Jump to content

[1.8.1-1.9.1] Rescale Continued v.1.0.0


Recommended Posts

Rescale Continued

About the mod:

Are you ever thinked about stock scaled Kerbol system is too easy? Or stock engines are overpowered in the default scale? Do you tired from planets are too small to even be called planets? Do you ever wished for larger planets? Some players may remember the Rescale! mod made by Gallieo88, but is outdated, so i decided to convert Rescale to the modern versions of Kerbal Space Program. The Rescale Continued is a small mod used with Sigma Dimensions to change the universal scale, and you can select 2x, 2.5x, 3.5x, 5.4x, 7.6x, and even 10x scale to make the planets larger!

 

Scale examples:

2x Scale: Is for a simple taste for advanced players to try larger stock planets.

2.5x and 3.5x Scale: is for players to play the stock system larger than 2x scale, but still want to use stock parts.

5.4x Scale: 50% Earth scale, if you want to play on this scale with stock parts, i recommend to use Real Fuels or SMURFF to balance the stock parts.

7.6x Scale: 70% Earth scale, this scale is really hard to play with unmodified stock parts.

10.0x and 10.618x Scale: On this scale, every stock planet is 1:1 copies of real life counterparts.

 

How to install?

To install, you need to install the required mods. Select ONLY one of scale configs, for example to play 2.5x scaled system, you only need the Rescale 2.5x folder. After downloading finished, unzip the Rescale folder to your GameData folder.

 

Requirements

Kerbal Space Program 1.8 or 1.9 (1.10 in correctly unsupported because Kopernicus dont have a 1.10 release)

Kopernicus for 1.8: https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus

For 1.9 Kopernicus, download link: https://github.com/prestja/Kopernicus/releases/tag/release-1.9.1-4

Kronometer (not required, but i recommend for setting the date display accurate): https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kronometer

Module Manager: https://github.com/sarbian/ModuleManager

ModularFlightIntegrator: https://github.com/sarbian/ModularFlightIntegrator

Sigma Dimensions: https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Dimensions/releases

And Rescale Continued's download link: https://github.com/Profiremu23/RescaleCoutinued/releases/tag/master

 

Special Thanks for:

Profiremu23 for making and testing the mod.

This addon licensed by GNU General Public License: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Wishlist:

-Support for planet packs

Edited by Profiremu23
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm reading the configs correctly, this will also keep the altitudes of terrain features (e.g. the mountains west of KSC) at roughly stock heights? Won't this result in incredibly flat terrain? I think that's why the previous Rescale mod only reduced it to 0.5, even if it's sometimes incredibly inconvenient.

Although I admit, this has been an issue for me lately since I've been playing with aircraft... having to fly at 35km to get over that one mountain as you approach KSC heading 90 degrees. :D

Would there be a way to use these configs to put KSC (and the runway, and VAB, and etc.) where various things (like MechJeb APs for example) expect them to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Profiremu23 said:

My main goal is to make custom configs for EVERY planet pack in my mod, because the Gallieo88 version only the GPP pack had custom configs, and i will try to add custom configs like JNSQ

 

if you run into some trouble feel free to ping me

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, etmoonshade said:

If I'm reading the configs correctly, this will also keep the altitudes of terrain features (e.g. the mountains west of KSC) at roughly stock heights? Won't this result in incredibly flat terrain? I think that's why the previous Rescale mod only reduced it to 0.5, even if it's sometimes incredibly inconvenient.

The mountains of Kerbin are already the height of Himalayas, and way steeper. If you increase them with the planets radius they will be out of the atmosphere.

The flat terrain is sorta realistic, but the stock terrain map is so boring it aggravates the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nightside said:

The mountains of Kerbin are already the height of Himalayas, and way steeper.

Not quite that tall, but it'd be at almost 8 times the height of Everest if terrain altitude scaled with planet radius. At the 0.5 scaling from the previous rescale mod, it results in roughly 35km at the approach going east. So yeah, full scaling would be... if not out of the atmosphere, just a jump away.

My question was more about understanding that the effects of that height scaling parameter in the configs worked the way I thought they did. It's not exactly easy to balance between "too flat" and "too tall" since most people probably have different opinions on what those mean.

(note, I'm using the 10.625x scale from the old .cfgs, so none of these would really be a drop-in replacement even if they did anything extra)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Profiremu23 said:

... and i will try to add custom configs like JNSQ

You probably already know this, but JNSQ is 1/4 real scale.  So a 4x config would be perfect to make it real scale.  And if you want to downsize it, 0.375x would make Kerbin stock size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Profiremu23, I have a suggestion.  For atmosphere rescaling, use atmoTopLayer instead of Atmosphere.  For instance, for 2.5x Kerbin, change your settings to,

     Atmosphere = 1
     atmoTopLayer = 1.214285714285714
 

The exception would be for the 10x and 10.618x, in which case I recommend the following for Kerbin,

     Atmosphere = 1.25
     atmoTopLayer = 1.6

Note that the product of those two numbers is, 1.25*1.6 = 2, which is the same multiplier that you're currently using.

Below is the detailed explanation for this:

Spoiler

There's a distinct difference between what the Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer settings do.  Atmosphere rescales the existing pressure and temperature curves, while atmoTopLayer extrapolates the curves beyond where they left off (or truncates them if <1).

So for instance, let's say we have Atmosphere = 1.5.  In this example the existing atmosphere will be stretched to 1.5x its original height.  The atmospheric pressure will drop more slowly with increasing height, and the conditions at the top of the atmosphere will be essentially the same as the original.  This could have some detrimental effects.  For instance, the lower rate of pressure drop would be unnatural and make the atmosphere thicker than it should be.  Also, with the larger scale, we have higher entry speeds.  So a vessel is going to hit the upper atmosphere going faster while the atmospheric density is unchanged.  This could result in an undesirably rapid onset of drag and heating effects (the "wall of air" effect).

If instead we use atmoTopLayer = 1.5, then the lower part of the atmosphere is unchanged from the original.  Instead the atmosphere is extended by adding on a thinner upper atmosphere.  Sigma Dimensions uses the existing pressure curve to estimate how it should be extrapolated, and can continue the curve out to whatever height is desired.  In this case fight behavior in the lower atmosphere will be just the same as everyone is familiar with.  But we now have a thin upper atmosphere that we must get above to achieve orbit.  And the thinner upper air provides an additional buffer that the faster reentering vessels must pass through before reaching the familiar lower atmosphere.

If both Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer are used, then the existing curves are both stretched and extrapolated.  The final height of the atmosphere will be increased by the product of the two multipliers, i.e. Atmosphere*atmoTopLayer.

The reason I suggest using Atmosphere = 1.25 for the 10x and 10.618x versions is because of the way Kerbin's stock atmosphere is made.  Kerbin's atmosphere is based on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, but the temperature and pressure curves were compressed using a 0.8 multiplier.  Using an Atmosphere multiplier of 1.25 reverses the compression factor and makes Kerbin's lower atmosphere 100% Earthlike.  After that, atmoTopLayer will extrapolate the atmosphere further up to its final desired height.  This will produce the most realistic atmosphere possible for the larger scales.

 

Edited by OhioBob
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

@Profiremu23, I have a suggestion.  For atmosphere rescaling, use atmoTopLayer instead of Atmosphere.  For instance, for 2.5x Kerbin, change your settings to,

     Atmosphere = 1
     atmoTopLayer = 1.214285714285714
 

The exception would be for the 10x and 10.618x, in which case I recommend the following for Kerbin,

     Atmosphere = 1.25
     atmoTopLayer = 1.6

Note that the product of those two numbers is, 1.25*1.6 = 2, which is the same multiplier that you're currently using.

Below is the detailed explanation for this:

  Reveal hidden contents

There's a distinct difference between what the Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer settings do.  Atmosphere rescales the existing pressure and temperature curves, while atmoTopLayer extrapolates the curves beyond where they left off (or truncates them if <1).

So for instance, let's say we have Atmosphere = 1.5.  In this example the existing atmosphere will be stretched to 1.5x its original height.  The atmospheric pressure will drop more slowly with increasing height, and the conditions at the top of the atmosphere will be essentially the same as the original.  This could have some detrimental effects.  For instance, the lower rate of pressure drop would be unnatural and make the atmosphere thicker than it should be.  Also, with the larger scale, we have higher entry speeds.  So a vessel is going to hit the upper atmosphere going faster while the atmospheric density is unchanged.  This could result in an undesirably rapid onset of drag and heating effects (the "wall of air" effect).

If instead we use atmoTopLayer = 1.5, then the lower part of the atmosphere is unchanged from the original.  Instead the atmosphere is extended by adding on a thinner upper atmosphere.  Sigma Dimensions uses the existing pressure curve to estimate how it should be extrapolated, and can continue the curve out to whatever height is desired.  In this case fight behavior in the lower atmosphere will be just the same as everyone is familiar with.  But we now have a thin upper atmosphere that we must get above to achieve orbit.  And the thinner upper air provides an additional buffer that the faster reentering vessels must pass through before reaching the familiar lower atmosphere.

If both Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer are used, then the existing curves are both stretched and extrapolated.  The final height of the atmosphere will be increased by the product of the two multipliers, i.e. Atmopshere*atmoTopLayer.

The reason I suggest using Atmosphere = 1.25 for the 10x and 10.618x versions is because of the way Kerbin's stock atmosphere is made.  Kerbin's atmosphere is based on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, but the temperature and pressure curves were compressed using a 0.8 multiplier.  Using an Atmosphere multiplier of 1.25 reverses the compression factor and makes Kerbin's lower atmosphere 100% Earthlike.  After that, atmoTopLayer will extrapolate the atmosphere further up to its final desired height.  This will produce the most realistic atmosphere possible for the larger scales.

 

Intresting, maybe i can make the change in 1.1, and i will start to work a Rescale Coutinued-JNSQ config

Edited by Profiremu23
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, etmoonshade said:

My question was more about understanding that the effects of that height scaling parameter in the configs worked the way I thought they did. It's not exactly easy to balance between "too flat" and "too tall" since most people probably have different opinions on what those mean.

Resize is a multiplier on the distance between surface and center of the planet

landscape is a multiplier on the distance between surface and sea level

 

so if you have landscape = 1 / Resize  they would cancel each other out, and the altitude of the mountains measured from sea level would be the same in the original planet and the rescaled planet.

hope this makes sense

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

Resize is a multiplier on the distance between surface and center of the planet

landscape is a multiplier on the distance between surface and sea level

 

so if you have landscape = 1 / Resize  they would cancel each other out, and the altitude of the mountains measured from sea level would be the same in the original planet and the rescaled planet.

hope this makes sense

That pretty much confirms what I'd guessed - the landscape is indeed 1/resize (give or take a few decimal points.) I just wanted confirmation that it'd have the effects I thought it would. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The topographic range of the Earth, Moon and Mars are about 19.8 km, 20 km, and 29.4 km respectively.  For comparison, stock Kerbin, Mun and Duna have topographic ranges of 8162 m, 7313 m, and 8145 m respectively.  So if we wanted these stock bodies to have deformities comparable to their real-life analogs when scaled up to 10.618x, then we would have to give them landscape multipliers of about 0.23, 0.26 and 0.34.  Or an average of about 0.275.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, OhioBob said:

The topographic range of the Earth, Moon and Mars are about 19.8 km, 20 km, and 29.4 km respectively.  For comparison, stock Kerbin, Mun and Duna have topographic ranges of 8162 m, 7313 m, and 8145 m respectively.  So if we wanted these stock bodies to have deformities comparable to their real-life analogs when scaled up to 10.618x, then we would have to give them landscape multipliers of about 0.23, 0.26 and 0.34.  Or an average of about 0.275.

the problem with that is earth is much less flat below the sea level, if you only consider above sea level both earth and kerbin go from 0 to about 8 km

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sigma88 said:

the problem with that is earth is much less flat below the sea level, if you only consider above sea level both earth and kerbin go from 0 to about 8 km

Yep, Kerbin's shallow flat bottom oceans seem a bit unnatural.  If we wanted Kerbin's tallest peak to be equal to Mt. Everest, then we'd need a landscape multiplier of about 0.13.

Mars is also a bit of an outlier with its large deformity.  This is of course due to the enormity of Olympus Mons, which is quite an unusual feature.

There may be exceptions, but overall it looks to me that a landscape multiplier of 0.25 seems about right for a 10+ resize.  That makes the deformity of the stock bodies in the range of that of real life bodies.  But just going by hard numbers may not necessarily be the best answer.  It may be better to go with something that looks and feels right regardless of what the numbers say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After downloading this mod and trying to open the .zip file, I cannot open it, with Windows claiming it's "invalid". Are the zip downloads corrupted?

 

Edit: Nevermind, I can open the files with 7-Zip

Edited by Emilius73
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emilius73 said:

After downloading this mod and trying to open the .zip file, I cannot open it, with Windows claiming it's "invalid". Are the zip downloads corrupted?

I had the same problem, Windows Explorer wouldn't open it.  I had to download the master to get it to work.  Click on "Source code (zip)" and it will download the master with all seven rescale configs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.

×
×
  • Create New...