OhioBob Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Tyko said: What still confuses me is why the two versions aren't aligned with each other. There will be a ghost mountain above a lunar plain. Seems like if they were just high-res and low-res versions they should line up with each other. It might just be the viewing angle. When near a body, i.e. 25-30 km, the horizon is much closer then when we're at a high altitude. It could be that the mountains you're seeing in the ScaledVersion are over the horizon of the PQS. As the altitude increases, the PQS horizon moves farther away. Perhaps at 100+ km the previously "over the horizon" terrain will come into view to where the PQS becomes a closer match to the ScaledVersion. The above is just a guess. I really don't know enough about how it works to say for sure. It could be that there's more to the problem than I thought. Edited October 23, 2018 by OhioBob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyko Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, OhioBob said: It might just be the viewing angle. When near a body, i.e. 25-30 km, the horizon is much closer then when we're at a high altitude. It could be that the mountains you're seeing in the ScaledVersion are over the horizon of the PQS. As the altitude increases, the PQS horizon moves farther away. Perhaps at 100+ km the previously "over the horizon" terrain will come into view to where the PQS becomes a closer match to the ScaledVersion. The above is just a guess. I really don't know enough about how it works to say for sure. It could be that there's more to the problem than I thought. Could be. Most of my testing is at about 31000m and when I go to 10x time acceleration it becomes easier to "map" what my brain is seeing to possible perspective errors and I'm pretty sure they're not aligned. Are there two different textures for ScaledVersion and PQS? If so, where are they referenced and how do they get mapped to the planetary surface? Maybe I could dig into it and see if one is getting twisted somehow. Edited October 23, 2018 by Tyko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 16 minutes ago, Tyko said: Are there two different textures for ScaledVersion and PQS? If so, where are they referenced and how do they get mapped to the planetary surface? Maybe I could dig into it and see if one is getting twisted somehow. The scaled version is just a color map and a normal map. ScaledVersion { Material { texture = path/colorMap normals = path/normalMap } } The PQS is a lot more complicated. It can be just a height map and a color map, but often there are additional PQSmods that contribute to a planet's terrain. There are all types of PQSmods that can add height noise, craters, color, etc. Virtually an entire planetary surface can be generated using PQSmods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) @Tyko, I wonder what would happen if you just did a terrain offset. Try something like this: @Kopernicus:AFTER[GPP] { @Body[Iota] { @PQS { @Mods { VertexHeightOffset { offset = 2000 // any positive or negative number, will move terrain upwards or downwards } } } } } If it changes both PQS and ScaledVersion, then you'll gain nothing. But if it changes one and not the other, maybe you can get the radii of the rims to match. (I'm starting to grasp at straws.) (edit) Adding the above means that you should also delete the cache before restarting the game. (edit 2) This might not work on oceans worlds because it could change sea level. It would have to be tested. Edited October 23, 2018 by OhioBob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Dry Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 (edited) Hmm. Inside the configs I find a lot of NEEDS[SigDim,GPP] Does that mean wrong, GPP has to be deleted from the configs right, this only works with GPP as dependency ?? Edited November 6, 2018 by Gordon Dry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Gordon Dry said: Hmm. Inside the configs I find a lot of NEEDS[SigDim,GPP] Does that mean wrong, GPP has to be deleted from the configs right, this only works with GPP as dependency ?? It means the patch will only run if both Sigma Dimensions and GPP are installed. Likely because it is not needed unless you are using GPP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 4 hours ago, Gordon Dry said: Hmm. Inside the configs I find a lot of NEEDS[SigDim,GPP] Does that mean wrong, GPP has to be deleted from the configs right, this only works with GPP as dependency ?? Settings for Sigma Dimensions can be global or planet specific. So what you are seeing are planet specific settings that apply only to GPP. For everything else, the global settings are used. The global settings are the stuff at the beginning of the config inside the @SigmaDimensions{} node. All the GPP stuff doesn't do anything unless GPP is installed. And when GPP is installed, the planet specific settings take precedence over the global settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanson Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) So 6.4x version works almost fine with KSP 1.5.1 and Kopernicus-1.5.1-1 but for some reason FPS drops to unplayable level ON THE SURFACE of Mun. Does anyone have the same problem? Any solutions? Edited November 9, 2018 by Nathanson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 On 10/23/2017 at 2:12 PM, Galileo said: This is something that has been around for a long time now with scaled systems. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything I can do, and I always tell people to disable rescue missions with contract configurator. There isn’t a parameter I can change to raise the altitude. I realize this is an old post that I'm replying to, but there are two things that can be done here For planets with atmospheres, the minimum orbit is linked to atmosphereDepth (radius + atmosphereDepth). if atmosphereDepth doesn't accurately reflect where the edge of the atmosphere is then you get can contract orbits inside the atmosphere. (assuming that the value for this is less than the altitude of the edge of space) For planets without an atmosphere things get tricky. First the highest peak of the airless planet is found. Then the code runs through timewarpAltitudeLimits and finds an altitude in that list that is higher than the highest peak and returns that value + radius. Most of the time that's ok but it can result in orbits which are dangerously close to the highest terrain and the orbit could clip something even off rails. timewarpAltitudeLimits should be scaled by the rescale value to avoid this. These are the things I have done to my installation to avoid impossible rescue missions. (sanitize atmosphereDepth and rescale timewarpAltitudeLimits) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1straycat Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 On 11/25/2018 at 3:36 PM, Starwaster said: I realize this is an old post that I'm replying to, but there are two things that can be done here For planets with atmospheres, the minimum orbit is linked to atmosphereDepth (radius + atmosphereDepth). if atmosphereDepth doesn't accurately reflect where the edge of the atmosphere is then you get can contract orbits inside the atmosphere. (assuming that the value for this is less than the altitude of the edge of space) For planets without an atmosphere things get tricky. First the highest peak of the airless planet is found. Then the code runs through timewarpAltitudeLimits and finds an altitude in that list that is higher than the highest peak and returns that value + radius. Most of the time that's ok but it can result in orbits which are dangerously close to the highest terrain and the orbit could clip something even off rails. timewarpAltitudeLimits should be scaled by the rescale value to avoid this. These are the things I have done to my installation to avoid impossible rescue missions. (sanitize atmosphereDepth and rescale timewarpAltitudeLimits) That sounds awesome! Rescue contracts were somewhat doable in 2.5x but instafail half the time in 3.2x I can't quite figure how to do what you did. Mind breaking it down for dummies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Horizons Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 Do you have experience with downsizing Real Solar System Mod to some kind of 6.4 Kerbin related scale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blasty McBlastblast Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 I am really enjoying playing in a scaled up Kerbin system (loving the challenge of 6.4x with stock balanced parts!), but does anyone have any tips to firm up the ground so that my kerbs aren't sinking into or floating above surfaces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Horizons Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Does this mod scale spaceAltitudeThreshold, too? Is there a way to avoid this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 hours ago, New Horizons said: Does this mod scale spaceAltitudeThreshold, too? Is there a way to avoid this? This mod doesn't per se, but I'm pretty sure Sigma Dimensions does. SD changes stuff like the flying and space thresholds, time warp limits, etc. There is no specific setting for it, but it's linked by some formula to other settings, such as the resize factor. It's all internal, I doubt there is anything you can do to stop it. However, you can write a config to change it back to whatever you want it to be after SD has done its thing. For instance, the following should change Kerbin's space threshold back to its original 250,000 meters. @Kopernicus:AFTER[SigDim] { @Body[Kerbin] { @Properties { @ScienceValues { @spaceAltitudeThreshold = 250000 } } } } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylsh Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 I clearly see this doesn’t work with 1.4. So obviously it doesn’t work with 1.6, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komodo Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 18 minutes ago, dylsh said: I clearly see this doesn’t work with 1.4. So obviously it doesn’t work with 1.6, correct? It is unfortunate that the thread title is out of date. It works perfectly fine with current versions. In fact, most MM or part only mods work fine in 1.6. This is a bit of a special case, interacting with SD, but as it is up to date... rescale away! tldr, the thread name doesn't have a link to compatibility. When in doubt, try it! (On a new save!) it often works more times than it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 11 hours ago, dylsh said: I clearly see this doesn’t work with 1.4. So obviously it doesn’t work with 1.6, correct? komodo is correct at every point. SD never broke. When in doubt, scrub the thread or try the mod and confirm it, rather than doing as everyone else does and only asking if it still works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylsh Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Thanks you both for the speedy answer. I appreciate it. Happy launching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageUser54 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) On 8/2/2017 at 4:30 AM, Galileo said: Quote of the original post in this thread snipped. How bout ksp 1.6.1? Edited April 3, 2019 by James Kerman redacted by a moderator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share Posted April 2, 2019 36 minutes ago, PatelPratham said: How bout ksp 1.6.1? Works fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageUser54 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 34 minutes ago, Galileo said: Works fine. How well is it implemented into career mode. Can I play career mode with this like I could in the normal stock game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageUser54 Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) On 8/2/2017 at 4:30 AM, Galileo said: Quote of the original post in this thread snipped. What are the specifications for each scale for example what is the delta v needed to reach orbit with the following scales. How big is the earth. Where does the atmosphere end and space begin. All these questions if you know what I mean I would like to know that info about the following scales 10x 10.625x Edited April 3, 2019 by James Kerman redacted by a moderator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted April 3, 2019 Author Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, PatelPratham said: What are the specifications for each scale for example what is the delta v needed to reach orbit with the following scales. How big is the earth. Where does the atmosphere end and space begin. All these questions if you know what I mean I would like to know that info about the following scales 10x 10.625x Please stop quoting the entire OP. i do not have a dV map for you the size of Earth? This does not work with RSS so I assume you mean Kerbin. You can find that info in the MM cache after the game is run, but really it’s just a little math to figure that out. 600km x 10 or 10.625. Same thing with the atmosphere. You can find the info in the MM cache after the game is run. the other questions, you will need to play and figure out, man. Edited April 3, 2019 by Galileo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 @PatelPratham, delta-v is proportional to the square root of the rescale/resize factor. So for a 10x system, the delta-v is increase by a factor of 10^0.5 = 3.16 over what it is at 1x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson423 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 On 4/3/2019 at 9:46 AM, PatelPratham said: What are the specifications for each scale for example what is the delta v needed to reach orbit with the following scales. How big is the earth. Where does the atmosphere end and space begin. All these questions if you know what I mean I would like to know that info about the following scales 10x 10.625x Don't know about 10x, but it's about 9000 deltaV for a low Kerbin orbit in 10.625x (I'm using Gravity Turn so the number may be lower than launching manually). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.