Why do people scale down mods?

[Next_Star_Industries]

I see some mods are being scaled down for use in the Kerbal universe I'm just curious as to why? It seems that 1 meter is still 1 meter and one second is still one second, so that would mean that 1+1 still equals 2. So why the scale down? For example I build nuclear weapons in my mod, I didn't produce a 50 megaton weapon because it would destroy half of Kerbin, but instead built weapons that would be realistically used on a planet the size of Kerbin. The Kerbin system isn't a scaled down version of the real solar system or 1 meter wouldn't be 1 meter, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

I see some mods are being scaled down for use in the Kerbal universe I'm just curious as to why? It seems that 1 meter is still 1 meter and one second is still one second, so that would mean that 1+1 still equals 2. So why the scale down? For example I build nuclear weapons in my mod, I didn't produce a 50 megaton weapon because it would destroy half of Kerbin, but instead built weapons that would be realistically used on a planet the size of Kerbin. The Kerbin system isn't a scaled down version of the real solar system or 1 meter wouldn't be 1 meter, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

But kerbin is smaller than earth. Yes, 1 meter is a meter, but kerbins diameter (and therefore circumference and surface area) has less meters than earths diameter.

You can scale using 2 ways: 

1. Actually make a meter smaller.

2. Reduce volume, without touching the meter.

[regex]

12 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

I see some mods are being scaled down for use in the Kerbal universe I'm just curious as to why?

KSP's solar system isn't really "scaled down" so much as it's just a tiny, totally unrealistic solar system. If you scaled Kerbin down and scaled the measurement as well it would still take roughly 9km/s of scaled delta-V to get to orbit instead of the somewhere around 3.2~3.5km/s.

Because KSP is, first and foremost, a "game" rather than a "simulator" it gives itself free reign to reduce the actual size of things and generally effects to fit the perceived scale. That is, it succumbs to "game balance", something that doesn't exist in the real world. Most mods made for stock try to fit into this paradigm.

This is why you don't make a 50 megaton nuclear weapon at actual size but instead scale down the blast area to fit Kerbin.

And even if you did make it full sized, a 50-megaton blast wouldn't cover half of Kerbin.

[Mecripp]

First most mods are scaled to kerbin but there are some that are scaled up to more earth size there some the look like RSS but are stock size and even them mods where scaled to kerbin and just run a patch to change size and mass and couple more things.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, regex said:

KSP's solar system isn't really "scaled down" so much as it's just a tiny, totally unrealistic solar system. If you scaled Kerbin down and scaled the measurement as well it would still take roughly 9km/s of scaled delta-V to get to orbit instead of the somewhere around 3.2~3.5km/s.

Because KSP is, first and foremost, a "game" rather than a "simulator" it gives itself free reign to reduce the actual size of things and generally effects to fit the perceived scale. That is, it succumbs to "game balance", something that doesn't exist in the real world. Most mods made for stock try to fit into this paradigm.

This is why you don't make a 50 megaton nuclear weapon at actual size but instead scale down the blast area to fit Kerbin.

And even if you did make it full sized, a 50-megaton blast wouldn't cover half of Kerbin.

Is kerbins mass identical to earths?

Edited July 31, 2017 by Guest
MASS

[regex]

5 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Is kerbins mass identical to earths?

No because, despite its impossible density, it still follows actual physical laws. Kerbin is designed to have a surface gravity the same as Earth's which results in an impossible physical density but a lower mass than Earth overall (remember that Earth's radius is 10.6 times that of Kerbin). It's not scaled-down Earth, it's an Earth-analogue.

Edited July 31, 2017 by regex

[Guest]

1 minute ago, regex said:

No because, despite its impossible density, it still follows actual physical laws. Kerbin is designed to have a surface gravity the same as Earth's which results in an impossible physical density but a lower mass than Earth overall (remember that Earth's radius is 10.6 times that of Kerbin). It's not scaled-down Earth, it's an Earth-analogue.

Ah, I see.

 

 

 

 

[Next_Star_Industries]

22 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

But kerbin is smaller than earth. Yes, 1 meter is a meter, but kerbins diameter (and therefore circumference and surface area) has less meters than earths diameter.

You can scale using 2 ways: 

1. Actually make a meter smaller.

2. Reduce volume, without touching the meter.

I understand the logic here but wouldn't one just build things for that said volume.

15 minutes ago, regex said:

And even if you did make it full sized, a 50-megaton blast wouldn't cover half of Kerbin.

I know it wouldn't that was just an exaggerated example is all.

 

11 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Is kerbins mass identical to earths?

No. But it wouldn't be if it's 1/10th the size of Earth.

 

7 minutes ago, regex said:

No because, despite its impossible density, it still follows actual physical laws. Kerbin is designed to have a surface gravity the same as Earth's which results in an impossible physical density but a lower mass than Earth overall (remember that Earth's radius is 10.6 times that of Kerbin). It's not scaled-down Earth, it's an Earth-analogue.

Makes good sense. Didn't think about it from this angle.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Next_Star_Industries

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

9 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

 

No. But it wouldn't be if it's 1/10th the size of Earth

Remember: its denser.

[Next_Star_Industries]

Just now, dundun92 said:

Remember: its denser.

Yes now it makes more sense. I wasn't thinking about it from this point of view.

@dundun92 So do you think I should scale down my stuff or keep the real world settings I currently use?

[Tex_NL]

1 hour ago, regex said:

If you scaled Kerbin down and scaled the measurement as well it would still take roughly 9km/s of scaled delta-V to get to orbit instead of the somewhere around 3.2~3.5km/s.

If you scaled down both the planet AND the measurement you would effectively scaled down absolutely nothing.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Tex_NL

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

Yes now it makes more sense. I wasn't thinking about it from this point of view.

@dundun92 So do you think I should scale down my stuff or keep the real world settings I currently use?

Use real-world settings. I like it better.

24 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

If you scaled down both the planet AND the measurement you would effectively scaled down absolutely nothing.

That was regexs post.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Guest

[Next_Star_Industries]

I view it like this. The Kerbal solar system would be like any other real world system. It still uses the same physics, the same measurements, the same time, etc. it's just a smaller system. There for, IMO, parts would still have all the same real world sizes and settings, but would only include parts that would be used for a system of that size. Instead of building the same stuff that would be used on a system the size of our solar system and scaled down to work in the Kerbal system.

For example I could build the 50 megaton Russian "Tsar Bomba", but it would never be used on a planet the size of Kerbin. A 50 megaton nuclear explosion has a 5 psi over pressure radius of 20.7 km that would be total over kill and a waste on a planet the size of Kerbin. Just like here on Earth we would never build anything over 100 megaton it's just a waste, but that same weapon would be very insignificant on a planet the size of Jupiter and we would build them bigger than 100 megatons because it would be practical to do so.

So IMO nothing should be scaled back but actually build stuff that would be practical in a system the size of the Kerbal system or for other systems seeing as there are plenty of solar system and planet mods out there.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Next_Star_Industries

[Tex_NL]

You're right @dundun92. I quote from the wrong post. It has been corrected now.

[regex]

1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:

If you scaled down both the planet AND the measurement you would effectively scaled down absolutely nothing.

Which was the point of that statement.

E: And sure, you can get all pedantic about the definition of "scaled down" but from my POV Kerbin isn't scaled down at all because it tries to be Earth at sea level, which means all sorts of other things don't get scaled down. For instance, the atmosphere is much taller than a scaled Earth atmosphere and the density isn't scaled at all.

Edited July 31, 2017 by regex

[DStaal]

Also, Kerbals are approximately half the size of humans.  So scaling down vehicles designed for humans to kerbal-sizes can also make sense.

[Next_Star_Industries]

12 hours ago, regex said:

This is why you don't make a 50 megaton nuclear weapon at actual size but instead scale down the blast area to fit Kerbin.

You can't scale down a 50 megaton blast area or any other blast area of weapons for that matter, it is what it is, you simply wouldn't use a weapon of that size on a planet the size of Kerbin. I mean you can scale them, but then it isn't the same weapon any longer it's a weaker one. So a 50 megaton blast wouldn't be a 50 megaton blast any longer it would only be about 300 kiloton, if you scale it to the size of the KSC. None of my weapons are scaled down like this, they do however only use a blast radius equal to the kill zone of the weapon. Like with my nukes the blast area is equal to the 5 psi over pressure created by real nukes.

I think you like others believe it is our real solar system scaled down and it simply isn't, it's just a small solar system with the same physics we use today. Well besides the fact that the densities aren't used in a realistic way, but that has no impact on the game what so ever, but real world physics, gravity, and math does. So like I was saying you can't scale down a weapon to fit in the Kerbal system you simply build a smaller weapon. I believe this is what you were saying as well when you stated that it should be scaled to fit Kerbin that translates to build a smaller weapon.

10 hours ago, DStaal said:

Also, Kerbals are approximately half the size of humans.  So scaling down vehicles designed for humans to kerbal-sizes can also make sense.

Stuff like that does make sense.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Next_Star_Industries

[Next_Star_Industries]

12 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

If you scaled down both the planet AND the measurement you would effectively scaled down absolutely nothing.

This isn't accurate as you would scale the parts as well and then try to use the same thrust and ISP it originally had this isn't how it works. Let's say some one want's to build the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket as a mod. It would never work because the first stage alone could get you anywhere you wanted in the Kerbal system. Unless it is scaled down, but then it would no longer be the Falcon 9, it would be a weaker version of it and it would use all 3 stages just to get to Kerbin orbit.

 

[ARS]

Okay, here's an analogue:

Stock parts + real solar system = nobody get to go to space because stock parts underwhelming performance in real life scale

Real parts + stock solar system = total overkill since many real life rocket parts are overkill when used in kerbol

Compare it like this:

In real life, a nuclear bomb with x megaton power produce the blast size of 15 km that leveled an entire city on earth surface

Now scale down the earth and the explosion into kerbin size. For us, the blast looks puny bcs of the smaller scale, but for kerbals, its still a bomb with x megaton power and 15 km radius

Its all about perspective and balance. If you make a nuclear bomb with real life scale and drop it on kerbin, I doubt the plane that dropped it will make it out of blast zone and makes the weapon impractical. So the bomb was scaled down to make it more practical

Edited August 1, 2017 by ARS

[kerbiloid]

Also Kerbals have more or less human size in shoulders, but about two times less in height.

So, you have to choose in which dimension do you prefer a "realistic" size.

Edited August 1, 2017 by kerbiloid

[regex]

9 hours ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

You can't scale down a 50 megaton blast area or any other blast area of weapons for that matter, it is what it is, you simply wouldn't use a weapon of that size on a planet the size of Kerbin. I mean you can scale them, but then it isn't the same weapon any longer it's a weaker one. So a 50 megaton blast wouldn't be a 50 megaton blast any longer it would only be about 300 kiloton, if you scale it to the size of the KSC.

That's fair but it will look out of place, which is why you would want to scale the blast area. If all the worlds you have to detonate a 50mt weapon on are one tenth the size of Earth then you are using a weapon with ten times the effective radius it would have on Earth. If you're okay with that then why continue fussing over scale?

Quote

I think you like others believe it is our real solar system scaled down and it simply isn't, it's just a small solar system with the same physics we use today. Well besides the fact that the densities aren't used in a realistic way, but that has no impact on the game what so ever, but real world physics, gravity, and math does.

Dude just basically rewrites my own post up above in an attempt to refute my own point.    

Quote

So like I was saying you can't scale down a weapon to fit in the Kerbal system you simply build a smaller weapon. I believe this is what you were saying as well when you stated that it should be scaled to fit Kerbin that translates to build a smaller weapon.

Yes, you could consider "scaling" the blast effect of a weapon to fit the perceived scale of the world it is being detonated on. Alternatively, install RSS and stop fussing over "scale".

The parts in the game are also scaled to 64%. So 1m=0.64m insofar as parts are concerned within the game. You may want to consider scaling the blast effects to match the parts scale.

[Next_Star_Industries]

44 minutes ago, regex said:

The parts in the game are also scaled to 64%. So 1m=0.64m insofar as parts are concerned within the game. You may want to consider scaling the blast effects to match the parts scale.

Nope 1 meter is 1 meter. Build a meter stick and put it in the game you'll see.

[regex]

43 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

Nope 1 meter is 1 meter.

Ah right, my mistake, that was an old rule of thumb to scale real world things to Kerbals.

[IronCretin]

5 hours ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

Nope 1 meter is 1 meter. Build a meter stick and put it in the game you'll see.

A part whose real world equivalent is 1m across is .625m across in Kerbal scale

[Next_Star_Industries]

2 minutes ago, IronCretin said:

A part whose real world equivalent is 1m across is .625m across in Kerbal scale

I must be completely missing something, because my 1m square probe measures 1m square in game.