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

[Phineas Freak]

@NathanKellthe PRs are up and running. Glad you like it!

[legoclone09]

When I'm using KCT 1.3.1 and the KCT RP-0 configs whenever I finish my first ship I cannot roll it out or even view them, the KCT screen minimizes to a very small size.

I tried going to 1.3 and 1.2.3 but the same thing happens. I also have pics for it:

Edited January 15, 2016 by legoclone09

[Oromis]

Hi, so as someone else commented before, I have mass problems too (I'm talking about ksp of course! ).

It's either a miscalculation in the VAB that doesn't allow me to launch/build, or a miscalculation at the launchpad or during other moments that locks the avionics and spoils my mission. This makes building a craft near the tonnage limit or avionics limit very uncomfortable...
For example I'm now building a moon lander with 1.7t avionics and I wanna put as much fuel in it as I can: KER, Mechjeb all say it's 1.696t. The VAB shows 1.9t. When I launch it, avionics are locked because the mass is said to be 2.696t...

I usually manage to identify the faulty part that alters the mass count: I've had this happen because of parachutes (realchute), because of wings (proc wings), because of fairings (proc fairings), because of srb (you can guess) and because of fuels (realfuels). Sadly there isn't always a workaround: sometime deleting the part and recreating it fixes the mass count for the vab (I have to do this everytime i reload the craft), allowing me to launch. Sometime deleting all fuel and refueling at launchpad fixes the avionics limit. As for parachutes there is no fix: the vab part list says the cone chute is 0.2t. I add it to my lander, go to action group and adjust realchute settings, now the parachute weights 16kg. But of couse the VAB mass count sees it still as 200kg.

I think this should be a major bug to focus on. It really is game-breaking.
One question: as for physics calculation (twr, acceleration etc) is the mass read correctly? Or do my rockets lose actual deltav because of this bug?

Sorry for the long post and bad english.

tl;dr Wrong mass count, many mods involved. Really annoying.

[NathanKell]

Need waaaaaaay more info than that.

[WildFire]

Legoclone I found the error also. Its related to the parts you're using. Everytime I added a fin/wing it does that and I have to reset the default KCT config to scrap the vehicle. I'm currently uninstalling my entire mod list to take out anything not supported, BUT, it also did it with a stock ksp fin. I think part name was basicfin. So I dont know now it seems after my mod adjustment I may need to be extremely careful about what parts on putting on my craft. 

[Oromis]

3 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Need waaaaaaay more info than that.

Win10, 32bit install. RSS+RO+Rp0, playing in career. All suggested mod (except testengine) updated, installed through CKAN + MechJeb2, KER, KerbalAlarmClock,RasterPropMonitor (I didn't add any other weird mod, I really like things clean. Btw your work on RO and Rp0 is just marvelous. Terrific job, seriously. I learnt so many real life stuff).
Tell me everything you need, I'm willing to help.

[daguilera]

I have problems with contracts. If i put my rockets near the floor in early stage of launch pad, i see an error for contract like "[A4]: ground contact! - error: -0.361m" and contracts are never fulfil (A4 is the name of my rocket of course).

I put my rockets more hight to avoid this problem.

Really thanks for this and other greats mods. Nice community here!

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by daguilera

[NathanKell]

@Oromis thanks! Craft file would be best, the absolute minimum use of mod parts (and mods installed) to replicate. Ideally nothing more than the bare minimum of what RP-0 requires to run. Fair warning: I'm in crunch mode on the tutorials and I might not be able to fix it ASAP.

 

On the KCT stuff, tagging @magico13

 

daguilera: The problem is the A-4 guidance unit. Use a different guidance unit.

[magico13]

There were some additions in KCT 1.3 that the Preset doesn't have values for, but it should be using the defaults in that case. @legoclone09 posted in the KCT thread too. The error seems to be related to the Reconditioning formula somehow. I'll look into it tomorrow if I get the chance.

[NathanKell]

@magico13 thanks! <3

[Oromis]

@NathanKellHere I am, after watching the Falcon 9 launch ^^

So, first I got pictures of the bug. Here's the album: http://imgur.com/a/cSsBH
I can replicate the issue with just 1 probe and 1 parachute part. Now this surely looks like a RealChute issue regarding some mass property, but I've had it happen with other proc. parts both srb and wings*

The +1t added when launching though, that is weird. I can only replicate it sometimes, other times everything works as expected. Even with this craft, the 2nd or 3rd simulation usually runs flawlessly.
Here's the craft file, and here's my savefile. Here's my full mod list: http://imgur.com/a/6TQjt

Hope this helps.

*I'm sure about this, I encountered this problem when building the lifter for a Mars satellite, and I was very close to the 700t launchpad limit. wings and srbs drove me mad, had to constantly recreate them. I shoud also have that craft file if needed. I can report this in the realchute topic too, if you feel like it.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Oromis
tagged nath

[NathanKell]

@Oromis awesome, that helps a ton! I'll give a look when I can, though others are of course free to as well.

[Lilienthal]

Hi all,

just to let you know that the problem was gone after I installed newer versions of some of the involved mods + a more recent nvidia graphic card driver for my computer.

keep up the good work!

Oliver

 

On 21.12.2015 at 1:57 AM, Lilienthal said:

Hi,

I just installed RP V0.41, KSP105.x64, Linux Ubuntu 12.04 (it is called long-term support )

I ran into a major problem: When I installed RaiderNick's mods, I KSP wouldn't start. Instead X.org took over 100% CPU and KSP would be very slowly grinding ahead in its starting sequence. When I removed RaiderNick's mods everything was fine.

I will file a proper bug report in a few days, but just want to give this 'solution' to those of you having the same problem.  - Did anyone, BTW? 

 

 

[NathanKell]

@Lilienthal hurray! The best bugs are the bugs I don't have to fix!

[CitizenVeen]

I noticed that once you get a bit deeper into the tech tree (like down to tier4/5, although it has lots of nodes), most nodes are either empty, or filled with non RP-0 supported parts (from others mods). Even though further on, there are some RP-0 engines in nodes that require you to research nodes that are empty. Is this intended? Or did I do something wrong with my installation?
Also, what other mod would you recommand to go with further down the techtree? That add heavier or higher ISP engines? I have Aerobee installed atm.

Thank you once again!

[magico13]

@NathanKell and @legoclone09, I'm having trouble recreating that error. I'll keep trying, but if anyone else notices it as well please let me know. I thought it was purely a Preset issue so I haven't tested with a full RP-0 setup, but I'm about to try that now and I'll let you know if I figure it out.

 

E: Tested with RP-0 plus all recommended/suggested and RSS (but not RO's recommended/suggested I think). Still can't get it to happen

Edited January 19, 2016 by magico13

[Laie]

1 hour ago, CitizenVeen said:

I noticed that once you get a bit deeper into the tech tree (like down to tier4/5, although it has lots of nodes), most nodes are either empty, or filled with non RP-0 supported parts (from others mods).

That's just how it is. RP-0 is well fleshed out to about Apollo, but then it becomes pretty thin. It's work in progress, things are changing, but as of now, things can become pretty odd as you progress further. Parts become sparse and the placement can be somewhat arbitrary. I assure you that it is getting better, almost by the day.

[harlikwin]

1 hour ago, CitizenVeen said:

I noticed that once you get a bit deeper into the tech tree (like down to tier4/5, although it has lots of nodes), most nodes are either empty, or filled with non RP-0 supported parts (from others mods). Even though further on, there are some RP-0 engines in nodes that require you to research nodes that are empty. Is this intended? Or did I do something wrong with my installation?
Also, what other mod would you recommand to go with further down the techtree? That add heavier or higher ISP engines? I have Aerobee installed atm.

Thank you once again!

 

As the other poster said, its good to about Apollo era. Realistically I think there needs to be a serious "what if" focus past that. There is no human exploration of the "real" solar system beyond the moon with chemically propelled rockets. Realistically NERVA was flight ready and the basis for mars exploration for NASA in the 70's and 80's so that is IMO the logical way to go. IIRC the NERVA stage for the Saturn 5 is in RP-0. But more advanced nuclear engines need to modeled, there were some studies in the 80's updating NERVA to about 1000-1100ish ISP, and the Soviets had some stuff rated for 2000ISP on paper at least (gas core/liquid core/nuclear lightbulb). Past that you are looking at nuclear powered ion thrusters or VASMIR type engines which can get you serious ISP (with little thrust), and which will require some sort of large power source for large craft (like a nuclear reactor). There is an atomic engines mod but CKAN tells me its not compatible. There is also near future propulsion, but I'm not sure how compatible that is. And then you realistically need space stations, bases, and better life support. 

 I've run FASA, which sort-of works but isn't formally supported (again apollo era stuff mostly IIRC), and I'm currently running tantares for a more Sovietsky feel, which is even less supported as far as I can tell at least for the capsules (yay no IVA, which means no EVA). But it does have the almaz/mir space stations (haven't made it that far, but wouldn't it suck if I couldn't EVA). 

 

 

[CitizenVeen]

6 hours ago, harlikwin said:

 

As the other poster said, its good to about Apollo era. Realistically I think there needs to be a serious "what if" focus past that. There is no human exploration of the "real" solar system beyond the moon with chemically propelled rockets. 

 

Yeah thats true, human exploration pretty much halted once the space race was over. Apart from the ISS. 

I am currently more busy with trying to send probes To everywhere in the solar system. Is it possible with just RP-0 engines? Or are they more focussed on human space Travel? 

[Autochton]

9 hours ago, harlikwin said:

 

As the other poster said, its good to about Apollo era. Realistically I think there needs to be a serious "what if" focus past that.

 

I'd be inclined to steal some notes from Eyes Turned Skyward on what might become feasible when, for those who don't want to go all Space-Shuttle-y, and with a nice focus on space stations and heavy launch. That and the NASA Integrated Program Plan (which was what the NERVA was developed for IIRC?) for extraterrestrial crewed exploration, and any other plausible alternate post-Apollo spaceflight scenarios we can find. Maybe look at what might have been if Saturn/Apollo had failed and N-1-Luna succeeded? <brainstorms>

[harlikwin]

Random question.

I'm trying to build an Atlas-D like booster using the RP-0 parts (I know FASA has one). Thing is no matter what I'm doing it lacks about 1K DV in terms of velocity. I'm using an LR105 as the sustain-er, 2xLR89 as boosters that are decoupled (just the engines) after 2-3 minutes of flight.  Total height is about 23m with a 3m core with the Mercury capsule sitting on top of that. Total TWR on the ground is like 1.09 so I can't really add any more fuel.  I was using a 3m Flight computer at .85T, but then switched it out for a 1m+2m+Mercury flight computer setup which is just barely enough to control it all and saves me a tiny bit of weight. But I still come up way short when trying to get to orbit ~1k DV. Any thoughts on building/flying it?

 

 

 

[SoTOP]

2 hours ago, harlikwin said:

Random question.

I'm trying to build an Atlas-D like booster using the RP-0 parts (I know FASA has one). Thing is no matter what I'm doing it lacks about 1K DV in terms of velocity. I'm using an LR105 as the sustain-er, 2xLR89 as boosters that are decoupled (just the engines) after 2-3 minutes of flight.  Total height is about 23m with a 3m core with the Mercury capsule sitting on top of that. Total TWR on the ground is like 1.09 so I can't really add any more fuel.  I was using a 3m Flight computer at .85T, but then switched it out for a 1m+2m+Mercury flight computer setup which is just barely enough to control it all and saves me a tiny bit of weight. But I still come up way short when trying to get to orbit ~1k DV. Any thoughts on building/flying it?

Are you using balloon tanks? Because that was the reason Atlas could do without tanks staging. Your TWR at launch is very low, so with balloon tanks you would have much better chance. My Atlas-Mercury looks like this

http://imgur.com/gFUMWpT

Its a bit more compact, with LES would be about 24 meters height. Since Im not using LES, there is about 400kg of payload left, so with early LES staging it most likely would work with it too. Boosters staging at 130s. 3 baby sergeants servers as retro rockets. Also lowering ablator to ~20 is very easy way to save some mass. Wont need more unless you skip out for 2nd reentry.

Edited January 19, 2016 by SoTOP

[harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Autochton said:

I'd be inclined to steal some notes from Eyes Turned Skyward on what might become feasible when, for those who don't want to go all Space-Shuttle-y, and with a nice focus on space stations and heavy launch. That and the NASA Integrated Program Plan (which was what the NERVA was developed for IIRC?) for extraterrestrial crewed exploration, and any other plausible alternate post-Apollo spaceflight scenarios we can find. Maybe look at what might have been if Saturn/Apollo had failed and N-1-Luna succeeded? <brainstorms>

Just looked that up, and its an interesting, plausible, but also quite conservative alternate history.

Realistically I think if the soviets had managed to get circumlunar flights with Zond up before say NASA, and the N1 project didn't fail spectacularly, you could have a future with a "continuing" space race. The reality is that most of the issues with manned space flight to date have been more political than technical. The entire reason the space program was defunded after the moon landing is that the US won. IF there had been less of a victory i.e. a soviet lunar landing on the moon shortly after Apollo, and some soviet successes before that (circumlunar Zond) IMO the space "race" would have still been on. And if it was on, then I think NASA plans for heavy lift with saturn5, and the NERVA stage might have gone forward to put up space stations much more advanced than skylab in the 70's/80's. And probably moved onto lunar bases, as well as manned missions to mars using nuclear engined space craft. 

I mean its sort of fun to shoot probes at planets, but I'd say a more "advanced" tech tree should be a post-apollo focus just to give people the option of playing historically, as well as ahistorically. 

[harlikwin]

17 minutes ago, SoTOP said:

Are you using balloon tanks? Because that was the reason Atlas could do without tanks staging. Your TWR at launch is very low, so with balloon tanks you would have much better chance. My Atlas-Mercury looks like this

http://imgur.com/gFUMWpT

Its a bit more compact, with LES would be about 24 meters height. Since Im not using LES, there is about 400kg of payload left, so with early LES staging it most likely would work with it too. Boosters staging at 130s. 3 baby sergeants servers as retro rockets. Also lowering ablator to ~20 is very easy way to save some mass. Wont need more unless you skip out for 2nd reentry.

Interesting, mine looks very much like that visually but your TWR is way higher. I am not using baloon tanks, is that a procedural option? Also are you just decoupling the engines at 130s or the side tanks as well? I don't have a LES in RP-0 yet, 23m is just the tank length.  What are you using for flight control the 3M core or something else? I haven't thought about lightening up the capsule in any way yet but I'll try the ablator trick. 

Also what sort of flight profile are you using? I start the gravity turn at 100m/s then follow the ship over to about 45 degrees until my apoapsis is what I want ~150-200 and then pitch toward horizontal. 

I have a R7 style rocket that has been my goto launcher and works very well but I wanted to try this route as well. 

[NathanKell]

A 2m guidance ring should be sufficient, it supports the full mass of Atlas (that's what it's for, mostly). The real Atlas D had a sustainer mass at burnout of only ~2.6t, so if your dry mass is higher than that, that's the problem.