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

[hypervelocity]

hi guys - quick one here; I think I heard you didn't manage to place the docking ports in their correct nodes yet but the monopropellant-only port is not enough for me anymore - how would one go about assigning an existing part into a tech node? is it something rather simple to do that you could explain briefly here or should I just wait for the next RP-0 edition?

[g00bd0g]

I am still wrapping my brain around it, but the tech tree and part placement seems to be an amalgamation of these files:

• https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/blob/master/tree.yml
• tree.cfg
• CTTChanges.cfg
• CommunityTechTree.cfg
• Individual part files

 

 

[Temeter]

Are there no heat shields for interplanetary use? The lunar rated shield just instantly evaporate in venus atmosphere, which is kinda weird tbh, and I don't see anything stronger.

I mean, shouldn't the tech be there years before the moon program, looking e.g. at the venera probes? E.g. the 1970 venera 7 was even pretty over the top in terms of survivability, being able to survive much harder reentries and environments than the venus could ever deliver.

[NathanKell]

@Temeter what was your entry velocity and angle, compared to Venera's?

 

v0.44

Thanks to winged7 and Zarbizaure! With a typo fix and more to come from g00bd0g

• Fix up HSF orbital repeat contract requirements to provide good progression.
• Increase advance and reward amount for HSF lunar flyby.
• Fix a display issue regarding science cost limits and the R&D facility.
• Avionics now applied to more parts.
• Lower number of build rates (in KCT) per facility tier to 1/2/3 not 2/4/6, tweak KCT rates.
• Scale pad rollout times by pad level, so you need to trade greater capacity vs slower rollout.
• Add different size limits to the VAB vs the SPH (note there is a display-only bug in 1.0.5 where the Engineer Report displays the limits incorrectly in the SPH).
• Implement a first pass regarding LEO stations, including placement/pricing, a new node, a new experiment, and new contracts.
• Move Big Gemini back a node.
• Fix entry costs of various parts that were set incorrectly in prior pulls.
• Fix reward and logic of HSF lunar landing repeat contract.
• Move the Mars/Venus flyby contracts to Milestones.
• Add HSF crew count and crew duration records. Note: due to a Contract Configurator issue the records only apply in Earth orbit, soon they will track across SoIs.
• Add HSF lunar landing milestone contract.
• Tweak HSF Lunar Orbital repeat contract, add a new more-specific-and-harder variant.
• Fix some issues with Adjustable Landing Gear.
• Improve SCANsat integration. Contracts now integrate properly with RP-0 and the parts are better placed and priced.
• Move supersonic-class wings to Supersonic from Mature Supersonic so they can be reached right from the start (after only a single science point).
• Fix some node movement typos/oversights.
• Better place large solar panels, move the High Power Electrics node to reflect its proper place.
• Move AJ10-118K to proper place.
• Fix place/pricing of RD-0110 and RD-0124.
• Place/price Otter cockpit, VSR habitat, SXT science nose cone.
• Fix a typo in crew reports.
• Allow easy ingame hiding of Non-RP-0 parts, just create a folder in GameData called NoNonRP0 and then delete GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache then start the game
• Place/price GEM-63/63XL.
• Move AIES command parts to more appropriate places in the tree.
• Move RTG and Pioneer 10/11 antenna forward to a more appropriate node.
• Fix up NERVA entry cost and cost.
• Lower RD-270/270M prices somewhat to be more in line with other Soviet engines.
• Handle new Agena B and D clones from new RO.
• Place/price new 1/10th size RCS from new RO.
• Fix an issue with the Jumo 213E.
• Fix the starting node ID for fairing sides.
• Place/price GX-256.
• Support the VSR version of the RD-108.
• Place/price the GEnx 287 jet engine.
• Update B9 support for new parts.
• Support VSR Mk1 cargo bays in 1.25m and Mk1 formfactors.
• Replace missing rover body avionics.
• Improve Mk1 system costing.
• Support new heat-shielded proc tank from new RO.
• Place/price SXT NTRs.
• Now that RO supports TestFlight for all early engines, add TestFlight back to recommended mods.
• Add ShipManifest to CKAN's recommended mods for RP-0.
• Round sounding rocket altitudes in contracts and round altitudes/speeds in X-Plane contracts.

[g00bd0g]

how long 'till ckan gets .44?

[NathanKell]

Whoah, CKAN doesn't have anything past .39. That's bad.

[g00bd0g]

weird, I see .43 in ckan

[NathanKell]

Yeah, I do too now. I was on the wrong branch.

 

I manually added the .ckan until the bot runs again to inflate netkans. Doing the same for RO.

[winged]

Quote

Supported (to varying extents, in rough order of completeness of support)

- BobCat's Soviet Engines

- FASA

- Raidernick's mods

- Universal Storage

- DMagic's Orbital Science

- AIES (engines, mainly)

- Mk2 Lightning Cockpit

- B9 Aerospace

- Space Shuttle

- KAS/KIS

- Infernal Robotics

@NathanKell I would like to notice that you're still missing at least a couple of fully supported mods compared to my list:

- Habitat Pack (Bigelow habitats)

-StarShine Merlin (Merlin 1C, D, FT, Vacuum, Vacuum FT)

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by winged

[NathanKell]

Fixed.

[Temeter]

4 hours ago, NathanKell said:

@Temeter what was your entry velocity and angle, compared to Venera's?

No clue about venera, I've went for a supergeneric planetary transfer, I think it was just the lowest d/v in transfer planner/mechjeb. 14 km/s, tried different periapsis, but the heatshields just exploded in no time before even being able to slow down the craft. Is there a way to transfer with lower entry speeds?

Also thanks for the updates, always lovely to see!

Edited March 9, 2016 by Temeter

[NathanKell]

@Temeter : What was the "show info" name of the heat shield? (Right-click on the shield in the part list in the VAB, see what it says under Show Info). So you entered at about 14km/sec?

[Temeter]

7 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@Temeter : What was the "show info" name of the heat shield? (Right-click on the shield in the part list in the VAB, see what it says under Show Info). So you entered at about 14km/sec?

'HeatShield1', I think it's pretty much a copy of the stock heatshield in 2m format. It's only lunar-rated, but I couldn't find anything better.

Reentry was at 14km/sec, yeah. Tried different periapsis, 120km didn't do much but heat the shield, i think 110km was possible, but it didn't slowdown the craft in any way, 100km was suicide.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Temeter

[NathanKell]

Ok, that sounds right. How heavy was the spacecraft entirely? We might have to bump up the pyrolysis, but it depends on the ballistic coefficient I guess. For a 2m shield going into Venus I'd expect no more than like 100kg of probe (and then 250kg of shield, so 350kg total)

[Temeter]

38 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

Ok, that sounds right. How heavy was the spacecraft entirely? We might have to bump up the pyrolysis, but it depends on the ballistic coefficient I guess. For a 2m shield going into Venus I'd expect no more than like 100kg of probe (and then 250kg of shield, so 350kg total)

Yeah, I've just thought about ballistic coefficient and stuff. How does 1.4 tons sound? :>

Thing is, I didn't really want to put down a lander, but to try out aerobreaking, never did it before in RSS. So is aerobreaking even possible?

edit: Tested a bit more, 560kg after dropping fuel and correction stage. As you said, doesn't work. Man, now i'd really like me some 10m inflatable heatshield. Although that's probably more for thin atmospheres.

Really didn't consider the ballistic coefficient at the beginning. Without it, the heating felt kinda arbitrary.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Temeter

[NathanKell]

Try a 3m shield then, but remove some of the ablator? I believe I used a 1m shield with an octo 2, that worked for me.

[Temeter]

13 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Try a 3m shield then, but remove some of the ablator? I believe I used a 1m shield with an octo 2, that worked for me.

Yeah, big heatshields, less ablator is the next thing I want to try.

My interplanetary probe campaign is coming to a close, after another jupiter mission, next one is unmanned mars landing (+trying those sexy advanced AJ10's). Gonna experiment after that with more reentry'ing. Thanks for your help, that gives me a whole bunch of ideas to experiment with!

edit: Yeah, seems like I was also forgetting what kind of eve-alike atmosphere venus has. Reentered a 1.1 ton mars lander with a 3m shield at 60km PE, and it took like 3 points of the ablator. Didn't even get to see reentry effects.

Seems like aerobreaking my mars mission is still on the table. :3

Jupiter aerobreaking doesn't seem to be viable either, tho. Oh well, assuming my program continues at this speed I'm getting warp drives around 2001 anyway.~

Edited March 9, 2016 by Temeter

[Warp11]

17 hours ago, NathanKell said:

 

• Allow easy ingame hiding of Non-RP-0 parts, just create a folder in GameData called NoNonRP0 and then delete GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache then start the game

Thanks, thats great! Does it take them out of the loading to save some RAM as well or is there a way to do that?

[panourgue]

Hi everyone, my apologies but I have to bother you guys again. Please do not read the next paragraph (just skip it).

First I would like to say that I have not enjoyed any game nearly so much as I do RP-0 right now in a very long time. Learning again the right ascent path, accounting for every kilogram, every meter per second. It's just so, I don't know, sometimes even overwhelming. And this feeling of accomplishment for reaching an orbit for the first time on an early Vanguard rocket after hours of simulations and lots of vehicle iterations. I know it's stupid and wrong, and it can't compare even close to the real life, but I feel kind of connected to early rocket pioneers. Like I better understand their struggle to reach "the black yonder". Yeah, I said it's stupid. I'm so very very grateful for every developer and modder that made this possible. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Just had to let it out. In an atrocious English no less. Yeah.

So. I finally reached the Moon and noticed that RT is not working correctly ie controls of the vehicle bypass RT completely: no delays, no blackouts when there is "no connection". By controls I mean rotational RCS and engine fireing/stopping (wasd and zx keys). At first I thought it's just some intallation or update process gone wrong. 
I decided to test this theory, so I reinstalled ksp and via ckan, installed rp0 (plus it's required and recommended mods) and remotetech, created new sandbox save, by cheating put an early small and slim probe, rcs thrusters and 1Kn engine in Kerbin (no RSS) orbit. No luck - problem remained. 
Next I removed Mechjeb and two MM config files associated with it (one in RT directory, another somewhere in RO folders). Clean save, same 1Kn engine and RCS thrusters. It got better this time: no controls over RCS when there is no connection (even pitch, roll, yaw indicators don't move), but I can still fire and stop this bloody engine.
Next obvious step (for me, I mean. I have only very rough idea about how Unity and KSP mods work) is to remove every single mod and MM config that could affect this behavior one at a time, or try other engines. But even if I do that, it does not solve the problem with MJ, which I'm guessing is not at fault here.

So. What do I do? I'm holding my fingers crossed for an answer like "pfft, another one of those noobs. Jeez. Just do this and that and viola!".
P.S. I'm gonna get an answer in those exact word, won't I?

Also I had no idea where to put this post since my problem in question is about compatibility of different mods. At least I think it is.

 

[NathanKell]

@panourgue it's so awesome you're enjoying it so much!

Regarding the issue you found--are you on linux? I recall there is/was some issue about linux immediately applying RCS commands rather them going through remotetech. Not having a linux install myself I haven't encountered it. I'd suggest asking on the RT thread as well?

(I thought that issue got fixed, to be honest...but I guess not?)

[panourgue]

25 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@panourgue Regarding the issue you found--are you on linux? I recall there is/was some issue about linux immediately applying RCS commands rather them going through remotetech.

No linux. Your average win7. 32 bit KSP.

I don't understand why removing Mechjeb solved part of the problem. One of those configs I mentioned added or edited some sort of new module in vessel part, but I don't remember what it was called (stu or mtu package or something) I'm not near pc. Maybe it was doing something.

But my main question is: why is it working for everyone just fine, but not for me? 

Just what would you do in my situation? I usually fix this kind of stuff myself, I don't mind looking deep under the hood so to speak. But heavily modded KSP take so. bloody. long. to. load so I kinda need advice as to what to try next. Thanks.

Edited March 9, 2016 by panourgue

[John FX]

So I updated to the latest RP-0 (really enjoying playing it BTW) and when I saved I had a craft on the launchpad to do a moon flyby, a mission it was perfectly capable of.

Now suddenly it won`t get to orbit. That puzzled me and I noticed the second stage was cutting out early. I thought that was odd as I checked everything, especially burn times, before build.

It seems the lr-79 has had it`s rated burn time reduced on all except the 13 model, which has the burn time I need...

Well, that`s the dice as they say.

To my question.

Is there a way of checking the required tech needed to unlock a new variant of an engine?

[NathanKell]

@panourgue That's very weird then. I've never heard of that issue before on Windows. You are correct that MechJeb's own controls don't use signal delay, and may not even be locked out when you don't have a connection (I don't recall that), but manually actuating RCS should be dependent on signal delay and connection availability. I would suggest stripping down to just RSS itself and RemoteTech and see if the problem persists; then add back RO and its required mods, and check again; then add RP-0 and its required mods; and then finally add the recommendeds from RO and RP-0.

 

@John FX: Yeah, the versions prior to -13 were for the original Thor and Jupiter, so had 2m45s burn times. When did we have them with higher rated burn times? Also...wait, you're using LR79 as a *second* stage? :]

If you mouse over a locked config in the Engine GUI (i.e. where you change configs), the tooltip will state which tech node is required to unlock it.

[John FX]

30 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

 

@John FX: Yeah, the versions prior to -13 were for the original Thor and Jupiter, so had 2m45s burn times. When did we have them with higher rated burn times? Also...wait, you're using LR79 as a *second* stage? :]

If you mouse over a locked config in the Engine GUI (i.e. where you change configs), the tooltip will state which tech node is required to unlock it.

Yup, stage 2 had around 7000Dv and a good thrust. I would have used a 108 but it has no bottom node...

What? Fuel is cheaper than better engines...

I sort my engines and everything else by weight and so I just look from the bottom and pick the first part that does what I need, which in this case due to a lack of engine variety was the LR-79-NA-11

IIRC the 11 variant had a burn time around 180s, marginally better than the 165s of the other variants (except the 13 which is 260s) so I set the stage to burn for 189 seconds but it was cutting out around 170 leaving me nearly 1000Dv short. TWR 1.71-14.32...

I`ve redesigned the craft to cut the burn down to 168.3 seconds giving me 6661 Dv (Vac) on my second stage. First stage now has 3285Dv (Atm) and is good for getting an Ap of around 200km with a time to Ap of about 2 minutes. Then stage 3 has 3100Dv for a lunar flyby with 5 aerobees in 3 stages (2:2:1 with ullage for each) which gives me some control and allows me to refine my trajectory a little.

Edited March 9, 2016 by John FX

[NathanKell]

@John FX: Ah, ok. If you have a cite on the MB-3-II burn time I'd love to see it--all the info I can find points to a slightly shorter burn time than the LR79-NA-9 (since the thrust was uprated but not stage stretch was done). However, since the engine was unlikely to be rated for a lower burn time than the -9, I used the -9's value.

Also, heh, that sounds like you just made a very early version of Saturn (i.e. the one with the clustered Jupiter stages as a second stage).