ferram4 changed the topic of #RO to: Welcome to the discussion channel for the Realism Overhaul (meta)mod for KSP! Realism Overhaul Main Thread https://goo.gl/wH7Dzb ! RO Spreadsheet http://goo.gl/Oem3g0 ! Code of Conduct http://goo.gl/wOSv2M ! | Maximal & soundnfury's RP-1 Race Into Space Signup: http://bit.ly/2DEVm2i [15:01] <soundnfury> Straight Eight Stronk (and) RP-0/1 is basically "Space Agency Spreadsheet Simulator"
<schnobs>
Looking at the tech tree once more...
<schnobs>
don't like how there are science experiemts in one branch, and Explore/Sputnik/etc including experiments in another.
<schnobs>
I'd rather see explorer &co among science. They're not as much "satellites" as they are self-contained science pckages.
<schnobs>
Deployable solar panels come too late, in part because they depend on a meta-tech. Arguably they're more advanced than the H-1 engine.
<schnobs>
Space stations shouldn't depend on two-man pods, (adjective) Material Science and Life Support should be enough.
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
qwertyy__ has joined #RO
Dazzyp has joined #RO
qwertyy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Daz has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Dazzyp is now known as Daz
<schnobs>
Some of the specialty solid rockets could/should probably be moved to much earlier solid rocket techs. Especially the Saturn separators, those could a) be put to many good uses and b) don' strike me as incredily advanced.
<schnobs>
Coming to think of it, weren't there more of them?
egg|zzz|egg has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
Moistmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
Moistmelon has joined #RO
TM1978m has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
Bornholio has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<soundnfury>
Mike`: I think the way to trigger at least one of the proc avionics bugs is to try to shrink the part so that Utilisation goes over 200%.
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
Mike` has joined #RO
mkalte has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<soundnfury>
Mike`: and I suspect the other may have to do with tonnage being less than minimum (possibly caused by rounding issues)
ProjectThoth has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
stratochief_ is now known as stratochief
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Senshi has joined #RO
camlost has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
Probus has joined #RO
probus_ has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
camlost has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Howdy
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Shoe17 has joined #RO
egg has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
SillySMS has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
SillySMS has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has quit [Quit: Bye]
Olympic1 has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Rokker has joined #RO
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
Btw on the avionics front, I think cost might be a better stand in than mass. For two reasons - especially in the rocket world, cost=complexity. And second, a lot of 'how much research and redundancy you build into your avoinics' is related to 'how much you expect to pay for the rest of the rocket'. It might also be valid to put tooling into avi
<Maxsimal>
onics.
Bornholio has joined #RO
awang has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
stratochief has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
camlost has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
schnobs has joined #RO
<schnobs>
hi-ho
Probus has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Raidernick_>
hey egg
Raidernick_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Raidernick has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Say, what's "engine reliability" supposed to represent? Strictly the engine itself, or the LV it came on?
<schnobs>
IIRC the original data was made up by counting the launch failure rate, but not sure if that's still true.
EsperNet- has joined #RO
NathanKell has quit [Ping timeout: 195 seconds]
<schnobs>
Raidernick: would you happen to know, off the top of your head, wether the FASA Saturn models still use these angled stick-on separation motors?
<Raidernick>
nope
<schnobs>
thanks.
<egg>
Raidernick: meow?
<Raidernick>
egg, i saw that you made a fix in principia for the packing and unpacking of vessels and time warp causing jumps in orbits and such
<TonyC>
hi, do you guys know of any places where KerbCam is available ? I'm about to post on the forum page that the latest recompiles don't work, but just want to make sure i didn't miss anything
<Raidernick>
since that isn't a principia only bug
<Raidernick>
is that something you can adapt into rss
<Raidernick>
since the bug makes rss pretty much unplayable
<egg>
probably not
<egg>
principia things are very much tied deep into principia
<egg>
(see also axial tilt and related questions, unless you have your own model of where everything is it's a mess to override the game)
<soundnfury>
Maxsimal: I disagree but don't have detailed reasons why
* soundnfury
tilts egg
<egg>
Raidernick: also on vacation next week, so probably won't eggsist much
<schnobs>
egg, asking differently: could you outline the cause of the problem in a way that would help with solving it in stock?
<schnobs>
Assuming that the cause is something inherent in KSP itself.
<egg>
I'm not sure I know what exactly this is about
<schnobs>
In RSS, as you close in to rendezvous and docking, you do so very slowly.
<schnobs>
Tempting the player to use timewarp.
<schnobs>
But as soon as timewarp kicks in, vessels change their position.
<egg>
as I said, this is possibly one of those problems that you can solve only with your own model of where everything is (and then it means you have your own principia and don't go there it's not a sane place)
<schnobs>
by a couple hundred meters, typically.
<egg>
yeah I seem to remember that
<egg>
principia#1416?
<Qboid>
[#1416] title: Vessels change position abruptly when using non-physical timewarp | Get 2 vessels close together, use non-physical timewarp. One or both vessels can be seen changing position abruptly by about 200 m. When you switch back to 1x timewarp, the position again changes abruptly to (presumably) where the vessel should be after the timewarp (basically looks like it subtracts the previou
<Qboid>
[#1416] title: Vessels change position abruptly when using non-physical timewarp | Get 2 vessels close together, use non-physical timewarp. One or both vessels can be seen changing position abruptly by about 200 m. When you switch back to 1x timewarp, the position again changes abruptly to (presumably) where the vessel should be after the timewarp (basically looks like it subtracts the previou
<egg>
Qboid this particular link expansion wasn't very useful
<egg>
cc Sarbian who may have some understanding of how stock might be borked
<Raidernick>
egg, principia actually does appear to fix the stock issue, but you are saying principia also introduces it's own issue that appears to be the same thing but has a different cause?
<Raidernick>
lol
<Raidernick>
that's confusing
<egg>
Raidernick: it used to introduce its own issue
<egg>
but now it doesn't
<Raidernick>
i know i use it in one of my installs
<egg>
and it fixes *A LOT* of issues by essentially taking the physics away from KSP
<Raidernick>
and i've never seen that bug there
<egg>
so yes, there's plenty of stuff that it fixes by tearing everything out and replacing it with its own flavour of insanity
<egg>
I highly recommend this particular flavour of insanity
<egg>
much tastier than KSP's
<Raidernick>
i use principia when i actually PLAY ksp which is very rarely lol
<egg>
Raidernick: like, it fixes all the ladder-engine magic bugs
<Raidernick>
when i'm just testing parts i make i don't use anything but the bare minimum
<egg>
(where you can use ladders as reactionless drives)
<egg>
this is completely a side-effect of the fact that in principia any forces that are not from engines (or other things that use the census of nonconservative forces) cannot change the vessel's trajectory
<egg>
defense in depth against KSP's bullshit, in a sense :-p
<TonyC>
did somebody say russian military doctrine
Shoe17 is now known as Shoe17Studying
Senshi has joined #RO
qwertyy__ has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
qwertyy has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Hiii
Shoe17Studying is now known as Shoe17
wb99999999 has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
soundnfury: succesful unmanned landing of my (very very roughly) Surveyor-ish lander.
VanDisaster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
BadMobileRockets has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Olympic1 has joined #RO
<Starwaster>
oh dear god... I just did rewrite of a large portion of Heat Pumps where I'm not sure what I'm doing and it JUST compiled successfully and for some reason that makes me nervous more than it reassures me
<Starwaster>
also, egg am I correct in interpreting that you just broke all my magic drives?
<Starwaster>
GRRRRRRR
<schnobs>
I get what worries you...
<Starwaster>
actually just kidding, I dont use magic drives
<Starwaster>
schnobs yeah, cuz I look at it and it looks like it was written by a chimpanzee so how can it compile?
<Starwaster>
I tried to rewrite even more of it because the code is old and things are done differently in KSP now with IConfigNodes and stuff but then I realized...
<Starwaster>
why am I doing this? My code still WORKS.... it's survived changes that broke lots of other modders code so why bother it?
<Starwaster>
I think it was back in KSP 1.0 and StupidChris was lamenting that some new change broke all his config loading and I'm like what are you talking about, it still works... and then I realized that I had my own custom way of doing it...
<Starwaster>
oh well time to try my new code
<Starwaster>
I'm implmenting variable cooling costs based on the temperatures of the part because it should be less expensive with high amounts of heat... it shouldn't get expensive until you get down into the cryogenic range
<Starwaster>
I think
<schnobs>
Heat Pumps is literally, active cooling?
<schnobs>
Or just your name for a mechanism to move heat between parts?
<wb99999999>
someone need to document the development of all the RO mods
<schnobs>
wb99999999: ?
<wb99999999>
it will either be a good story, or a good research sample of community-based dev\
<wb99999999>
maybe both XD
<schnobs>
oh... oral history kind of stuff. Yeah, it could be interesting. Or not.
<schnobs>
Just btw, I'm of the opinion that roulout isn't merely badly implemented, but broken.
<wb99999999>
or maybe a technical document you know
<wb99999999>
being a non-programmer I have thought of soft dev as something neat and organized
<wb99999999>
but following RO has changed my view on it
<wb99999999>
it's that British word Tom Scott loves...I believe it was bodge
<schnobs>
wb99999999: Quite generally, unclear directions and change of priorities is something that just happens.
<schnobs>
In a volunteer project, you also have the influx or absence of contributors.
<wb99999999>
yes, and apparently I lived in a cave and this is new and curious to me XD
<schnobs>
Like, Pap showing up and redoing the tech tree. That was a "yeah, that really needs to be done one of these days" kind of thing fo years.
<Starwaster>
schnobs yes it is active cooling. It used to be part of Real Fuels previously but NathanKell wanted it out for reasons which still escape me.
<schnobs>
Then all of a sudden, it just happened.
<Starwaster>
it does two things: First it tries to intercept heat penetrating from the skin to the interior. After that it tries to cool the part if it is overheated (refrigeration)
<Starwaster>
it also consumes resources semirealistically and tries to cool the part even in analytic mode (which so far has been an elusive goal but I'm going to do it this time)
<schnobs>
Does that much doing on your part? I thought parts demanding cooling if heat >x was stock functionality...?
<Starwaster>
it COULD even convert heat into electricity if configured properly
<wb99999999>
his stuff does cryocooling
<wb99999999>
which is really nice
<schnobs>
wb99999999: can be done the same way, just set a low enough target.
<Starwaster>
mine does it better
<schnobs>
IIRC default behavior is to demand active cooling if part temp exceeds 25% max temp.
<wb99999999>
and I don't think stock parts do the interception part
<Starwaster>
stock radiators can't really function during analytic either
<schnobs>
The percentage can be set, but usually isnt.
<Starwaster>
correct, stock radiators don't specifically target the incoming heat
<Starwaster>
which is a much cheaper strategy especially if there's passive insulation
<Starwaster>
which until I put the MLI code into RF, Heat Pumps performed that task. (came with passive insulation that is)
<wb99999999>
Yeah I have used Heat Pump for a few times XD
<Starwaster>
so Schnobs, in older versions of Real Fuels if you just slap a few stock radiators on they have to contend with 10's or 100s of kilowatts of heat
<wb99999999>
Starwaster is likely to remember me as "that VERY annoying guy who kept having trouble with my mod"
<schnobs>
You're not the only one.
<Starwaster>
but HP radiators add(ed) passive insulation. With the new RF coming out that won't be needed anymore because we have configurable MLI
<Starwaster>
which will also add appropriate amounts of mass and cost
<Starwaster>
I had to guesstimate the cost but I think it's right
<wb99999999>
are we streamlining the tank types or just adding MLI on top of that?
<schnobs>
Starwaster: if your plate isn't full enough yet, could you also make a poor man's PUS? Just jettisoning the excess would go a long way.
<wb99999999>
what is PUS?
<Starwaster>
that nasty stuff that comes out of your wounds when they're infected
<schnobs>
Propellant utilisation system.
<Starwaster>
or it means that...
<Starwaster>
uhm that would have to be like next major update of RF I think....
<wb99999999>
so something like IVF on the ACES?
<Starwaster>
wasnt someone else alraedy doing PUS tho?
<schnobs>
You know, Engines demand (say) 40% fuel 60% oxidizer.
<wb99999999>
oh do I miss all these acronyms...
<schnobs>
But with boiloff, typically you end up having some excess of either.
<schnobs>
Real-life, engines can be fed varying mixture ratios to utilize as much as the propellant as possible.
<wb99999999>
oh you mean like the variable mixture on J-2?
<schnobs>
Exactly.
<wb99999999>
I think that is up to the engine, rather than the tanks (and by extension the propellant system)
<Starwaster>
the problem in implementation (that I see) is that there are so many potential sources the engine could draw from. Including sources that maybe are meant to supply other engines or even RCS
<schnobs>
Yes, but.
<Starwaster>
unlike a real rocket where there's only a few tanks to consider (two usually)
<schnobs>
Doing it on the engine-side will be definitely non-trivial. Besides, it has effects on thrust and ISP that aren't well documented.
<wb99999999>
I have imagined a solution before
<wb99999999>
which is adding a preemptive "overfill" function for the RF tanks
<wb99999999>
so you can say, ask the tank to have 5% more LH2 than what the engine asked
<schnobs>
But I imagine that you could sense which tanks are being tapped *while the engine is running*, and do some magic at that point.
<schnobs>
wb99999999: we can do that, and for LVs you can usually arive at a good figure with some experimenting.
<wb99999999>
actually I think that is also a tint more realistic
<schnobs>
But overfilling a centaur that may cost for 30 minutes, or 90... non-trivial.
<wb99999999>
I'd say deal with it in that case actually
<schnobs>
Overfilling is totally realistic. In the early days, they figured out the required fractions with lots of flight testing. As i said, for LVs that's a workable approach.
<wb99999999>
so you're worrying about...like a moon shot with hydrolox landing stage, if I'm reading it right
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Simpler. my use case is going to the Moon, or anywhere, using a Centaur.
<schnobs>
With little to no insulation and an undefined coast time.
<wb99999999>
I don't really like that undefined coast time part
<schnobs>
The worst performance loss doesn't come from bringing too much propellant in the first place, bur from having some left at the eng of the burn, inflating end mass.
<wb99999999>
usually I work backward from this problem
<schnobs>
Well, "undefined" in the sense that it's different for every launch.
<wb99999999>
like, if this stage will not send the payload with a bit of propellant left in the bottom of the tank, it will not send the payload
BadMobileRockets has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<wb99999999>
here's a fun thing to try: using a kick motor
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
<wb99999999>
plan an injection, start the injection with your liquid stage and cut the engine when the remaining dV is just the dV of the kick motor
<schnobs>
Yeah, because the mass-driven avionics model doesn't punish that approach at all.
ProjectThoth has quit [Client Quit]
<wb99999999>
well...if you're talking about knowing your precise mass at any point of time all the time, yes
<schnobs>
At least it helps insofar as the kick motor increases end mass, hence a few drops in the tank don't have have less of an effect.
<schnobs>
wb99999999: they way I do it, (or did, the last few times) was to use the hyperedit resource slider shortly before the burn in order to dump the excess. Works well enough.
<wb99999999>
if max utilization is your aim, then HP is the way to go
<schnobs>
And really, pay attention the next time you use an un-insulated centaur. We're talking about give-or-take 1km/s here.
<wb99999999>
oh yes, I had that happen to me before
<schnobs>
back to my previous issue: Ignition failure on the pad. Rolling back the craft, fixing the engine, rolling out again incurse the same rollout cost.
<schnobs>
Doesn't make sense unless rollback inclused a complete disassembly and disintegration of the vessel.
<schnobs>
In other news, I can't typo.
<wb99999999>
hmmm...where are you from? Those aren't kinds of typos I am familiar with
<schnobs>
Germany. But typos are just from being too hasty.
<wb99999999>
there's certain mistake patterns for ppl with different mother tongue
<schnobs>
I can belive that.
<wb99999999>
what's funny is one can pick up new mistake patterns when he or she starting to approach native fluency...
<wb99999999>
or simply, you learn to screw up like a native speaker
stratochief has joined #RO
<egg>
Starwaster: yeah, I should break magic drives :-p
<schnobs>
dang. doesn't work out. Hold on while I saveload.
<schnobs>
Juno-I tank: 7000 unlock, 400 after.
<schnobs>
Tank-III : 10500 unlock, 170 after.
<schnobs>
(similar capacity)
<schnobs>
To do it right, they probably need size tags. Or the tooling thingy needs to sense the dimensions (you'd still need to declare wether they're tank 1,2,3).
<Pap>
So within a range of not terrible. Would need to launch it 10 times to be worth it procedurally, but when you factor in the stretching costs a lot less to tool, you can essentially get a lot of uses from one tank
<schnobs>
In that particular case, within the range of not terrible.
<schnobs>
Saturn and Atlas tanks appear to be free (no unlock cost)
<Pap>
That's an issue
<schnobs>
Correction. I need to spend science points on a nobe before I see unlock costs.
<schnobs>
not free.
<schnobs>
(spending science on any node will make all unlock costs visible, though. At last something)
<schnobs>
Saturn S-IC and S-II cost 14,000 each, which is bound to be a whole lot cheaper than a proc tank.
<schnobs>
Pap: Many of the later engines are free to unlock.
<schnobs>
Starting at about 1066/67.
<schnobs>
All the nukes (which is beyond the scope of current RP-0, so wth), but also Proton and Apollo SPS.