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

[NathanKell]

pjf: mwahaha!

[NathanKell]

Yeah, I've used the octo2 (first) which can control 0.2 tons with 3.0 EC/min. After upgrading RP-0, the octo2 was way too small, so I've added a Able/Delta Avionics Package, which still is quite small, but uses 60 EC/min to control 8 tons of mass. What made me suspicious, is that the even larger ones for 12 tons (Agena Avionics & Agena D) again have just a power consumption of 15. But these are way to oversized (dimensions and power) for my satellite. While the smaller ones are far to weak to control a satellite with about 2 tons of mass, like mine.

Also 60 EC is quite a lot, at least for my taste. It's much more than any sattelite built by me so far consumes, even though I've mounted 20 Commutron D and a dish-antenna on them. I've had to unlock some none-RP-0 solar panels, so that six of them are just capable (1.2 times the output of the consumption) to feed the Delta Avionics Packes and the rest of the mounted stuff. If the sattelite has a bad angle to the sun, it's still not enough.

The even larger ones for rockets (Guidance Unit (early)) again use only 3, or 60 and 120 EC/min. But for those I dont really care much, since they are used in the ascent stages, which usually aren't carried around for hours or longer.

For me it looks like an imbalance at the moment. But if you tell me, that they are balanced, or that this avionic packages even have some real counterparts with the same specifications, I'm gonna live and play with it. But at least an option to deactivate the avionic units would be nice. The larger one could be used for steering and would be switched of, when the satellite reaches it's final orbit. While a smaller one keeps on working, doing the signal processing job for little EC/min.

BTW: We can continue this discussion in the RP-0 thread if you like. Since this hasn't to do much with realism overhaul.

Copied from RO thread.

You are encountering the difference between probe cores (don't give much avionics mass, don't draw much charge) and stage guidance (efficient in everything except power draw). Note that the node that gives you the octo2 is in 1959 or 1960--just how many probes capable of flight control are you aware of in 1960? If you research Flight Control, however, you'll get the Ranger Block I core, which is a rather better deal than the octo2. Still not great, but better. Basically, you'll need to revise your expectations of what's a reasonable size satellite (or reasonably satellite capability, period) in 1960. As you keep researching more nodes, however, you'll have access to better and better guidance units and probe cores (the Saturn IU allows up to 20,000t on 2kW, the Satellite Bus offers 3 tons on 50W, and some probe cores later even offer unlimited mass)

Also, note that the Agena guidance unit is from a tech node after Able. Able is 1955-57 technology, Agena is 1960 technology. That's why it offers more usable mass for the same power usage, but it still draws enough that you'll need to add a fair amount of batteries if you want a few days' life. (Batteries are easy to add, just add a ServiceModule proc part and fill it with ElectricCharge, at 1000kJ a liter). Early on, batteries are probably a better deal than solar panels unless you want a lifetime measured in weeks or months.

For deactivating avionics, pjf offered a patch upthread that will do just that.

[Hattivat]

All we have now is Areobee engine and Tiny Tim rocket from the starting tech. I got myself into a problem where its barely impossible to even get up and finish the first sounding rocket record contract because of no control. Only one way to get it... Well either cheat or have good luck with it. I see no other way around

You don't need control. You just need to use the tiny tim as a first stage with a TWR of 20+. After this kick your rocket is guaranteed to fly straight up for a good while. Coincidentally, this is also what real sounding rockets were employing.

[Yemo]

Hey,

I m not very aware of the realism mods, sorry for missing this when I first introduced the initial contracts.

My SETI-BalanceMod (link in signature) starts unmanned, so I faced the issue that altitude contracts could only be completed by manned vessels, until making configs for the Contract Configurator mod by nightingale.

I released replacements for the buggy stock starting contracts, based on the ones I use for the SETI-BalanceMod, for use with other TechTree mods:

Initial Contracts

InitialContracts replaces the buggy/annoying stock starting contracts with 3 similar ones, which can be completed by manned and unmanned craft. Thus the mods contracts are especially useful for TechTrees which start unmanned and may be redistributed with them.

They are based on the SETI-Contracts but more balanced for stock.

InitialContracts Link

The mod Contract Configurator by nightingale is required to use the configs.

These Contract Configurator configs by nightingale and Yemo are based upon the general contracts of the SETI-BalanceMod.

License: You may do what you want (change, expand, mix, redistribute as part of a larger package etc.), as long as you provide the source (eg. SETI-BalanceMod with link) and credit for previous authors (eg. nightingale and Yemo) within the file(s) and at the reference locations (forum thread and download site).

Hence you can just redistribute this file along with eg a tech tree mod under any (even a very restrictive) license as long as you give credit in the form mentioned above.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Copied from RO thread.

You are encountering the difference between probe cores (don't give much avionics mass, don't draw much charge) and stage guidance (efficient in everything except power draw). Note that the node that gives you the octo2 is in 1959 or 1960--just how many probes capable of flight control are you aware of in 1960?

Yeah, I admit, that my reality has to be quite distorted here. The patch also came in a (for me) bad time, I was in middle of setting up a com-network around earth. This now gets much more difficult

For deactivating avionics, pjf offered a patch upthread that will do just that.

You mean this patch?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103196-0-90-Realistic-Progression-Zero-%28RP-0%29-Lightweight-RealismOverhaul-career-v0-27-19-March-2015?p=1789078&viewfull=1#post1789078

I was thinking more of something like the antennaes of remote tech, where I can deactivate them ingame, so they don't use EC anymore. Since the satellites float through space without any need to move them most of the time, it would be useful to deactivate the avionics system to save system power. Something like a sleep mode, like real probes have it. While a small, power saving probe core works as permanent signal processor to the command center, the avionics only get activated when demanded.

Or would that be entirely unrealistic?

[NathanKell]

Yemo, we definitely plan to move to Contract Configurator contracts, so we'll check that out, thanks.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Ah, I misunderstood what you were asking for with an off switch. Far from being unrealistic, it's what I thought of last night and am going to code tonight.

[Lilienthal]

Hi guys, just coming back to KSP after too much rl interference.

It is really nice to see RP-0. I played RO career mode back in November, and thought it was fun, but this is amazing on a totally different level. Great choice to have local control of probe cores. The messing with kOS just to break to land on the moon was not really worth it.

I have two suggestions on the OP:

a) My understanding is that without FASA, the start is very, very difficult. Maybe it should be noted as "working on, but already reccomended"?

I am a little bit embarrased to say that, but when I first ran it, I didn't click "enable" on the Techmanager, and played a few hours with the wrong tech tree... Now with CKAN, it is so simple, and people like me don't really read the list of mods anymore, that a comment in the OP like that might make sense: "after the first start, you have to enable the techmanager and choose CommunityTech". (It is a little bit embarrassing for me, not having done so, but thought I share anyway.)

Suggestion: pruner.

Would it make sense to design and maintain a list of non-RO, non-RP0 parts that can be auto-pruned by pruner? (I know Nathan says it doesn't make much difference to memory usage, but data shows that memory usage with FASA is significantly bigger than without.) Here I'd be happy to contribute, but not to maintain. (RL might force me to abstain from KSP again.)

(possble) Bugs:

- I don't seem to be able to complete the 5,000m height challenge. It just stays in the active contracts, no matter whether I reach 50km, or 250km. At one point in time it just disappeared. - Sounds familiar? more detail wished? [Edit: Yemo already posted that you need a manned craft to do this. Would be helpful if the contract said so.]

- I build a 700t unmanned craft. put a 2m core on it. I started it, could steer it. Then I dropped the solid rockets and steerage was lost. After another staging, the craft was small enough to be steered. - Sounds familiar? more details wished?

Best,

Gustav.

PS: I posted this before in a basically closed threat. So hope, it's more appropriate here.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Lilienthal

[Yemo]

Stock progression contracts can not be modded (no idea why squad did that), only deactivated using contract configurator.

Which was the original reason for developing the contract progression of which InitialContracts is a spin-off.

[chrisl]

Sorry, missed this.

LR-105 and LR-89 are both kerolox engines. They will be in the regular rocketry nodes, not the hydrolox nodes (hydrolox nodes are for hydrolox). According to this table, which we've found on the whole to be the most accurate, the LR-105-5 did not have those specs, and neither did the LR-89-5 (those are closest to the specs of the LR-105-NA-7.1 and LR-89-NA-6 respectively).

The Titan upper stages do. Titan was a two-stage LV (later, three or four stage) and the main avionics were on the upper stage (the one you put the LR-91 on).

Hydrolox or Kerolox, my point still stands. According to various Wikis and Encyclopedia Astronautica, the LR-105-7 and LR-89-7 both first flew around 1963 which would be associated with "Mature Orbital Rocketry". At this point I have basically every tech allowed with a level 2 R&D Facility (including Heavy Rocketry) and still don't appear to have the tech for either of these engines.

As for the LR-105-5 and LR-89-5, fair enough, though it would still be nice to see the -5 versions since those seem to be used on alot of the early Atlas launch vehicles.

And thank you for pointing out the avionics on the Titan upper stage. I totally missed those so was adding an extra avionics package to all my Titan launches.

[Hattivat]

chrisl: Not saying it has any bearing on the topic at hand, but just as a heads-up: do not believe Encyclopedia Astronautica, unless you have absolutely no other source, it is a horribly flawed source with seemingly zero quality control, as pretty much anyone who has done his reasearch while creating configs for RO can attest.

[edit:] To be more exact, you will see that if you have Encyclopedia Astronautica disagreeing with some other website, and you take the effort to dig up a relevant book/ NASA documentation, in 99% of cases it will turn out that it is Encyclopedia Astronautica that is wrong, sometimes in ridiculous ways.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Hattivat

[chrisl]

chrisl: Not saying it has any bearing on the topic at hand, but just as a heads-up: do not believe Encyclopedia Astronautica, unless you have absolutely no other source, it is a horribly flawed source with seemingly zero quality control, as pretty much anyone who has done his reasearch while creating configs for RO can attest.

[edit:] To be more exact, you will see that if you have Encyclopedia Astronautica disagreeing with some other website, and you take the effort to dig up a relevant book/ NASA documentation, in 99% of cases it will turn out that it is Encyclopedia Astronautica that is wrong, sometimes in ridiculous ways.

Oh. Someone from RO pointed me to that site which is why I've been using it.

[Hattivat]

Well, it is a good source in that it is incredibly comprehensive and pretty user-friendly, but not really what you want when there is controversy over some relatively obscure detail, due to seemingly poor quality control.

in other words: in probably 99% of things Enc. Astr. agrees with other sources, so it is perfectly fine to use it for everyday stuff, but you should not assume that everything that is there is correct, especially not when it conflicts with what other websites are saying.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Hattivat

[chrisl]

Now a new problem. I've decided to send up a satellite to fill some contracts and, in the process, start testing parts for my eventual Saturn V launch. My launch vehicle is made up of the main S-IC stage , followed by the S-IVB, and finally an Agena so I can move the satellite around a bit. Yes, it's a hugely overpowered rocket for what amounts to a 1t satellite but I figured it would be a great way to test out the S-IC stage. Anyway, according to the parts, the S-IVB stage I'm using comes with a built in avionics that supports up to 20,000t and my rocket only weighs in at 2464.125t so should have plenty of avionics. When I'm on the pad, I show "Local Control" as expected. However, unlike most unmanned launched I've done since avionics was introduced, as soon as I actually launch the "Local Control" line disappears in favor of the signal delay I used to see with unmanned launches. This in itself wouldn't be a huge issue except that at t+0:35s, it suddenly switches to "No Connection" and my engines shut down. I'm only just above 3.2km which means the built in antenna on my satellite was what really controlled the ship up to this point. If I put on a seperate avionics package (even just the 1500t capacity "Early Saturn" unit), then the rocket remains on "Local Control" throughout the flight. Is there something wrong with the avionics package in the S-IVB stage?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it is a good source in that it is incredibly comprehensive and pretty user-friendly, but not really what you want when there is controversy over some relatively obscure detail, due to seemingly poor quality control.

in other words: in probably 99% of things Enc. Astr. agrees with other sources, so it is perfectly fine to use it for everyday stuff, but you should not assume that everything that is there is correct, especially not when it conflicts with what other websites are saying.

Oh, no worries there. I know EA, as with most public wikis, isn't going to be completely accurate. Trouble is, I really only know of a few places to get all the data I've been using to recreate all these rockets and EA seemed to jive with the other sources I was lookint at. They just don't match the table that Nathan pointed me at.

[NathanKell]

Lilienthal: Yeah, here's better, and welcome back!

(a) Weird, in the latest version of RP-0, things should be equal difficulty with or without FASA: the same engines (excepting Agena, but there's RD-0105/0109), the same cost/mass/science for early probes, etc. Why would things be harder without FASA?

( Yes, we need actual documentation. :]

That pruner setup makes perfect sense! The only problem is that some assets (Ven's, FASA's) are shared between multiple parts, so we have to be careful, but Felger's already done that work (I think). Any contributions welcome!

Bugs:

1. Yep, KSP stock issue as Yemo mentioned. That's why I added the Sounding Rocket Altitude Record contracts.

2. Dunno why you could control at start. Pics of craft / craft file?

chrisl: The best table we know of for engine data is this one (there are also tables for Russian, European, and Asian engines). If you start at the top there's a ton of info; see also Gunter's Space Page and Bob Braeunig's site.

No uncrewed craft should ever say "Local Control" -- local control means there's crew aboard. That sounds like the avionics parts (and S-IVB) need to be checked for proper SPU and antenna setup.

[Hattivat]

Trouble is, I really only know of a few places to get all the data I've been using

In addition to the excellent websites listed by NathanKell, there are also actual unclassified documents available on NASA and enthusiast websites. They are much less googleable, and even they can contain errors, but they are usually good enough to settle any disputes between other sources.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Friedrich Nietzsche: Ah, I misunderstood what you were asking for with an off switch. Far from being unrealistic, it's what I thought of last night and am going to code tonight.

That is good news, thank you!

[chrisl]

chrisl: The best table we know of for engine data is this one (there are also tables for Russian, European, and Asian engines). If you start at the top there's a ton of info; see also Gunter's Space Page and Bob Braeunig's site.

No uncrewed craft should ever say "Local Control" -- local control means there's crew aboard. That sounds like the avionics parts (and S-IVB) need to be checked for proper SPU and antenna setup.

The avionics have always done local control. I wasn't sure if that was intended or what. If it's not then they definitely need some sort of built in antennae with more then a 3km range.

On a different track, I know that the F-1 engine isn't throttable but I also know that they used to shut down the center engine on the Saturn V to control thrust late in the flight. There's a part that is supposed to represent 5 F-1 engines (KWSmengineGriffonC is the part name - "F-1 Series 10.0m]) but since it's a seen by the game as a single engine, there is currently no way to "shut down" the center engine. I'd like to suggest that particular "engine" be setup so it can throttle down to 80% which would at least attempt to recreate the idea of shutting down the center engine.

[nightingale]

I know you guys have talked about adding contracts to RP-0, but was wondering what your position is on balancing/re-balancing the rewards of the stock contracts (either here or in RSS).

For a little background, I just added RSS support to the RemoteTech Contract Pack. The support is fairly basic, the requested altitudes in the contract were changed from a hardcoded 600,000km to being based on the radius of Kerbin. The contract rewards in the contract pack are intended to basically pay the player back for the satellite launches, plus a little bit extra. I decided not to mess with them for RSS in either the contract pack directly or though some magic in Contract Configurator.

You can see the contract reward multipliers for a given body in code using:

GameVariables.Instance.GetContractDestinationWeight(contractType.targetBody).

If you look at the values for various bodies, you'll probably notice pretty quickly that they are equal to:

[FONT=courier new]<CelestialBody>.scienceValues.RecoveryValue[/FONT]

What's harder to see is that this is also multiplied by GameVariables.contractDestinationWeight, which is public and can be modified (but defaults to 1.0). As best as I can tell, this value isn't used by any of the setting windows, so you can change this to globally modify the contract rewards across the board (alternatives that also appear to work are contractFundsAdvanceFactor, contractFundsCompletionFactor, contractFundsFailureFactor if you don't want to mess with science/rep as they are a whole different can of works).

Anyway, long story short - has thought been given to applying a contract multiplier across the board as part of a bigger balancing effort (whether it be here, RO, or RSS)?

[Acemcbean]

Hey, so I've been trying out AIES (As I know it is "kinda" supported by RO), but I have discovered a glaring issue with some of its best parts: The Antennae don't Animate. Does anyone know if this is a problem with AIES or the fact that it is beyond incompatible with RP-0?

[ThorBeorn]

RP-0 doesn't change animations. I vaguely remember problems with animations and the landing struts from AIES. The solution was posted in the AIES thread as I remember it. Could be worth to take a look there atleast.

[NathanKell]

nightingale, that's very good information! We were originally going to rely on this, but Starman4308 got busy. At the moment our plan is to leverage Contract Configurator to pretty much completely replace or rejigger all stock contracts. Here is our brainstorming on the topic.

[HiTechObsessed]

Is there a pruner available to prune all non RP-0 parts? It's kind of annoying to have to get through all of them, and they take up memory!

[Capt. Kerk]

Is there a pruner available to prune all non RP-0 parts? It's kind of annoying to have to get through all of them, and they take up memory!

I posted one a few pages back (no link for the moment since I'm on a mobile device). No guarantees, but when I use it and the two RO_global prune lists it seems to get most of the non-stock, non-RP-0 parts and saves me quite a bit of memory.

[GigaG]

Has anybody made a config for the flight test mod that includes more engine configs? Right now I feel a bit cheaty using liquid engines that can't fail.

[Lilienthal]

I posted one a few pages back (no link for the moment since I'm on a mobile device). No guarantees, but when I use it and the two RO_global prune lists it seems to get most of the non-stock, non-RP-0 parts and saves me quite a bit of memory.

Here's the link

Hey, maintainers of RP0, wouldn't that be something that should be in the distribution? (I haven't tried it yet, but will do.)