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

[Lilienthal]

Science data

not the grandest of possible contributions, but just to let you know that I created a list of science values for the various bodies in the RP-0 wiki. - Might also give inspiration to people to propose values for more bodies.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/Science

Also, improvements to the Layout are welcome

PS: If you want to give my otherwise much less worthwhile live some meaning, you are welcome to add reputation points .

Edited October 11, 2015 by Lilienthal

[winged]

Science data

I created a list of science values for the various bodies in the RP-0 wiki. - Might also give inspiration to people to propose values for more bodies.

We don't have any data for Mercury and outer planets? So I will get 0 science points for (for example) Callisto flyby?

[Lilienthal]

We don't have any data for Mercury and outer planets? So I will get 0 science points for (for example) Callisto flyby?

tbh, I have no idea what happens when you do that. But I shall write a new version of this file and create a pull request.

Edit: I put in some proposals in the wiki and in the github "issues".

Edited October 11, 2015 by Lilienthal

[NathanKell]

Warp11:

Thanks!

For the LES, replace your existing file with this one (click raw to download): https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/FASA/RO_FASA_Mercury_Pod.cfg

For the contracts, I'm not really sure what you'd edit--some of the persistent variables that Contract Configurator reads/writes may be borked. Do you have any backups from earlier in the career?

Lilienthal: Awesome!

As to reports, they're only flavor text; experiments run fine (and generate science) whether there's local report text or not.

[Warp11]

Warp11:

For the contracts, I'm not really sure what you'd edit--some of the persistent variables that Contract Configurator reads/writes may be borked. Do you have any backups from earlier in the career?

I got one that is quite early in the career, before I had a satelite in orbit. Is that too early?

Anyway, I uploaded the current save file (persistent) and the old one (quicksave #2) here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8lqvje1c55exw54/AABKM06IITrMXNmblYoOKBzya?dl=0dd

Also, I just realized that I don't actually have FASA installed. So the fix you provided is probably not for the right part? What I got is the first LES you get in the basic capsules node together with the Mk1 Pod (it still doesn't have a decoupler)

Edited October 12, 2015 by Warp11

[NathanKell]

What I meant was, can you resume from the backup?

I neither have the experience with the contract system's persistence data, nor sadly the time, to try to perform surgery on your save myself.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I'll check those out. Felgrrrr

[Warp11]

What I meant was, can you resume from the backup?

I neither have the experience with the contract system's persistence data, nor sadly the time, to try to perform surgery on your save myself.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I'll check those out. Felgrrrr

Ok, no problem. I'll prob just keep playing or try to copy the contracts into the save or sth.

Thank you

[chrisl]

This is not an RP-0 issue but I'm hoping someone on this thread might at least be able to point me in the right direction. I know there is a memory leak in the stock game. And I am using the -force-openGL. And I also know that ATM might lower my memory footprint slightly. The last several days, though, I've been having a ton of issues playing KSP. The game loads to the front page using 2.6GB of RAM which isn't horrible considering the number of mods I have installed. But when I load my game, just getting to KSC brings that up to 3.0GB. I can usually load one craft which brings my RAM usage up to around 3.3GB. Trying to switch to a second craft or just going back to KSC or the VAB will then usually result in a crash to desktop. If it's not obviously, I'm using the 32bit Windows client.

As I said, I know all about the leak and the general solutions for reducing the games memory footprint. What I'd like to know is, does the number of active vessels have an impact on the memory usage? In my game, any satellite I put up that I couldn't legitimately de-orbit, I've left so at the present time I have 64 active flights listed. Could all these "active" flights be eating up my RAM?

[chrisl]

Got questions about how TACLS has been setup in RO. Specifically where the FASA Gemini and FASA Apollo CSM are concerned (though FASA Mercury and FASA LM may be relevant as well... just haven't tested those).

Should the CO2 scrubber on the Gemini and CM be able to clean out all (or even most) of the CO2 generated by a full crew?

Should the LOX-O2 be generating enough O2 to keep the cabin O2 effectively maxed?

Should the fuel cell be generating enough electricity to keep the CSM fully powered?

[Warp11]

chrisl: I am having the same issue, it would be nice to know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

[chrisl]

chrisl: I am having the same issue, it would be nice to know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Active flights must have some kind of impact on ram footprint. I removed all the "surplus" flights I still had in orbits. Just left my two comm networks, a couple satellites around the Moon, Mars and Venus, and most of my interstellar/heliocentric satellites. I'm down to 29 active flights and getting from the main menu to KSC now only brings me up to 2.64GB. So either active flights take up RAM or one of my active flights had a major RAM footprint. I hate turning satellites to "debris" without legitimately being able to de-orbit them (feels a bit like cheating to me) but if that's what it takes to keep my RAM footprint at a playable level, I'll just have to live with it until 1.1 is released.

[chrisl]

Got questions about how TACLS has been setup in RO. Specifically where the FASA Gemini and FASA Apollo CSM are concerned (though FASA Mercury and FASA LM may be relevant as well... just haven't tested those).

Should the CO2 scrubber on the Gemini and CM be able to clean out all (or even most) of the CO2 generated by a full crew?

Should the LOX-O2 be generating enough O2 to keep the cabin O2 effectively maxed?

Should the fuel cell be generating enough electricity to keep the CSM fully powered?

Basically I'm asking about this because I am noticing three things.

1) 3 Kerbals produce 1534.464 CO2/day (0.00592 * 3 * 60 * 60 * 24). The CO2 Scrubber on the Apollo CM, even when you stay focused on the craft, removes 1527.001632 CO2/day which is only 99.5%. Discounting system errors, that should still give you 100 days worth of CO2 "capacity" before you run into issues, so maybe that one is fine. But I wanted to make sure that the scrubber really was supposed to have less then a 100% efficiency. Mainly because having less then 100% (or even just 100%) means you can never really reduce the amount of CO2 that has built up which we know (from Apollo 13) isn't accurate.

2) 3 Kerbals use 1775.52 O2/day (0.00685 * 3 * 60 * 60 * 24). The LOX-O2 generator produces 1784.1062592 O2/day which is actually 0.48% more O2 than is used. Between the fuel cell and the LOX-O2 generator (which both need LOX), we need 20.36906784 LqdOxygen/day. Plus however much boils off each day. The Apollo SM only comes with 265 units of LqdOxygen which is just over 13 days worth (again, not including what will be lost due to boil off). The Apollo CM has room for 14days worth of food and water but only has 14.5 days worth of O2 and that excludes the boil off losses. Shouldn't the CSM come with a bit more LOX for emergencies?

3) As far as I can tell, the CSM uses 238,118.4EC/day (antenna, command, lights, CO2 scrubber and LOX-O2 generator). The Fuel Cell produces 190,080 EC/day. Which means we use 48,038.4 EC/day more than we can generate. Assuming you launch with full EC, you have 100,800 EC in batteries. Meaning there is only about 2 days worth of electrical power available on the CSM. You could turn off the antenna (which is about 27.2% of the power) at which point the fuel cell produces plenty of power to keep the batteries charged. But wasn't the antenna left running all the time? Shouldn't the fuel cell be able to handle leaving the antenna running for the duration of the flight?

[Wobulator]

I have two questions. Hopefully they arent repeats; I couldn't find either in this thread or on Google.

Launchpad Refurbishing often takes longer than actually building the rocket. Is there any way to speed this up with Kerbal Construction Time? Upgrades seem to make the rocket build faster, but not the launchpad regenerate faster.

Lunar returns: Every heatshield is expressly marked "not for lunar returns". However there are contracts such as crewed lunar orbit. Do I put multiple heat shields over each other?

Thanks

[winged]

Lunar rated heatshields are in General construction node.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/blob/master/tree.yml

[Wobulator]

Lunar rated heatshields are in General construction node.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/blob/master/tree.yml

Facepalm. Thank you!

[chrisl]

Also just noticed, the Apollo CM RCS thrusters seem to use a lot of fuel. I just did a reentry. Normally when I do a reentry, I turn on Descent mode and SAS and with the Mercury and Gemini capsules, there was enough RCS fuel to get me down without issue. But with the Apollo I used up all the RCS fuel while I was still over 70km up. Still managed to land fine but the capsule turned sideways which I think resulting in high G's for the reentry (maxed at 5.8 which was higher then my Gemini capsule sustained).

[Rothank]

Shouldn't you be doing reentries WITHOUT any control? Capsule should orient itself correctly as soon as you start entering the atmosphere, as long as it is pointed more or less retrograde.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Rothank

[Lilienthal]

Shouldn't you be doing reentries WITHOUT any control? Capsule should orient itself correctly as soon as you start entering the atmosphere, as long as it is pointed more or less retrograde.

Actually no. By rotating the capsule you can determine how much lift the capsule generates and thereby adjusting the steepness of the entry. - This only works of course if the Centre of Mass is not in the center of lift. This happens for may capsules if you switch on landing mode. (In reality this setting does not exist. It's just in the game to make our live simpler. More realism would be to always leave it on.)

chrisl: you can save a lot of RCS fuel by switching of SAS and just use rotation controls.

[chrisl]

Shouldn't you be doing reentries WITHOUT any control? Capsule should orient itself correctly as soon as you start entering the atmosphere, as long as it is pointed more or less retrograde.

No clue. I thought the onboard guidance (in game terms, the SAS and RCS) kept them angled properly to take full advantage of the lifting body design and to keep the astronaughts facing the sky. If I don't have attitude control during reentry, the capsule does aim more or less in the correct direction, but it tends to roll resulting in slightly higher Gs during reentry and leaving the kerbals either laying on their sides or face down. The extra Gs hasn't been enough to be a concern so far and I know the position a Kerbal is laying during maneuvers isn't actually relevant. But I play RO for the realism and it just doesn't seem realistic that the Apollo CM should be coming in sideways (from the crews perspective)

Actually no. By rotating the capsule you can determine how much lift the capsule generates and thereby adjusting the steepness of the entry. - This only works of course if the Centre of Mass is not in the center of lift. This happens for may capsules if you switch on landing mode. (In reality this setting does not exist. It's just in the game to make our live simpler. More realism would be to always leave it on.)

chrisl: you can save a lot of RCS fuel by switching of SAS and just use rotation controls.

That would be great but the power of the RCS thrusters on the Apollo means that even a light tap to adjust roll usually results in a hard roll in the opposite direction. So without SAS on, I end up using even more RCS fuel. And I've tried using Capslock to get finer control but then the thrusters don't seem to have enough power to correct the rolling.

Edited October 15, 2015 by chrisl

[chrisl]

Not sure if this is a RP-0, RO or maybe even RealChutes issue. If I place a radially mounted RealChute, it costs around 145. But if I then go and try to change the size or even just adjust the predeployment altitude, the costs shoots up to 750+.

[federicoaa]

It looks like the price is updated based on your setup. Remember they are procedural.

[chrisl]

It looks like the price is updated based on your setup. Remember they are procedural.

Yeah, but 5x the cost seems a bit excessive.

[chrisl]

I know comm ranges have been posted about numerous times but I think I'm having an issue. I've got a satellite that is heading towards Jupiter. It's equipped with a KR7 which has a 200Gm range and is set to target Earth. When I sent up this satellite, I think the Deep Space Network on Earth was set to 500Gm though I thought it had since been increased to 1000Gm. Either way, I also have 4 satellites in Geostationary orbit around Earth. Each satellite has a KR14 with a 1000Gm range set to target "Active Vessel" plus a bunch of Omni antenna.

I'm focused on my Jupiter satellite which is 689.8Gm from Earth but I've got "No Connection". What's going on?

[Ascraeus]

Not sure if this is a RP-0, RO or maybe even RealChutes issue. If I place a radially mounted RealChute, it costs around 145. But if I then go and try to change the size or even just adjust the predeployment altitude, the costs shoots up to 750+.

Now that you're talking about RealChutes costs, aren't they in overall a bit overpriced? I'm talking on top of my head now, but i remember building my first sounding rocket and the chute was like 80%+ the cost of the whole rocket. I guess the small sizes could be a bit cheaper, not sure how it'll affect on larger ones and balance on mid-game.

Just my two cents

[Lilienthal]

I know comm ranges have been posted about numerous times but I think I'm having an issue. I've got a satellite that is heading towards Jupiter. It's equipped with a KR7 which has a 200Gm range and is set to target Earth. When I sent up this satellite, I think the Deep Space Network on Earth was set to 500Gm though I thought it had since been increased to 1000Gm. Either way, I also have 4 satellites in Geostationary orbit around Earth. Each satellite has a KR14 with a 1000Gm range set to target "Active Vessel" plus a bunch of Omni antenna.

I'm focused on my Jupiter satellite which is 689.8Gm from Earth but I've got "No Connection". What's going on?

IIRC, the formula is r_total=r_low+sqrt(r_low r_high), or 200+square root (200*1000) = 647 (Gm) - So why should you have a connection?