Galileo

[KSP 1.3.1] Stock Size Real Solar System [0.0.3.1]

Recommended Posts

@OhioBob Thanks for your advice the other day on modding this to 2.5x. I spent most of my weekend fooling around with it and I'm positive I've created a franken-system :)  I was annoyed that USI-LS, TWP and KAC were calculating days and years based on a 24 hour clock while my system was running on a 12 hour clock. It threw off launch window dates compared to system dates. It also meant that life support estimates were off by a factor of 2. To fix this I've moved the system back to a 24 hour clock to align with what the mods expect. The only obvious issue was that the Earth's orbit was only half a year long, so I forced the year in Kronometer to a number of seconds equal to 1/2 of a real year.

I checked my transit times to Mars and they come out to ~133 days for a Hohmann Transfer according to TWP - I believe this is correct for quarter scale because 2 x 133 days is just under 9 months.

My question is - what did I break that I'm not thinking of? Thanks again for your advice, here's my config:

Spoiler

// Modified SSRSS config for 2.5x scale and standardize on a 24-hour clock. 

@SigmaDimensions
{
    // Base Settings

    @Resize = 0.23544184586407 // Increase scale to 2.5x - tweaked to set Earth to 1500km radius
    @Rescale = 0.23544184586407 // Increase scale to 2.5x - tweaked to set Earth to 1500km radius
    @Atmosphere = 0.88312 // increased from 0.8 - Earth atmosphere ends at 85000m
    @dayLengthMultiplier = 1.0031 // Sets rotational period of earth to 1 day based on a 86400 second day

    // Advanced Settings

    @landscape = 2
    @geeASLmultiplier = 1

    @resizeScatter = 1
    @resizeBuildings = 1

    @CustomSoISize = 0
    @CustomRingSize = 0

    @atmoASL = 1
    @tempASL = 1
    @atmoTopLayer = 0.75
    @atmoVisualEffect = 1

    @scanAltitude = 10.618333333333336685187222222223 
}

///////////////////////////////

@Kopernicus:BEFORE[SigDim2]:NEEDS[SigDim]
{
    @Body:HAS[#name[Kerbin]]
    {
        @SigmaDimensions
        {
            @landscape = 1.0
            @atmoTopLayer = 0.6875
        }
    }
}

///////////////////////////////

@Kronometer:FINAL
{
    %useHomeDay = false
    %useHomeYear = false
    %useLeapYears = false

    %CustomTime
    {
        %Year // year length in seconds
        {
            %value = 15778476 // half of the 31556952 seconds in a real Earth year
        }
        %Day // day length in seconds
        {
            %value = 86400 // 24 hour day
        }
    }
}

@Kopernicus:BEFORE[SigmaBinary]
{
    @Body[Charon]
    {
        SigmaBinary
        {}
    }
}

@EVE_CLOUDS:FINAL
{
    @OBJECT,*
    {
        @altitude *= 4.602 // Need to confirm this
    }
}

 

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyko said:

@OhioBob Thanks for your advice the other day on modding this to 2.5x. I spent most of my weekend fooling around with it and I'm positive I've created a franken-system :)  I was annoyed that USI-LS, TWP and KAC were calculating days and years based on a 24 hour clock while my system was running on a 12 hour clock. It threw off launch window dates compared to system dates. It also meant that life support estimates were off by a factor of 2. To fix this I've moved the system back to a 24 hour clock to align with what the mods expect. The only obvious issue was that the Earth's orbit was only half a year long, so I forced the year in Kronometer to a number of seconds equal to 1/2 of a real year.

I checked my transit times to Mars and they come out to ~133 days for a Hohmann Transfer according to TWP - I believe this is correct for quarter scale because 2 x 133 days is just under 9 months.

My question is - what did I break that I'm not thinking of? Thanks again for your advice, here's my config:

I understand the problem with having a non-standard number of hours in a day.  I've experienced some of the same problems that you have with some mods not recognizing that the length of day has changed.  I discussed this with @Sigma88 and he told me that there are hardcoded variables used by KSP that define the length of the day and year.  Kronometer changes those variables.  So if a mod uses those variables in its calculations, it should work with Kronometer.  However, if a mod has its own hardcoded numbers (i.e. it assumes the day is 6-hours or 24-hours long), then it won't be compatible with Kronometer.  Those mods should change their programming to use the stock variables.  (KAC is one of the mods Sigma88 told me should work with Kronometer, so if it's not, I don't know what's going on.)

When using Sigma Dimensions / Kronometer, I have always made the length of the day equal to the solar day, and the length of the year equal to the orbital period.  I have no idea what might break by doing otherwise.
 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the sun supposed to be a lot smaller than stock in this mod? It seems very tiny to me, almost like a distant star. I haven't messed with any configs and this is the second clean install where the sun seems way out of proportion. Not sure what's going on but any help would be appreciated. I would like to get my sun back to how it was with Galileo's sun flare I have installed. Thanks!

Here is what it looks like now (yes, that is the sun, not a star):

IOD8JKl.jpg

ygK2mAt.png

Here is what it looked like before(how I would like it):

GAqJhD2.png

V3QzM4r.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've finished a few changes to the SSRSS system and want to make them available for others to try out. Here are the changes made by each of 4 configs:

  • SSRSS_Sigma2.5x24Hour_Tyko.cfg - Scales the system to 2.5x (approx 1/4 size of real solar system) to make it more challenging and bring the Delta-V requirements more in alignment with the capabilities of Stock parts - it's much more difficult to SSTO. To use this, replace the SSRSS_Sigma.cfg file in SSRSS/Configs.
  • KSC_Brazil_1x.cfg - relocates the KSC to Northern Brazil. If you want your Kerbals to speak Portuguese and launch with 0.0 inclination, this change is for you
  • KSC_Brazil_Sigma2.5x.cfg does the same move, but is designed to work with the Sigma2.5x config above.
  • Stockalike_Inclinations_Tyko.cfg - builds on @Galileo's changes. His adjusted the planets to stockalike inclinations. Mine also adjusts the moons to be much closer to co-planar with the system by using real world inclinations for them. This replaces Galileo's version. I might change it so that it's just an add-on mod and doesn't require the other to be disabled.

I might consider publishing these as an official mod, assuming I got @Galileo and @OhioBob's blessings.

The files can be downloaded below:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v6iw9qvwqs12mgu/AAB7pzxmhQBO4KGxBZvkiuBka?dl=0

 

By the way, in case you're wondering why I would make the game more challenging by scaling it up, but less challenging with my inclination changes...I did it because I launch all my flights manually and adding an inclination change to almost every launch wasn't interesting for me. Conversely, the 2.5x scaling gives me a chance to build rockets that look and behave a lot more like real historical rockets while still using Stock parts. Any feedback is welcome :)

 

 

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tyko said:

I might consider publishing these as an official mod, assuming I got @Galileo and @OhioBob's blessings.

You really need to get @Galileo's blessing.  I just helped out with some of the sigma settings.  Galileo is the author/owner of all the configs.
 

32 minutes ago, Tyko said:

Conversely, the 2.5x scaling gives me a chance to build rockets that look and behave a lot more like real historical rockets while still using Stock parts. Any feedback is welcome :)

Although I haven't played KSP in a couple months, my last career game was a 2.5x version of GPP.  I agree that it's a nice size.  Getting to orbit and going interplanetary just seems a little too easy in stock size (1x).  For GPP I wanted something that required the use of rockets that looked and behaved more lifelike*, could be played with stock parts, but was not too difficult.  2.5x seems to fit the bill nicely.

* I wanted it so that I needed to use at least two stages to get to orbit, and three stages to go interplanetary.
 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 0:07 AM, chimpbone said:

Is the sun supposed to be a lot smaller than stock in this mod? It seems very tiny to me, almost like a distant star. I haven't messed with any configs and this is the second clean install where the sun seems way out of proportion. Not sure what's going on but any help would be appreciated. I would like to get my sun back to how it was with Galileo's sun flare I have installed. Thanks

I have the same "problem"... if somebody could suggest a sunflare that looks a bit bigger and instructions how to install it I would be most gratefull indeed.

 

On 7/20/2017 at 9:30 PM, Tyko said:

I've finished a few changes to the SSRSS system and want to make them available for others to try out. Here are the changes made by each of 4 configs:

  • SSRSS_Sigma2.5x24Hour_Tyko.cfg - Scales the system to 2.5x (approx 1/4 size of real solar system) to make it more challenging and bring the Delta-V requirements more in alignment with the capabilities of Stock parts - it's much more difficult to SSTO. To use this, replace the SSRSS_Sigma.cfg file in SSRSS/Configs.

 

Thanks for sharing your configs. One question though: what does your rescale do to the atmospheres? thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dafni said:

Thanks for sharing your configs. One question though: what does your rescale do to the atmospheres? thanks again

I scaled Sigma's @Atmosphere = 0.88312 - so Earth's atmosphere was 85,000m

SSRSS default value for @Atmosphere = 0.8

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:22 AM, Dafni said:

Thanks for sharing your configs. One question though: what does your rescale do to the atmospheres? thanks again

According to the config posted in this thread, @Tyko is using the following multipliers:

@Atmosphere = 0.88312
@AtmoTopLayer = 0.75 (for all bodies except Kerbin)
@AtmoTopLayer = 0.6875 (for Kerbin only)

For an explanation of what those multipliers do, see this and this.

The maximum heights of the new atmospheres will be the original RSS height times both of those factors.  So for Kerbin,

Max. atltitude = 140000 * 0.88312 * 0.6875 = 85,000 meters

And for all other bodies the maximum altitude will be reduced from its RSS value by a factor of, 0.88312 * 0.75 = 0.66234.
 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

According to the config posted in this thread, @Tyko is using the following multipliers:

@Atmosphere = 0.88312
@AtmoTopLayer = 0.75 (for all bodies except Kerbin)
@AtmoTopLayer = 0.6875 (for Kerbin only)

For an explanation of what those multipliers do, see this and this.

The maximum heights of the new atmospheres will be the original RSS height times both of those factors.  So for Kerbin,

Max. atltitude = 140000 * 0.88312 * 0.6875 = 85,000 meters

And for all other bodies the maximum altitude will be reduced from its RSS value by a factor of, 0.88312 * 0.75 = 0.66234.
 

Thanks for the additional detail. I feel like I'm at the "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" stage. 

When I made the adjustments I decided to leave the SSRSS special setting for Kerbin in place and just tweak the global @atmosphere level until Kerbin looked right. Ultimately I fudged it so that atmosphere was a nice, easy to remember number. I'm pretty sure it's close, but playability trumped precise accuracy

@OhioBob what is the correct scalar for atmospheres at 1/4 scale to get Planets to a true scaled atmosphere height?

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tyko said:

@OhioBob what is the correct scalar for atmospheres at 1/4 scale to get Planets to a true scaled atmosphere height?

Unfortunately there's not a definitive answer to that question.  When I resize things, whether it's atmospheres or something else, the equation I typically use is,

FR = R^log(F10)

Where R is the resize factor (1 for stock-size and 10 for life-size), FR is the factor at R, F10 is the factor at R = 10, and it is assumed that F1 = 1.  So for example, I use an atmosphere factor of 1 for stock-sized and 1.25 for a 10x system (I'll explain why in a moment).  Therefore, if I want a 2.5x system, I'll usually set @Atmosphere equal to,

F2.5 = 2.5^log(1.25) = 1.093

The above assumes we're upsizing a 1x system, which is normally the case.  If were going the other way, e.g. sizing RSS down, then the factor is, F2.5 = 1.093 / 1.25 = 0.874.

The reason I use atmosphere factors of 1 and 1.25 at 1x and 10x goes back to what Squad did when they created the atmosphere of Kerbin.  Before the current method went into effect (with KSP 1.0.0), atmospheric models were very simple.  Each body had a surface pressure and a constant scale height.  Atmospheres extended upward until the pressure reduced to 1/1000000th of the surface pressure.  Kerbin's scale height was 5000 meters, so this gave its atmosphere a height of,

Zmax = -5000 * LN(0.000001) = 69,078 meters.

When KSP switched to its current method, Squad based Kerbin's atmosphere on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere.  This model of Earth's atmosphere goes to a height of 86 km.  Since players had already gotten familiar with having an atmosphere with a height of about 69 km, Squad factored the altitude scale of the USSA by, 69078 / 86000 ≈ 0.8.  The final maximum height was rounded up to 70 km.

I've since used this same 0.8 factor for every atmosphere model I've done.  I compute the atmosphere based on a life-sized body (10x) and then multiply the vertical scale by 0.8 to fit it to a stock-sized body (1x).  Therefore when I upsize a stock-sized atmosphere to 10x, I have to reverse the 0.8 multiplier, i.e. 1 / 0.8 = 1.25.

What number to use for @AtmoTopLayer is less clear.  If you want just one number to use globally, you could use the same equation as before to determine the max altitude at different resize factors.  For instance, Earth's atmosphere in RSS (10x) is 140 km height, or 2 times the height at 1x (assuming Earth = Kerbin).  Therefore, at 2.5x we might try this,

F2.5 = 2.5^log(2) = 1.318

That would be the factor for maximum altitude, not AtmoTopLayer.  But since max altitude = Atmosphere * AtmoTopLayer, we have

AtmoTopLayer = 1.318 / 1.093 = 1.206.

Or when sizing 10x down to 2.5x,

AtmoTopLayer = (1.318 / 2) / 0.874 = 0.754

Unfortunately I've found that not all atmospheres rescale exactly the same way.  I always end my atmospheres based on the drag and heating effects they have on an incoming body traveling at escape velocity.  This gives every atmosphere common boundary conditions that prevent either the "wall of air" effect, or a needlessly overextended atmosphere.  When I take the time to re-compute every atmosphere at different resize factors, I find that a global AtmoTopLayer factor doesn't really work.  This is why SSRSS has planet-specific AtmoTopLayer factors rather than using a single globally applied factor.  However, I'm a lot more particular about my atmospheres than most people.  I think in most cases a global factor is good enough.  If after gaining some game-playing experience it's determined that some particular atmosphere isn't working just right, it can always be changed.

By the way, the reason Earth's atmosphere is as deep as it is in RSS is for a couple of reasons (if case you didn't know, I did the atmospheres for RSS).  Based on drag and heat alone, it doesn't need to be that deep.  One reason we made it 140 km was to force players to use higher orbits.  Orbiting at, say, 100 km just isn't realistic.  At that height drag would probably cause the orbit to decay on the first pass.  Another reason is because NASA defines "entry interface", the altitude at which the atmosphere is considered to begin, as an altitude of 400,000 feet (121,920 meters).  Therefore we extended the atmosphere realistically up to that height.  Above 121.92 km we began to slowly taper the pressure off until it reached zero at the upper boundary.  After some discussion we settled on making the max altitude 140 km.
 

Edited by OhioBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/07/2017 at 8:30 PM, Tyko said:

Stockalike_Inclinations_Tyko.cfg - builds on @Galileo's changes. His adjusted the planets to stockalike inclinations. Mine also adjusts the moons to be much closer to co-planar with the system by using real world inclinations for them. This replaces Galileo's version. I might change it so that it's just an add-on mod and doesn't require the other to be disabled.

This one definitely interests me :)  Thus far, the moon inclinations have only served to cause me to go to them when they're at AN/DN. Since I'm evading the extra delta-v to do a plane change, all this does is make me wait rather than go at the time I want to ^^;  Will check out next I fire up the game!

(Side note, KSCSwitcher works just fine and includes a Brazillian launch site which is very close to the planetary plane. Unless you put the moon at zero degrees, it may also help choose the perfect launch site for local hops.)

4 hours ago, Tyko said:

I feel like I'm at the "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" stage.

Congrats, you are now promoted to management! :wink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eddiew said:

This one definitely interests me :)  Thus far, the moon inclinations have only served to cause me to go to them when they're at AN/DN. Since I'm evading the extra delta-v to do a plane change, all this does is make me wait rather than go at the time I want to ^^;  Will check out next I fire up the game!

(Side note, KSCSwitcher works just fine and includes a Brazillian launch site which is very close to the planetary plane. Unless you put the moon at zero degrees, it may also help choose the perfect launch site for local hops.)

I set all the moons inclinations to real world relative to the ecliptic. The moon is at 5.145 degrees. 

I discovered a spot at exactly 0.0. Happens to be in the state of Para at the Amazon river delta. Just guessing they didn't actually build there for ecological reasons, but it's perfect for Kerbals. 

I didn't do KSCswitcher just because it was fun to make my own

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tyko said:

I set all the moons inclinations to real world relative to the ecliptic. The moon is at 5.145 degrees. 

I discovered a spot at exactly 0.0. Happens to be in the state of Para at the Amazon river delta. Just guessing they didn't actually build there for ecological reasons, but it's perfect for Kerbals. 

I didn't do KSCswitcher just because it was fun to make my own

Fair enough :)  There's got to be points in Africa that would work too, and possibly Indonesia, but those aren't on the KSC Switcher list alas. 

5 degrees is a lot kinder than the existing, which I think is 42 (although you can launch from Cape Canaveral and be exactly in-plane. Which probably explains the existence of Cape Canaveral...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, eddiew said:

Fair enough :)  There's got to be points in Africa that would work too, and possibly Indonesia, but those aren't on the KSC Switcher list alas. 

5 degrees is a lot kinder than the existing, which I think is 42 (although you can launch from Cape Canaveral and be exactly in-plane. Which probably explains the existence of Cape Canaveral...)

There were interesting points all around the equator. I settled on Brazil because the Atlantic ocean makes a really great splashdown zone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the file that makes the new scatterer work with this now??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dafni said:

Does anyone have the file that makes the new scatterer work with this now??

I haven't updated it yet. 

While making the cfgs, I found more bugs in the new scatterer that needs to be fixed before I include it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing odd pixelation of Earth from a 100Km orbit. Any idea why? I'm using RSS 8K textures, don't have Scatterer installed (not sure if that would matter) and SSRSS High-Res clouds

hVOVf6g.pngui6Eete.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2017 at 9:30 PM, Tyko said:

I've finished a few changes to the SSRSS system and want to make them available for others to try out. Here are the changes made by each of 4 configs:

  • SSRSS_Sigma2.5x24Hour_Tyko.cfg - Scales the system to 2.5x (approx 1/4 size of real solar system) to make it more challenging and bring the Delta-V requirements more in alignment with the capabilities of Stock parts - it's much more difficult to SSTO. To use this, replace the SSRSS_Sigma.cfg file in SSRSS/Configs.
  • KSC_Brazil_1x.cfg - relocates the KSC to Northern Brazil. If you want your Kerbals to speak Portuguese and launch with 0.0 inclination, this change is for you
  • KSC_Brazil_Sigma2.5x.cfg does the same move, but is designed to work with the Sigma2.5x config above.
  • Stockalike_Inclinations_Tyko.cfg - builds on @Galileo's changes. His adjusted the planets to stockalike inclinations. Mine also adjusts the moons to be much closer to co-planar with the system by using real world inclinations for them. This replaces Galileo's version. I might change it so that it's just an add-on mod and doesn't require the other to be disabled.

I might consider publishing these as an official mod, assuming I got @Galileo and @OhioBob's blessings.

The files can be downloaded below:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v6iw9qvwqs12mgu/AAB7pzxmhQBO4KGxBZvkiuBka?dl=0

 

By the way, in case you're wondering why I would make the game more challenging by scaling it up, but less challenging with my inclination changes...I did it because I launch all my flights manually and adding an inclination change to almost every launch wasn't interesting for me. Conversely, the 2.5x scaling gives me a chance to build rockets that look and behave a lot more like real historical rockets while still using Stock parts. Any feedback is welcome :)

 

 

Tyko, you're the best!

I recently found my quarterscale RSS game was completely broken by not having any textures on any planet but earth and moon.
no matter what I tried, could not fix it.

So decided to try and scale SSRSS like you did since I'm not willing to go back to stock size... but indeed having the same issues you encountered.
Luckily I checked this thread again and found your posts... this will save me hours of messing around :-)

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davidjacobs said:

Tyko, you're the best!

I recently found my quarterscale RSS game was completely broken by not having any textures on any planet but earth and moon.
no matter what I tried, could not fix it.

So decided to try and scale SSRSS like you did since I'm not willing to go back to stock size... but indeed having the same issues you encountered.
Luckily I checked this thread again and found your posts... this will save me hours of messing around :-)

Thanks!

Glad to help :D  This was my first attempt at modding a system, so not sure if there were any unintended consequences. If you run into any ways to improve it, please share them back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ithirahad said:

...Wait, why do we have SSRSS 1.3 and not RSS 1.3?

You actually can get RSS in 1.3. Look near the end of the thread. Galileo (the same guy who makes SSRSS) posted a config that'll make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ithirahad said:

...Wait, why do we have SSRSS 1.3 and not RSS 1.3?

I work faster. :) 

Edited by Galileo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello There !

First, thank you @Galileo for your work, I already had the occasion to congratulate you, but there is not too much Kudos when it comes to superb succesfull mods with a lovely continuation :)

The thing is... I just followed carefully (yeah, everyone says so...) your Step-By-Step guide on the HomePage, getting everything working alltogether until I want to add some Visual Enhancement.

Same, I followed your advices regarding the well known EVE, Scatterer, DOE and PlanetShine.

But I can't get them to work at all. No clouds, No Scatterer Effect, DOE looks okay, and I havent tried proper situation to test PlanetShine lighting the belly of a craft :)

Let me sum up what I did to be sure of what we are dealing with :

- Step By Step guide to install SSRSS and all its mandatory mods (working so far :D)

- Download and install of the very first link of EVE, here : https://github.com/WazWaz/EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements/releases

- Download and install of the Scatterer Mod, through SpaceDock : https://spacedock.info/mod/141/scatterer

- Download and install of DOE, through Github : https://github.com/MOARdV/DistantObject/releases/

- Download and install PlanetShine through Curse, the very last release : https://mods.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/224876-planetshine#t1:other-downloads

Your link regarding PlanetShine does not seem to work anymore, so I had a look on the internet and people were saying that PlanetShine updated for 1.2.2 still works for KSP 1.3.

Oh and finally I applied you patch for the highly detailed terrain, gorgeous !!

I end up with this GameData folder in screenshot :

nrlW8Ge.png

But now, when I open the Game, no clouds, and the EVE button tells me that a Config File is needed... Yeah ! Of course it is, but I don't know which step I failed because it does not appear to be any Config File to pilot EVE.

Regarding Scatterer, same it shows up at the Menu, with the control panel where, by default, somes boxes are uncheck. If I don't do anthying, well... Scatterer does not affect the game in any way, no water shaders, no atmospheric scattering, etc. So i tried checking theses boxes to activate, maybe, the water shader, at least to see if Scatterer is able to do anything, and still, nothing. I've read the mention "restard may be required", but nothing happen, even after a restard, Boxes stay uncheck.

Anyhelp ?

Of course SSRSS is great by itself but I definitely can't play without some visual enhancement ;)

Thank you in advance ! I've read many pages, here and on internet, not finding why I appear to be alone in that case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

Hello There !

First, thank you @Galileo for your work, I already had the occasion to congratulate you, but there is not too much Kudos when it comes to superb succesfull mods with a lovely continuation :)

The thing is... I just followed carefully (yeah, everyone says so...) your Step-By-Step guide on the HomePage, getting everything working alltogether until I want to add some Visual Enhancement.

Same, I followed your advices regarding the well known EVE, Scatterer, DOE and PlanetShine.

But I can't get them to work at all. No clouds, No Scatterer Effect, DOE looks okay, and I havent tried proper situation to test PlanetShine lighting the belly of a craft :)

Let me sum up what I did to be sure of what we are dealing with :

- Step By Step guide to install SSRSS and all its mandatory mods (working so far :D)

- Download and install of the very first link of EVE, here : https://github.com/WazWaz/EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements/releases

- Download and install of the Scatterer Mod, through SpaceDock : https://spacedock.info/mod/141/scatterer

- Download and install of DOE, through Github : https://github.com/MOARdV/DistantObject/releases/

- Download and install PlanetShine through Curse, the very last release : https://mods.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/224876-planetshine#t1:other-downloads

Your link regarding PlanetShine does not seem to work anymore, so I had a look on the internet and people were saying that PlanetShine updated for 1.2.2 still works for KSP 1.3.

Oh and finally I applied you patch for the highly detailed terrain, gorgeous !!

I end up with this GameData folder in screenshot :

nrlW8Ge.png

But now, when I open the Game, no clouds, and the EVE button tells me that a Config File is needed... Yeah ! Of course it is, but I don't know which step I failed because it does not appear to be any Config File to pilot EVE.

Regarding Scatterer, same it shows up at the Menu, with the control panel where, by default, somes boxes are uncheck. If I don't do anthying, well... Scatterer does not affect the game in any way, no water shaders, no atmospheric scattering, etc. So i tried checking theses boxes to activate, maybe, the water shader, at least to see if Scatterer is able to do anything, and still, nothing. I've read the mention "restard may be required", but nothing happen, even after a restard, Boxes stay uncheck.

Anyhelp ?

Of course SSRSS is great by itself but I definitely can't play without some visual enhancement ;)

Thank you in advance ! I've read many pages, here and on internet, not finding why I appear to be alone in that case.

 

Did you install the "clouds" file in the Ssrss download? And The latest scatterer (v0.0320b) is not supported yet. You will have to download v0.0300 for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see for Scatterer ! Should fix the issue, will try as soon as I can :)

Edit : Oh, uh... How can I find and download a previous version of Scatterer ? Like this 0.0300 Version ? :s

Regarding the Clouds, yep I've installed them in a first attempt and then I removed them so that i'm able to distinct what come from this folder, or from EVE.

With the SSRSS clouds Folder, I had clouds, not really as effective as EVE's ones, so this is why I want to get them :)

Do not hesitate to tell me if you further informations or if you want me to test things :)

Thank you for your quick reply !

Edited by Dakitess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now