Jump to content

[BETA] KSRSS 0.7 - Kerbin (or x2.5) sized RSS


tony48
 Share

KSC location for the next release  

243 members have voted

  1. 1. Where should the KSC be located?

    • Cape Canaveral, Florida (28 degrees North)
      174
    • Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees North)
      69


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DA299 said:

here's a suggestion for the devs:

If you would like to share your method for doing this, I'm sure it'll be useful to other folks. There hasn't been any word from the devs in about a year, so unless someone forks/adopts, it's pretty much up to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have been tinkering with my Johnston Island patch, and this yields pretty good results:

u0EjePF.jpg

This patch will give you this island in pretty much the correct location:

Spoiler

Q6N3gZZ.jpg

I have a couple of questions:

1). For the grass color values, how do I change them so that the KSC base matches the background better?

2). How can I move the base slightly to the left, so that I can avoid this:

Spoiler

kwfdBfJ.jpg

This will give me a "secret" base from which to launch all sorts of semi-nefarious missions against those Krussians. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

If you would like to share your method for doing this, I'm sure it'll be useful to other folks. There hasn't been any word from the devs in about a year, so unless someone forks/adopts, it's pretty much up to us.

Sorry for the late reply, I was driving. Anyways, here's how you do it:

GameData >> KSRSS >> Patches >> 2.5xKSRSS.cfg

In the config file, in base settings at the very top, set daylengthmultiplier to "2".

That's All :) 

I did some further testing, and it turns out that setting 1 day = 12 hours also makes the orbital periods of the planets to roughly what they are IRL(in terms of days I mean.):

Mercury ~85 days (IRL its 88 I think)

Venus ~270 days (IRL its ~270 as well)

Earth 1 year = ~350 days

Mars ~2 years

Jupiter ~11 years

Saturn ~29.5 years

Uranus ~84 years

Neptune ~160 years

Pluto ~244 years.

 

All of these values are extremely close to IRL. In fact, I think there's probably some value of Earth day length that could get them exactly the same, though this would require a lot more math. Simply eyeballing it, and setting Earth day length to 12 hours in 2.5X KSRSS is a worthwhile addition to gameplay IMO. 

Edited by DA299
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DA299 said:

I did some further testing, and it turns out that setting 1 day = 12 hours also makes the orbital periods of the planets to roughly what they are IRL(in terms of days I mean.):

That works out nicely because when resizing a solar system, orbital periods change by the sqaure root of the rescale factor.  It would actually be better if KSRSS were resized to 1/4 real scale rather than 2.5x stock.  At 1/4 real scale, all the orbital periods would be SQRT(1/4) = 1/2 what they are in real life.  So if the rotation periods are then also factored by 1/2, the years when measured in days would be exactly the same as they are in real life.  Earth's year would be 365 12-hour days, and so on.

2.5x stock scale is is a little smaller than 1/4 real scale, so that's why you are getting orbital periods that are a little less than their real life values.

This is one of the main reasons the JNSQ mod was made to 1/4 real scale.  The math just works out so nicely.  In fact, if I were to make a stock-ish like version of RSS, I would probably make it 1/9 real scale rather than stock size.  The difference between 1/9 scale and stock isn't all that much, but 1/9 scale is so much better mathematically.   The orbital periods at 1/9 scale are exactly 1/3 real life.  So if we give Earth an 8-hour day, all the orbital periods again equal their real life values when measured in days.

Edited by OhioBob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

That works out nicely because when resizing a solar system, orbital periods change by the sqaure root of the rescale factor.  It would actually be better if KSRSS were resized to 1/4 real scale rather than 2.5x stock.  At 1/4 real scale, all the orbital periods would be SQRT(1/4) = 1/2 what they are in real life.  So if the rotation periods are then also factored by 1/2, the years when measured in days would be exactly the same as they are in real life.  Earth's year would be 365 12-hour days, and so on.

2.5x stock scale is is a little smaller than 1/4 real scale, so that's why you are getting orbital periods that are a little less than their real life values.

This is one of the main reasons the JNSQ mod was made to 1/4 real scale.  The math just works out so nicely.  In fact, if I were to make a stock-ish like version of RSS, I would probably make it 1/9 real scale rather than stock size.  The difference between 1/9 scale and stock isn't all that much, but 1/9 scale is so much better mathematically.   The orbital periods at 1/9 scale are exactly 1/3 real life.  So if we give Earth an 8-hour day, all the orbital periods again equal their real life values when measured in days.

I've found the Kepler fanboy :)  Great Explanation though, makes a lot of sense.

Edited by DA299
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 7:39 AM, OhioBob said:

I second 12 hours for 2.5x.

I third the 12 hours for 2.5x...

On 7/24/2022 at 4:37 AM, OhioBob said:

This is one of the main reasons the JNSQ mod was made to 1/4 real scale.  

JNSQ is 2.7x stock is that right?

In asking this, the deltavee map suggests that Earth is a little over 5130 ms-1 delta vee to orbit and JNSQ kerbin is 4900ms-1.  Is this becasue of the slower rotation in JNSQ? As i would have that a shorter day would give more of a boost.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, theJesuit said:

I third the 12 hours for 2.5x...

JNSQ is 2.7x stock is that right?

In asking this, the deltavee map suggests that Earth is a little over 5130 ms-1 delta vee to orbit and JNSQ kerbin is 4900ms-1.  Is this becasue of the slower rotation in JNSQ? As i would have that a shorter day would give more of a boost.

 

That 5130 DV estimate is high in my experience. 5000 and maybe less is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, theJesuit said:

JNSQ is 2.7x stock is that right?

We commonly say JNSQ is 2.7x stock, but it was actually made to 1/4 real scale.  That is, the JNSQ solar system was designed at real scale and then scaled down to 1/4 size.  I place stock at about 1/10.6 to 1/11 real scale depending on what dimension or property we're looking at.  If we call it 1/10.8, then that makes JNSQ about 10.8/4 = 2.7 times stock.  So that's where the 2.7x comes from, but it's only approximate.

In reality, none of the body radii are scaled directly from stock.  I scaled the celestial bodies based on mass, not size.  I then selected what I thought were realistic densities and computed new radii from mass and density.
 

13 hours ago, theJesuit said:

In asking this, the deltavee map suggests that Earth is a little over 5130 ms-1 delta vee to orbit and JNSQ kerbin is 4900ms-1.  Is this becasue of the slower rotation in JNSQ? As i would have that a shorter day would give more of a boost.

Where does the 5130 m/s number come from?  Is that RSS at 1/4 scale?

The 4900 m/s number for JNSQ was determined in game through repeated launches.  I find it to be pretty close for rockets made from 2.5-m parts and larger.  The 1.25-m parts tend to be less efficient.  This is likely because the small parts have a lower ballistic coefficient and, therefore, more drag loss.  For these smaller parts, >5000 m/s is pretty common.  5130 m/s sounds reasonable in that case.

As far as rotation speed goes, the faster rotating the body, the less delta-v the rocket takes to get to orbit (assuming we are launching in the direction of the rotation, i.e. east for most bodies).  So if Kerbin in JNSQ is rotating faster, then that too could account for some or all of the difference.

 

Edited by OhioBob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OhioBob said:

Where does the 5130 m/s number come from?  Is that RSS at 1/4 scale?

The 4900 m/s number for JNSQ was determined in game through repeated launches.  I find it to be pretty close for rockets made from 2.5-m parts and larger.  The 1.25-m parts tend to be less efficient.  This is likely because the small parts have a lower ballistic coefficient and, therefore, more drag loss.  For these smaller parts, >5000 m/s is pretty common.  5130 m/s sounds reasonable in that case.

As far as rotation speed goes, the faster rotating the body, the less delta-v the rocket takes to get to orbit (assuming we are launching in the direction of the rotation, i.e. east for most bodies).  So if Kerbin in JNSQ is rotating faster, then that too could account for some or all of the difference.

 

>5130 m/s is pretty reasonable for stock aero and low TWR upper stages that use lofted trajectories.

However with FAR, and 2.5X KSRSS, I can probably manage a launch in 4800 m/s if I fly really well. Kerbin in JNSQ probably rotates slower than Earth in 2.5X KSRSS (12 hour day vs 7 hour day). But in my game, I've set that parameter to 12 hours, so the smaller size of KSRSS Earth is probably why less dV is required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DA299 said:

However with FAR, and 2.5X KSRSS, I can probably manage a launch in 4800 m/s if I fly really well.

I've been able to manage 4800 m/s in JNSQ as well, though not every one of my rockets can do it.  4900 m/s is a more reasonably attainable number, thus it's what's on the delta-v map.  It's been awhile since I last played, but I seem to recall budgeting about 5100-5200 m/s for early career rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2022 at 3:09 AM, theJesuit said:

In asking this, the deltavee map suggests that Earth is a little over 5130 ms-1 delta vee to orbit and JNSQ kerbin is 4900ms-1.  Is this becasue of the slower rotation in JNSQ? As i would have that a shorter day would give more of a boost.

I still don't know where the 5130 m/s number comes from, but looking at the KSRSS delta-v maps I see that they give 3400 m/s for stock size, and 5375 m/s for 2.5x.  I think where the 5375 number comes from is, 3400*SQRT(2.5) = 5375 m/s.  While it is true that delta-v goes up by the square root of the rescale factor, this is really only true for transfer trajectories between bodies, such as going from Earth to Mars.  For a launch from the surface of a body to low orbit, this method tends to overestimate the delta-v required.  This is because, although the planet is 2.5 times larger, we're typically not launching into an orbit 2.5x higher.  For instance, say we typically launch into an 80 km orbit at stock scale.  At 2.5x we might increase this to 100 km to get above the higher atmosphere, but we don't start launching into a 200 km orbit just because the planet got 2.5x bigger.  Also, drag losses do not get appreciably greater just because the planet got bigger.  So while multiplying by SQRT(Rescale) is a quick and easy way to convert delta-v, in this case it yields a very conservative result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 12:37 PM, OhioBob said:

This is one of the main reasons the JNSQ mod was made to 1/4 real scale.  The math just works out so nicely.  In fact, if I were to make a stock-ish like version of RSS, I would probably make it 1/9 real scale rather than stock size.  The difference between 1/9 scale and stock isn't all that much, but 1/9 scale is so much better mathematically.   The orbital periods at 1/9 scale are exactly 1/3 real life.  So if we give Earth an 8-hour day, all the orbital periods again equal their real life values when measured in days.

Maybe you could adopt this mod and do that? Or maybe make your own version if you can't get permission from the devs. I completely understand if you don't want to, but just some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JebTheDestroyer said:

Maybe you could adopt this mod and do that? Or maybe make your own version if you can't get permission from the devs. I completely understand if you don't want to, but just some food for thought.

I've thought about writing a patch that would do it.  But I don't have the time right now.  Perhaps something for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ive been having a problem with mars in my save, The atmosphere is visually nearly non existent on mars. Ive tried to increase the height of the atmosphere in the mars atmosphere configs and stuff but it didnt do anything so I changed everything back to what it was before. Also another problem is that when I launched a rocket that was going to send a probe to Jupiter, the KSC was moved from south america to florida, and the size of the solar system was now 2.5X. I tried re installing KSRSS but nothing changed. This was before I even looked at the atmosphere configs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

What version of scatterer do you have installed? KSRSS is compatible with scatterer 0.772.

When I have any of the 2 latest versions of scatterer installed, I have atmospheres every where else but not on mars. If I use anything earlier, I only get an atmosphere on mars. I also dont have Sigma Dimensions installed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...