaks an addon rule.

But, as it turns out, Action Groups Extended will enable switching to Action Editor Mode even with the sucky stupid hardcoding Squad was too lazy/busy/whatever to not do in .90.

[Bender222]

what he says is true. Usually when I finish my first I have 50 science and 35 more after my second. Try using the science alert mod to help you not miss any biomes.

- - - Updated - - -

What "assemblyfile" is it you're talking about?

So you would prefer smaller stack chutes over smaller radial / cone chutes?

I would prefer a smadeffault sized stack chute that matches the avionics core. Later when you have acces to the action groups you could then enlarge it just like the others.

[mecki]

I would prefer a smadeffault sized stack chute that matches the avionics core. Later when you have acces to the action groups you could then enlarge it just like the others.

But would that be realistic?

I don't know much about those historic details and the evolution of Parachutes in Spaceflight…

Then the Stack chute could either become available earlier or a new part gets introduced (small .3 stack case with small silk parachute)…

--- Update ---

Does anyone know if the locations of the area-specific contracts could be changed to the current launch site?

Does anyone know how and if tech requirements could be set to RealChutes sizes? I don't know if the game / the way RealChute is built even allowed this.

A techrequired attribute would have to be added to the SIZE node…

And: How to fix the changes Vens Stock Revamp introduced with it's 1.7 update, especially to the Mk1-2 Pod?

Thanks!

Edited January 24, 2015 by mecki

[romanasul]

Nathan i'm curious, in your Thor Able design what procedural fairing do you use to connect the able second stage to the solid third stage. All the procedural fairings I can see have a base ring and none of them go well with a fillet cylinder procedural tank.

[mecki]

according to stupid_chris TweakScale does not touch the canopy size of RealChute chutes:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57988-0-90-x-Wenkel-Corporation-RealChute-Parachute-Systems-v1-2-6-3-28-12-14?p=1691541&viewfull=1#post1691541

So no smaller Real Chutes casings needed?

[NathanKell]

mecki: What he said was it did not change canopy size. What he did *not* say was that it did anything *good*--it and RealChute would clash over mass. Once again, TweakScale must not be used on RealChute parts.

romanasul, welcome to the forums! I clipped a cubic strut upwards on the base of the (tall) fairing base and then attached the tank to the strut's top node (inside the fairing) and thus hid the fairing base ring. In .90, that could just be done with the offset tool.

[jonassm]

Hey guys. Im trying to download RP with CKAN, however, "Go to changes" is greyed out. Whats going on? Do the files on CKAN need to be updated or something?

[jonassm]

I can't seem to install this over CKAN. Whats going on? Using latest version.

EDIT: Didnt see my first post has to be approved first. hence the double post, sorry about that.

Edited January 26, 2015 by jonassm

[chrisl]

Is there a reason that the sounding rocket doesn't count towards the "Kerbin World-Firsts Record-Keeping Society" contract, "Achieve an altitude of 5000"? Is that a glitch or intentional?

[mecki]

Is there a reason that the sounding rocket doesn't count towards the "Kerbin World-Firsts Record-Keeping Society" contract, "Achieve an altitude of 5000"? Is that a glitch or intentional?

glitch: That one is only for manned missions and shouldn't be visible until later in the career…

[NathanKell]

mecki: rather, the issue is that like ~so~ much in KSP it is hardcoded and thus I will have to hide it and create our own.

[romanasul]

Thanks for the warm welcome, I haven't played KSP since 0.23 so i'm still getting used to the new features.

[chrisl]

mecki: rather, the issue is that like ~so~ much in KSP it is hardcoded and thus I will have to hide it and create our own.

Gotcha. It's actually not displaying any longer and doesn't appear in my archives as a failed contract. So not really sure where it went to.

During the early, sounding rocket stages, how do you get the rocket back when doing the "Sounding Rocket Record: 160,000m" mission? I'm running out of funds with the only available contracts being that one (which is active) and and two wanting me to orbit Kerbin. I can get a rocket up to 160km, but it burns up (or at least the chutes burn up) on reentry and since there is basically no attitude control at this early stage, I can't even use the procedural heat shield (which I'm not even sure you're supposed to have this early).

[ZaPPPa]

I have found a method that works fairly well for returning sounding rockets from high altitudes. This is with FAR, DR and RealChutes and ActionGroupsExtended

Stick a RealChute on the rocket and set it to pre-deploy at 6m^2@55000m and to fully deploy at 25m^2@1500m (mass being below 1t). At 55K altitude the chute can pre-deploy without ripping apart and slow the rocket down enough so it does not burn up in the lower, thicker atmosphere. It is a little gamey, but I consider it a drogue chute before it fully deploys at lower altitude.

[NathanKell]

Sounding rocket contracts do not require recovery and should pay well enough that you can do them without getting any recovery bonus.

[Chatz]

I've just started RP-0 and I've been struggling a bit for science. Reading this thread I noticed that I have missed out on other biomes. I am still at the sounding rocket stage and I launch from Cape Canaveral. To keep my rockets going straight I have an initial SRB stage with TWR around 4 and then a liquid fuel stage. This works pretty well to get very high altitude but I always stay within the Highlands biome.

I modified my craft to point 5 degrees east at the launch (This is the minimum rotation possible as far as I can tell). The craft goes about 100km east from the launch point, hits an apoapsis of maybe 25km but eventually tips over and lands in the water, but I never leave the Highlands biome. Am I doing something wrong with my launch? Are my biomes messed up somehow?

[chrisl]

Sounding rocket contracts do not require recovery and should pay well enough that you can do them without getting any recovery bonus.

I'm getting roughly half again the cost of the rocket, so yeah, I could let the rocket burn up and I'd still be ahead. But when you barely have enough roots left to launch the sounding rocket, wasting that 1500 isn't wise. Especially when I'm getting so few contract options just now.

I have found a method that works fairly well for returning sounding rockets from high altitudes. This is with FAR, DR and RealChutes and ActionGroupsExtended

Stick a RealChute on the rocket and set it to pre-deploy at 6m^2@55000m and to fully deploy at 25m^2@1500m (mass being below 1t). At 55K altitude the chute can pre-deploy without ripping apart and slow the rocket down enough so it does not burn up in the lower, thicker atmosphere. It is a little gamey, but I consider it a drogue chute before it fully deploys at lower altitude.

I'm using NEAR instead of FAR, DR and RealChutes. I'll have to look for ActionGroupsExtended (I have ActionGroupManager) because I don't seem to have the ability to alter the pre-deploy and deploy values. Or maybe I've just been looking in the wrong place. Either way, I'll give that a try and see if it helps any. Thanks for the suggestion.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not exactly sure if this is because of RP-0 or not but all of a sudden I've noticed that I'm getting the "Launch a new vessel" contract every time I enter the game. My archives show I've completed that contract twice now and I just had it come up again. Not really complaining since it's 3800 roots and I'm in need of roots right now, but wanted to report it somewhere just in case it's some conflict with RP-0.

[undercoveryankee]

according to stupid_chris TweakScale does not touch the canopy size of RealChute chutes:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57988-0-90-x-Wenkel-Corporation-RealChute-Parachute-Systems-v1-2-6-3-28-12-14?p=1691541&viewfull=1#post1691541

So no smaller Real Chutes casings needed?

mecki: What he said was it did not change canopy size. What he did *not* say was that it did anything *good*--it and RealChute would clash over mass. Once again, TweakScale must not be used on RealChute parts.

If you need a smaller casing size than the smallest RealChute allows you to set, you'll need to modify the list of available casing sizes in the appropriate RealChute module. Which I don't remember being that hard, honestly.

[BevoLJ]

I'm getting roughly half again the cost of the rocket, so yeah, I could let the rocket burn up and I'd still be ahead. But when you barely have enough roots left to launch the sounding rocket, wasting that 1500 isn't wise. Especially when I'm getting so few contract options just now.

I'm not exactly sure if this is because of RP-0 or not but all of a sudden I've noticed that I'm getting the "Launch a new vessel" contract every time I enter the game. My archives show I've completed that contract twice now and I just had it come up again. Not really complaining since it's 3800 roots and I'm in need of roots right now, but wanted to report it somewhere just in case it's some conflict with RP-0.

My sounding rockets only cost 200-300, and even used some that only cost 50. Are you using like a Vanguard Rocket for your early soundings? My Vanguard I used for my first orbit mission was about 1500, but 1500 sounds very expensive for a sounding rocket.

[NathanKell]

Chatz: You can use the rotation gizmo, or Part Angle Display, for finer rotation. Regarding Highlands, though, that sounds like a biome issue. Do you have CustomBiomes installed? I recall there was a bug in a prior CKAN client (if you installed via CKAN) so you might need to check that out.

chrisl: Things are really, really not set up for NEAR, and in particular your reentries will be much, much harder than if you have FAR. I'd very much recommend switching to FAR.

The 'Launch new vehicle' thing I've seen before, it does look like a bug. Also, they're not roots, they're kilobucks (1 fund = $1000USD in 1965-year dollars).

[chrisl]

My sounding rockets only cost 200-300, and even used some that only cost 50. Are you using like a Vanguard Rocket for your early soundings? My Vanguard I used for my first orbit mission was about 1500, but 1500 sounds very expensive for a sounding rocket.

I've been using a double layered fairing as heat shields, and all my sounding rockets have scientific equpment since I'm still gathering all the science around the KSC area (using the 10x Kerbal mod instead of RSS). I've also been adding the Explorer Probe Core because my rockets are ending up more than 200km from KSC (also using RemoteTech). And yes, I have been using the Vanguard X-405 engine though I keep thinking I should go back to the procedural SRB since I have more control over TWR with that. Altogether I'm spending just shy of 1500 kilobucks (I figured "roots" cause of the square root symbol).

chrisl: Things are really, really not set up for NEAR, and in particular your reentries will be much, much harder than if you have FAR. I'd very much recommend switching to FAR.

The 'Launch new vehicle' thing I've seen before, it does look like a bug. Also, they're not roots, they're kilobucks (1 fund = $1000USD in 1965-year dollars).

I had thought NEAR was just a toned down version of FAR since all the extra data in FAR is a bit overwhelming but I'll give it a try.

@Zapppa: I tried the parachute thing but it doesn't work for me. I can't seem to select 55000m pre-deployment (slider only goes up to 20000) and when I did try to predeploy, they got ripped out cause I'm moving too fast. Which is about what I expected to happen but figured I'd at least try.