Next_Star_Industries

Why do people scale down mods?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Next_Star_Industries said:

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

You are. The IRL Mercury capsule was 1.9 meters across. The Mk1 Command Pod is 1.25m across. That's a scale of 0.625, rounded to the nearest clean multiple of 1.25. Same with the Mk1-2. The Apollo Command module was 3.9m in diameter. Scaled to Kerbal scale, that's 2.4375m, which is rounded to 2.5m. In general, mods that aim to replicate real life craft for the stock game scale to this factor. A meter in KSP is the same as a meter in real life, but Kerbal parts are smaller than their real-world equivalents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronCretin said:

You are. The IRL Mercury capsule was 1.9 meters across. The Mk1 Command Pod is 1.25m across. That's a scale of 0.625, rounded to the nearest clean multiple of 1.25. Same with the Mk1-2. The Apollo Command module was 3.9m in diameter. Scaled to Kerbal scale, that's 2.4375m, which is rounded to 2.5m. In general, mods that aim to replicate real life craft for the stock game scale to this factor. A meter in KSP is the same as a meter in real life, but Kerbal parts are smaller than their real-world equivalents.

See now this is where you would be mistaken the MK1 isn't the Mercury capsule or the scale wouldn't change, it's actually a smaller version of the Mercury. So they are actually new parts not the real ones scaled down. In reality these parts can't be scaled the Mercury capsule is already built, so the only option would be to build a new Mercury capsule that is smaller or lie and say It's the actual capsule but scaled down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

See now this is where you would be mistaken the MK1 isn't the Mercury capsule or the scale wouldn't change, it's actually a smaller version of the Mercury. So they are actually new parts not the real ones scaled down. In reality these parts can't be scaled the Mercury capsule is already built, so the only option would be to build a new Mercury capsule that is smaller or lie and say It's the actual capsule but scaled down.

u wot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What precisely is going on in this thread? 

Are you saying that everyone should build parts to exact real proportions in the game?

Share this post


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

You would be mistaken the MK1 isn't the Mercury capsule or the scale wouldn't change, it's actually a smaller version of the Mercury. So they are actually new parts not the real ones scaled down. In reality these parts can't be scaled the Mercury capsule is already built, so the only option would be to build a new Mercury capsule that is smaller or lie and say it's the actual capsule but scaled down.

You're right. The Mk1 Capsule isn't the Mercury any more than Jool is Jupiter.

HOWEVER, the Mk1 Capsule is the Kerbal analogue of the Mercury just as Jool is the Kerbal analogue of Jupiter. The fact that both Jool and the Mk1 are analogues of their real life counterparts means that they are not exact scaled replicas, and instead represent what their respective entities would be like if they were developed by Kerbals rather than humans (with some room for artistic license.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the KSP is a miniaturized solar system analogue. What we see as 0.625m is considered as 1m in that miniaturized solar system since kerbals who lived there is smaller than human. 0.625m is considered as 1m for them

No offense, but honestly, precisely where this thread headed is not clear for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ARS said:

Think the KSP is a miniaturized solar system analogue. What we see as 0.625m is considered as 1m in that miniaturized solar system since kerbals who lived there is smaller than human. 0.625m is considered as 1m for them

Build a part that's exactly 1 meter cubed and place it in game, then have a look at the scale bar in the icon window of the editor. 1 meter is 1 meter.

4 hours ago, ARS said:

No offense, but honestly, precisely where this thread headed is not clear for me

To make people think a little and to get people to quit saying what you just said above. 1 meter is 1 meter to a Kerbal the same as it is to a human look at the scale. Some people are trying to build realistic parts but aren't because they are told about this imaginary scale and build to it and I'm trying to correct them. You wouldn't build the Saturn 5 for Kerbals on a planet like Kerbin. 1. That would be the same as letting my 4 foot wife drive a Cadillac it doesn't work.  SO you build them a Saturn 5 replica but with weaker engines, so it behaves the same as it does in true life by going through all the stages, and smaller so Kerbals fit inside correctly. The same as I bought my wife a VWBug instead because she fits in it correctly. That's where this is going.

Edited by Next_Star_Industries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

Build a part that's exactly 1 meter cubed and place it in game, then have a look at the scale bar in the icon window of the editor. 1 meter is 1 meter.

But that 1 meter that you see from icon editor is kerbal version of editor. Every time you build something that's 1 meter, its represented in meter scale for kerbal, not us. So when you use RSS mod, it makes sense why kerbals and parts looks so small and downgraded compared to what you expect

3 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

Some people are trying to build realistic parts but aren't because they are told about this imaginary scale

That scale was created to make it easier to build something in the game without having to do calculations about ship size. If you compare kerbal scale and real scale then imagine this:

A fuel tank has a height of exactly 1 meter (kerbal scale)

1st case: I'm building a rocket by stacking 3 fuel tanks, so that means 1+1+1= 3 meter

2nd case: just like 1st case, but with real scale, so that means 0.625 + 0.625 + 0.625= 1.875 meter

No matter what you look at it, from gamer standpoint, people tend to choose the simpler method of 1st case (and that just a fuel tanks, not counting other stuff attached)

Kerbol system is a miniaturized solar system. The way this imaginary system introduced is to make it easier to judge the size of a craft without having to do calculations so people will know the overall size of the craft and make it easier for them in building that thing. With the exact number of 1 meter in kerbal scale it makes building easier since a few numbers before comma in part editor icon will give you an estimation how much the size of your craft will increase instead of having to worry about decimals. Imagine if you are a kerbal. Would you choose a basic measurement value of 1 or 0.625 for the sake of convenience? Most gamer will probably choose 1 

Its all for the sake of game balance, to simplify user interface and for the sake of convenience. This isn't real life rocket building. Remember, KSP is basically like a rocket modeling (with planets), not a full fledged space program that needs to obey the international standard of measurement. If you want the real one, then use RSS and appropriate parts for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ARS said:

But that 1 meter that you see from icon editor is kerbal version of editor. Every time you build something that's 1 meter, its represented in meter scale for kerbal, not us. So when you use RSS mod, it makes sense why kerbals and parts looks so small and downgraded compared to what you expect

That scale was created to make it easier to build something in the game without having to do calculations about ship size. If you compare kerbal scale and real scale then imagine this:

A fuel tank has a height of exactly 1 meter (kerbal scale)

1st case: I'm building a rocket by stacking 3 fuel tanks, so that means 1+1+1= 3 meter

2nd case: just like 1st case, but with real scale, so that means 0.625 + 0.625 + 0.625= 1.875 meter

No matter what you look at it, from gamer standpoint, people tend to choose the simpler method of 1st case (and that just a fuel tanks, not counting other stuff attached)

Kerbol system is a miniaturized solar system. The way this imaginary system introduced is to make it easier to judge the size of a craft without having to do calculations so people will know the overall size of the craft and make it easier for them in building that thing. With the exact number of 1 meter in kerbal scale it makes building easier since a few numbers before comma in part editor icon will give you an estimation how much the size of your craft will increase instead of having to worry about decimals. Imagine if you are a kerbal. Would you choose a basic measurement value of 1 or 0.625 for the sake of convenience? Most gamer will probably choose 1 

Its all for the sake of game balance, to simplify user interface and for the sake of convenience. This isn't real life rocket building. Remember, KSP is basically like a rocket modeling (with planets), not a full fledged space program that needs to obey the international standard of measurement. If you want the real one, then use RSS and appropriate parts for it

If you take that same fuel stack and bring it out to the real world it would still be the same size. Let's use that fuel stack example. Let's say that fuel stack will place you into Kerbin orbit. You couldn't use that same fuel stack on Earth and reach orbit because the Earth is bigger it's not because the part is smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

If you take that same fuel stack and bring it out to the real world it would still be the same size. Let's use that fuel stack example. Let's say that fuel stack will place you into Kerbin orbit. You couldn't use that same fuel stack on Earth and reach orbit because the Earth is bigger it's not because the part is smaller.

That's why, like I said before:

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

From these statement, it makes sense why people scaled down the mod, it makes the parts that we can use in the game isn't overpowered, but still viable enough to get into kerbin orbit. Now do it in reverse, if you bring a part from real life into kerbin, that part is obviously really overpowered. Just like what @NecroBones said in his real scale boosters mod:

"This pack is intended for use with "Real Solar System", or otherwise a more realistic scale version of Kerbin. The parts included will likely be severe overkill in a more normal KSP installation. "

Like he said, the real scale parts is obviously overkill in stock KSP. People downscaled the mod parts in stock gameplay purely for the sake of game balance and to fit the aesthetic of miniaturized solar system.

15 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

You couldn't use that same fuel stack on Earth and reach orbit because the Earth is bigger it's not because the part is smaller.

That's because you scaled up the situation without scaling up the parts too

50 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

To make people use their brains for something other then a place to destroy brain cells

Telling something like this is quite... offensive in my place ;.;, as well as here where most of the users is a rocket enthusiast that do (no offense) use their brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ARS said:

That's why, like I said before:

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.

First after rereading the post I agree it was a little offensive so I edited it and just want to get people thinking is all.

Now you said it right there though that's why stock has fictitious names for parts and stuff, it is scaled to fit Kerbals but they also never claim it was a real part.

As far as not scaling the situation right: If I wanted to achieve that said orbit around Earth I would have to stack say 6 of those same fuel tanks. It isn't that there is less fuel it's that there is further to travel. (just an example not knowing how many it would take)

Edited by Next_Star_Industries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I already forgive you for your previous post

Second, KSP is a sandbox game, with that kind of game, people tend to do whatever it takes to improvise to get their ship to their destination despite the limitation of stock parts. Take @Stratzenblitz75 or @Matt Lowne's achievements as an example. Despite the limitation of stock parts performance (in kerbal scale) they managed to did something awesome such as Eelo SSTO with no refuel (Matt Lowne) or Single launching Eelo artificial gravity station (Stratzenblitz75) simply because of their creativity and knowledge of orbital mechanics. The main point of KSP is not to make people believe it's a real space simulation, it's to teach people about spaceflight and orbital mechanics with some creativity aspect by building their own rocket. It's solar system is simply being scaled down to make it easier for people to understand how orbital mechanic works without being shocked by a mind-boggling scale of real solar system.

39 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

just an example not knowing how many it would take

Here's a good example:

Could we go to Eelo in KSP with a single launch and back without refueling? Yes, sure.

How you plan your ship? Most player will choose I'll make it as fuel efficient as possible by just relying to my knowledge of orbital mechanic or I'll just brute force my ship by packing as much fuel tank as I can fit on my ship and use strongest engine for all my burns need

No matter what the choice is, the ship will get inevitably monstrous for such a mission, but it's still possible. Now the question is, if a real life spacecraft is built like a kerbal-style, could we built an SSTO for pluto? or a gigantic towering rocket for such a task?

In theory, yes. In practice it's much harder than it sounds. Since KSP is a downscaled version of real life space program, all of their parts are fictional, we don't even know what's the material of those fuel tanks that people use for their towering rocket. In real life, with our current knowledge of material science, we don't even know if a rocket built in a style of kerbal can stand on it's own weight. KSP only simulates stuff based on numbers, but real life has an external factor that must be considered too. Example? Assuming we can build a rocket like kerbal-style monstrosity, have we already calculated how it reacts against wind? Or structural integrity on flight? Building real-scale KSP rocket to Eelo would be more like planning to build a skyscraper (And send it to deep space). KSP have no winds nor any external factor other than celestial body properties that affect the numbers on rocket parts

@ShadowZone has said in his video of 10 Ways To Improve Kerbal Space Program, on the 10th point he's suggesting to integrate Real Solar System as a stock feature which acts like ultra-hard difficulty for those who's already skilled enough to pull out Eve return of Jool-5 challenge, to test their skills in a real scale version of solar system. KSP parts and kerbol system are downscaled for the sake to make people easier to understand how spaceflight works in miniaturized scale of our solar system. That way, they could understand how orbital mechanic works and hone their skill in mastering it to take on an even bigger (or insane) challenge

Forgive me if I said something wrong on this (or previous) posts :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this thread. It's the same as building a scale train set, or scale models. Kerbal is ~2/3 IRL scale, so we model things at about 2/3 scale. 1m is still 1m, but the parts themselves are scaled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me a few posts to get what you meant by "scale down" mods. If possible, I'd like to throw in my thoughts...

Scaled down mods: For me, when I use this term, I refer to stripping parts from mods that I never use. For example, I no longer use the entire B9 mod, so I removed all the parts but the ones (mostly floodlights) that I use. I also do the same thing to other mods, such as LackLuster's STX. So, when you began talking about "scaled down mods..."

Referring to the topic at hand: Why would Kerbals build things full sized for humans? I imagine they are around a meter tall so anything they would construct would fit their body size. I imagine most mod makers considers this as to why the mods are scaled down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ARS said:

First of all, I already forgive you for your previous post

Second, KSP is a sandbox game, with that kind of game, people tend to do whatever it takes to improvise to get their ship to their destination despite the limitation of stock parts. Take @Stratzenblitz75 or @Matt Lowne's achievements as an example. Despite the limitation of stock parts performance (in kerbal scale) they managed to did something awesome such as Eelo SSTO with no refuel (Matt Lowne) or Single launching Eelo artificial gravity station (Stratzenblitz75) simply because of their creativity and knowledge of orbital mechanics. The main point of KSP is not to make people believe it's a real space simulation, it's to teach people about spaceflight and orbital mechanics with some creativity aspect by building their own rocket. It's solar system is simply being scaled down to make it easier for people to understand how orbital mechanic works without being shocked by a mind-boggling scale of real solar system.

Here's a good example:

Could we go to Eelo in KSP with a single launch and back without refueling? Yes, sure.

How you plan your ship? Most player will choose I'll make it as fuel efficient as possible by just relying to my knowledge of orbital mechanic or I'll just brute force my ship by packing as much fuel tank as I can fit on my ship and use strongest engine for all my burns need

No matter what the choice is, the ship will get inevitably monstrous for such a mission, but it's still possible. Now the question is, if a real life spacecraft is built like a kerbal-style, could we built an SSTO for pluto? or a gigantic towering rocket for such a task?

In theory, yes. In practice it's much harder than it sounds. Since KSP is a downscaled version of real life space program, all of their parts are fictional, we don't even know what's the material of those fuel tanks that people use for their towering rocket. In real life, with our current knowledge of material science, we don't even know if a rocket built in a style of kerbal can stand on it's own weight. KSP only simulates stuff based on numbers, but real life has an external factor that must be considered too. Example? Assuming we can build a rocket like kerbal-style monstrosity, have we already calculated how it reacts against wind? Or structural integrity on flight? Building real-scale KSP rocket to Eelo would be more like planning to build a skyscraper (And send it to deep space). KSP have no winds nor any external factor other than celestial body properties that affect the numbers on rocket parts

@ShadowZone has said in his video of 10 Ways To Improve Kerbal Space Program, on the 10th point he's suggesting to integrate Real Solar System as a stock feature which acts like ultra-hard difficulty for those who's already skilled enough to pull out Eve return of Jool-5 challenge, to test their skills in a real scale version of solar system. KSP parts and kerbol system are downscaled for the sake to make people easier to understand how spaceflight works in miniaturized scale of our solar system. That way, they could understand how orbital mechanic works and hone their skill in mastering it to take on an even bigger (or insane) challenge

Forgive me if I said something wrong on this (or previous) posts :(

Nicely put. I have seen nothing wrong in any post you have made and think this is a great debate.

 

34 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I really don't understand this thread. It's the same as building a scale train set, or scale models. Kerbal is ~2/3 IRL scale, so we model things at about 2/3 scale. 1m is still 1m, but the parts themselves are scaled.

This was the whole point of it, they are scaled fictitious parts not realistic ones. You can definitely build realistic stuff if so choosing. Like the MK1 isn't the Mercury capsule it's the MK1.

16 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Referring to the topic at hand: Why would Kerbals build things full sized for humans? I imagine they are around a meter tall so anything they would construct would fit their body size. I imagine most mod makers considers this as to why the mods are scaled down.

That's what this is about. It's not about building real human parts for Kerbals, but about building those Kerbal parts to a 1:1 scale not .625:1.

Here is why I have made this post: I was asked what scale I use to build weapons I said I use a 1:1 ratio. I was then rudely told how that wasn't right because it should be .625:1 and when I tried to explain like I have here it just got completely out of hand. So I decided to ask why people are scaling down their work.

Edited by Next_Star_Industries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

Here is why I have made this post: I was asked what scale I use to build weapons I said I use a 1:1 ratio. I was then rudely told how that wasn't right because it should be .625:1 and when I tried to explain like I have here it just got completely out of hand. So I decided to ask why people are scaling down their work.

I'll make this simple for you.

Modders make what they want to make and can't be convinced otherwise.

In this case they wanted their mods to play well together and with stock so they did what other older modders were already doing like how railroad tracks got built to the width of wagons already in production back in the day. That's all there really is to it to follow or not is your choice users just harass people who venture from the norm because they want their mods to play well together for no extra work but you don't actually have to listen to them.

So if you want 1:1 scale sidewinder missiles then just do it the opinions of users are ultimately irrelevant if they don't like it they can learn to rescale with mm scripts or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.