[1.4.x] TweakScale v2.3.12(Apr-16)

[stickman939]

IMO a few good features that could be added:

• While in career mode, tweak scale is limited until proper node is unlocked
  
• "Fine tune" buttons (The ability to scale individual number placements; I.E. 100's, 10's, 1's, .01's, ect.)
  
• The ability to shape parts.
  

[FreeThinker]

Found a realy weird bug, Tweakscale does not seem to accept improvedNuclearPropulsion as a tech requirement. Whenever it is included in any Tweakscale module is seem to cause to block all right mouse menu's the moment you try to right click a part containing a tweakscale module with a improvedNuclearPropulsion techrequirment which is not already researched. improvedNuclearPropulsion is a CTT technode with the following config:

    RDNode
    {
        id = improvedNuclearPropulsion
        title = Improved Nuclear Propulsion
        description =  Hotter cores, and better engines.
        cost = 550
        hideEmpty = False
        nodeName = ct_improvedNuclearPropulsion
        anyToUnlock = True
        icon = RDicon_propulsion-nuclear
        pos = -1118,1711,-1
        scale = 0.6
        Parent
        {
            parentID = nuclearPropulsion
            lineFrom = TOP
            lineTo = LEFT
        }
    }

Edited September 23, 2015 by FreeThinker

[pellinor]

Hi everyone, I am back from summer vacations and other hobbies and slowly catching up. Thanks to everyone who answered questions and provided support!

Something like

@PART[!HAS[#name[*IR*]]]:Final
{
-MODULE{TweakScale}
}

Or something, I really don't know the syntax. Basically, "for every part that isn't called IR something, remove the TweakScale module. Also, run on Final". Check the MM thread for proper syntax, what I wrote will almost definitely not work.

Instead of the name it would be better to filter for parts that do not have the IR part module. If anyone has translated this into a working MM patch, please share. It seems like some more people are looking for a patch like this.

- - - Updated - - -

Potential severe bug encountered rescaling and attempting to use an LV-909 'Terrier' Liquid Fuel engine. It may be this, or it may be Real Fuels, data below. This will be posted in both threads.

Scaling an LV-909 'Terrier' Liquid Engine down to fit on a .675 meter size object results in the following CTD instances.

- Changing to 'In Flight' scene for launch

- Loading the ship back up into the VAB after restarting KSP

Crashes randomly either CTD completely, or manage to generate an error report that flags mono.dll.

Important Mod Environment Points:

- Real Fuels in use w/t stockalike cfgs

- FAR in use

Pertinent Additional observations:

- Crash is semi-consistent (I produced it multiple times initially with the desired part, and then stripped the components down to near nothing and started getting all the way to 'in flight' scenes)

- Events of non-crash and returning to VAB show loss of Real Fuels GUI values (blank RF GUI when it is opened for the engine) [which indicate something got wrecked in the game engine in the scene switches]

- Engine 'gui' data loss was consistent after leaving VAB and returning, clearing the part, and grabbing it again.

- GUI recovers after program restart on new part selection, however, saved vessel design with glitched part instantly CTDs.

This sounds more like RealFuels, which does its own TweakScale support. I know mft/realFuels has its own code for tank scaling (and TweakScale does not touch resource nodes if such a module is present). There is currently no such ignore rule for engines.

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding balance: with the exponent system it's not possible to prevent players from getting higher T/W than stock unless the mass and thrust exponents are exactly the same. If the mass exponent is larger than the thrust exponent, then downscaling will increase the T/W ratio (as now). If the reverse is true, upscaling will increase the T/W ratio. Therefore, I suggest using a mass exponent of 2 for engines if the thrust exponent is 2.

The current setting is an exponent of 2.5 for both mass and thrust of engine parts (this is done with the "#@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]" statements). I started with an exponent of 2 like you suggest, but found that the resulting downscaled engines were often too heavy/strong to be useful. Or in other words the perfect engine for a tiny craft was too small to visually fit.

Anyway, if there are engines where scaling does not preserve TWR I'd consider it a bug in the TweakScale config.

- - - Updated - - -

Pellinor I am posting this here because I don't know how often you check github and want to make sure you see it. I found some aero parts and a fuel tank that was missing and added them in this pull request. I was not sure of where exactly each part should go in the file so i tried to guess the general area. The three parts on the bottom of the file were missed when the other versions of themselves were added in the spaceplane plus config. https://github.com/pellinor0/TweakScale/pull/10

Thanks I'll merge it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nvm I got it

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:AFTER[TweakScale]

{

%MODULE[TweakScale]

{

name = TweakScale

type = stack

defaultScale = 2.5

}

}

* The UI might make more sense if you use type=free and no defaultScale. So the parts start at "100%", which always makes sense. Your config makes them start at "2.5m", which is strange for non-stack parts and misleading for non-2.5m stack parts.

* Please be aware that blanket patches might have unintended side effects. In principle a Tweakscale module on stuff like asteroids or kerbal EVA suits should not do anything, but I would not bet on it.

* I would do it at the time FINAL, because other mods might apply patches later than AFTER[TweakScale].

* Be aware that scaleable parts are not stackable for KIS. In my install I occasionally remove tweakScale modules when I consider stacking more important than scaling.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, quick meta-question. There's a problem with TweakScale and IR docking washers. Should I post about that here or on an IR thread?

Thanks!

Best is to post it in one thread and put a link to the post in the other. Is is this one?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65365-WIP-MSI-s-Infernal-Robotics-Model-Rework-%2828-04-2015%29-On-Hiatus?p=2185932&viewfull=1#post2185932

- - - Updated - - -

Are you going to add Tweakscalable fairings and radiators any time soon- Really needing them.

I'll happily accept a working config if you find one. So far I haven't found a fairing config that visually works (there might be some hardcoded component that would need scaling).

Haven't used a single radiator yet, but I have hope that these will be easy to scale (ETA: before 1.1 hits).

- - - Updated - - -

On the whole "unbalanced career mode" dilemma perhaps the mod creator could implement a similar dynamic of that which procedural fairings does. In PF certain sizes are locked until completion of a node on the tech tree where a "part" must be bought that unlocks a different scaling size (such as 3.75m). I think if this was added to the mod it would increase its career playablility and also have players unlock techs they normally wouldn't like "metamaterials".

Already done with the "techRequired" config value. Some mods use it, but the standard tweakScale configs do not (mainly because nobody has included it in the configs). In my own game I actually don't scale that much and prefer to use common sense as a restriction. The problem with the way techRequired works today is that I'd consider it a lot of error-prone work to include in all the patches (maybe even separately for stock and CTT), and a huge mess to maintain.

- - - Updated - - -

I generally play with the house rule that I can only scale engines up, not down. Sometimes I just play as though the larger engines are just upgrades, however,

My house rule is more like "use something that is close to the scale you need". So downscaling is fine, but if I need 10kN of thrust I don't start with a 3.75m engine.

- - - Updated - - -

I cant scale command pods

There is a switch in scaleExponents.cfg to make them scaleable (which can be changed directly or via MM patch).

Since this has confused quite a few people so far, I'm considering to change the default back to allow crew pod scaling by default. So the people who don't like it have to flip the switch. It would also be more stable since accidentally reverting the switch to 'forbidden' can break crafts. Any thoughts on this?

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a way to create a CFG which will scale Hotrockets effects? I searched around a bit and haven't found any recent hits on this if its been addressed. Thanks in advance.

Any idea how those effects are placed/scaled? Usually TweakScale scales the local transform of the part, and this affects all the visual stuff and colliders. So there might be part modules with config values to scale. Or the hotRockets code might need to do something when a rescale happens.

Edited September 25, 2015 by pellinor

[123nick]

Hi Pellinor

I wrote some Tweakscale cfg files for some mods i was interested in and that are not in the Tweakscale release:

AtomicAge

MarkIVSystem

MK2Expansion

MK3HypersonicSystems

OPT

I only included the items i as interested in.

So far, they are working for me on 1.0.4 and it's great!

Are you interested I send it to you by mail so that you can check it and make a complete release?

has this been implimented yet? if not, can your release them , as is?

[pellinor]

I was wondering if there were plans or a way to make it so that using techRequired would show something in the corresponding tech node in the science center? As it stands now you can't actually see when something unlocks in the science node.

I see the problem, but can't think of a good and simple way to solve it. Also be aware that each scaleFactor of each part can have its own techRequired, so you would have each part appear 6-9x in the tech tree, which is just too much.

- - - Updated - - -

I've got an issue with rescaling RCS thrusters and KW ullage motors.

When I rescale any of those said above, initially it is ok but once I try to move the part in the editor the game freezes and occasionally crashes. Also the game crashes if you try to load a craft with those rescaled parts attached.

EDIT: I've confirmed the crash happens also when you scale engines of any sort. Below is what it said in the last lines of the output log.

I can not reproduce this, my dev install is fine with scaling engines of any sort. So it looks like a broken install or mod conflict.

- - - Updated - - -

Found a realy weird bug, Tweakscale does not seem to accept improvedNuclearPropulsion as a tech requirement. Whenever it is included in any Tweakscale module is seem to cause to block all right mouse menu's the moment you try to right click a part containing a tweakscale module with a improvedNuclearPropulsion techrequirment which is not already researched. improvedNuclearPropulsion is a CTT technode with the following config:

    RDNode
    {
        id = improvedNuclearPropulsion
        title = Improved Nuclear Propulsion
        description =  Hotter cores, and better engines.
        cost = 550
        hideEmpty = False
        nodeName = ct_improvedNuclearPropulsion
        anyToUnlock = True
        icon = RDicon_propulsion-nuclear
        pos = -1118,1711,-1
        scale = 0.6
        Parent
        {
            parentID = nuclearPropulsion
            lineFrom = TOP
            lineTo = LEFT
        }
    }

I can't reproduce this. In a fresh career save with CTT installed, I added the following line to the stock 4-way RCS thruster

techRequired = start, start, start, start, improvedNuclearPropulsion

After researching the thruster, everything looks normal and I can click through the first four scalefactors (until 200%). The 400% factor is locked as expected.

[pellinor]

Is Tweakscale scaling up the effects of parachutes properly when they are resized? I thought I would try this as a way to produce some larger parachutes to save on spamming dozens of small chutes on stages I am trying to recover after launch. I was using stage recovery for that, so at first I thought it might be that stage recovery was not accounting for the new parachute size. So I put a regular 2R parachute onto a fuel tank, put a 2R parachute resized to 200% onto a second tank that was 4x as heavy as the first, and with the aid of a few decouplers and a booster fired them a few hundred metres up, decoupled the two tanks and popped chutes. By my calculation, a 200% resized chute should have 400% greater open chute surface area and drag, so I would think the two tanks would descend at the same rate. But for whatever reason, the resized chute and larger tank fall at just under double the speed of the normal chute and smaller tank. Any thoughts / suggestions?

Scaled parachutes look fine to me. I tested the following:

* stayputnik core

* kickback SRB tweaked to about 500 fuel

* 2x MK2-R(100%) vs 8x MK2-R(50%)

* activate everything in the first stage and compare max speed and speed at touchdown

Both vessels had roughly the same speeds (80m/s max and 7.5m/s at touchdown).

[FreeThinker]

After researching the thruster, everything looks normal and I can click through the first four scalefactors (until 200%). The 400% factor is locked as expected.

I get it reproducible when I used it as the second upgrade tech, not as a final tech.

[pellinor]

Also, not really a bug, but an observation. I think the scaling of lifting surfaces is a bit odd... bringing a "FAT-455" control surface down to 50% scale will bring it to a similar size to the 100% scale "Elevon 1"... So it should be capable of maneuvering the aircraft just about the same as the Elevon 1. But it doesn't, despite having a slightly greater surface area (even at 50% scale), the scaled FAT-455 is incredibly lethargic compared to it.

This is probably more a complaint about stock wings than about tweakscale? As a qick test of the scaling I built a simple plane with a control surface as main wing and measured the takeoff speed. Then I did the same with 4x the same part at 50% scale and came to roughly the same result. So from the TweakScale side the scaling of control surface lift looks fine to me.

It seems like the scaling is taking into account the cross section of the wing in addition to the surface area in order to generate a lift (and drag?) rating. It's really odd to see a thinner wing and control surface at full deflection barely moving an aircraft when a fatter control surface with the same surface area results in quite a bit more maneuverability.

Lift should go with scale^2, so the lift currently scales with surface area and ignores the change in thickness. Again, to test the TweakScale side of the problem you need to compare different scalings of the same part. Otherwise there is interference from the balance of stock parts, which should be tested separately (like comparing 1xFAT against 4xElevon1).

- - - Updated - - -

I get it reproducible when I used it as the second upgrade tech, not as a final tech.

I still don't see it. Now testing with

techRequired = start, improvedNuclearPropulsion, start, start, start

and all looks well. The 50% factor is not available, so the first slider goes from 10%-100%, and all right click menus work fine.

What exactly are you doing? Could you reproduce the bug in stock+CTT+TweakScale? Did the bug vanish for you when you put it as the final tech?

[FredMSloniker]

Would it be possible to add the ability to tweak scale differently along different axes? I could really use a pancake-like fuel tank for a project.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Would it be possible to add the ability to tweak scale differently along different axes? I could really use a pancake-like fuel tank for a project.

Procedural Parts is what you want then.

[FredMSloniker]

Procedural Parts is what you want then.

Thanks!

[Blazed]

Search though I may, I can't find an answer. Is there any way to add TweakScale to ALL parts easily? Through MM patch for example?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Yes of course. But it would result in a boatload of unintended and undesirable side effects.

[Blazed]

Yes of course. But it would result in a boatload of unintended and undesirable side effects.

Well, I'm mainly interested in adding it to all fuel tanks, engines, and structural elements. For example, to add the module with all parts with a category of structural? I find the documentation a bit confusing so any help would be appreciated. Is it possible or would that have undesirable side effects as well? Just wondering if there is an easier way to do that without having to manually add it to each part cfg.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Blazed

[pellinor]

Well, I'm mainly interested in adding it to all fuel tanks, engines, and structural elements. For example, to add the module with all parts with a category of structural? I find the documentation a bit confusing so any help would be appreciated. Is it possible or would that have undesirable side effects as well? Just wondering if there is an easier way to do that without having to manually add it to each part cfg.

Feel free to experiment with blanket patches, just keep in mind your personal patches whenever you encounter problems (some people tend to mess up their install with custom patches and don't remember them when reporting bugs). Generally, unused TweakScale modules should not do any harm. I just prefer more explicit patches in the official download because I consider it safer and less intrusive towards other mods.

Edit: see here (in the middle of the huge post there's a blanket patch with some criticism).

Edited October 2, 2015 by pellinor

[Blazed]

@PART
[*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:FINAL[TweakScale]
{
    %MODULE[TweakScale]
    {
        name = TweakScale
        type = stack
        defaultScale = 2.5
    }
}

What would I need to change with this so that it adds Tweakscale to ALL fuel tanks? Or is this possible? Apologies, I'm still a noob with MM patches.

[BudgetHedgehog]

@PART
[*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = TweakScale
        type = free
    }
}

Should do it.

Also:

* The UI might make more sense if you use type=free and no defaultScale. So the parts start at "100%", which always makes sense. Your config makes them start at "2.5m", which is strange for non-stack parts and misleading for non-2.5m stack parts.

* Please be aware that blanket patches might have unintended side effects. In principle a Tweakscale module on stuff like asteroids or kerbal EVA suits should not do anything, but I would not bet on it.

* I would do it at the time FINAL, because other mods might apply patches later than AFTER[TweakScale].

* Be aware that scaleable parts are not stackable for KIS. In my install I occasionally remove tweakScale modules when I consider stacking more important than scaling.

Edited October 2, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[xebx]

I've been using TweakScale with success on lot of parts : Engines, Tanks, NoseCones, Girder Segment XL, Batteries, Solar panels, etc.

I didn't see anything weird, but there is one thing people should do when using TS :

- Delete the file 'PartDatabase.cfg' in KSP root folder, because 'it seems' KSP is not refreshing this file like it should, when new parts are created/imported. (drag cubes are different) I suppose do the same when installing new parts mod.

KSP will generate a new file, this will fix an issue of lag/stuttering during atmo ascent or reentry.

Edited October 3, 2015 by xebx

[Wercho]

What would I need to change with this so that it adds Tweakscale to ALL fuel tanks? Or is this possible? Apologies, I'm still a noob with MM patches.

ObsessedWithKSP had some good things to say, above. I would add to that if you only want it to be applied to fuel tanks, you could make the patch:

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale] & @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = TweakScale
        type = free
    }
}

This would apply to only parts with a LiquidFuel resource (including parts with Oxidizer and without).

I think if I wanted to do multiple resources, the best way would be to duplicate this patch with a different resource in each one, but you could write one big HAS statement if you really wanted.

[NateDaBeast]

When will the issue with the parts reverting scales be fixed ? Quite annoying haha

[pellinor]

When will the issue with the parts reverting scales be fixed ? Quite annoying haha

To my current knowledge this is a known bug in KSP, so you'd need to knock on Squad's door for a fix.

[Bloodbunny]

Can you add support for http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79542-1-0-4-SXT-Lack-s-Stock-Extension-I-saw-seaplanes-on-the-seashore-SXT-22-3-10SEP15-KSC-v3? Great mod, but would benefit from this greatly.

[ebigunso]

Originally Posted by ebigunso

I've got an issue with rescaling RCS thrusters and KW ullage motors.

When I rescale any of those said above, initially it is ok but once I try to move the part in the editor the game freezes and occasionally crashes. Also the game crashes if you try to load a craft with those rescaled parts attached.

EDIT: I've confirmed the crash happens also when you scale engines of any sort. Below is what it said in the last lines of the output log.

I can not reproduce this, my dev install is fine with scaling engines of any sort. So it looks like a broken install or mod conflict.

Sorry for being so late to reply. I think this problem is due to some sort of conflict with RealFuels. I don't know if it's this or RF which should be fixed so it'd be great if you could check your part.

[smjjames]

Is anybody having trouble with tweakscaled klaws not grabbing asteroids? I was trying to use one with a class C asteroid, but it keeps failing to actually grab it.

[TK421d]

Is anybody having trouble with tweakscaled klaws not grabbing asteroids? I was trying to use one with a class C asteroid, but it keeps failing to actually grab it.

actually, i have. last week i tried scaling one up to 3.75 for a giant asteroid mover, and no matter how fast/slow i'd try to grab with it ~ nothing.