Jump to content

[Stopped] 6.4x Kerbol System v2.0.1 - RSS Config [11/16/14]


Raptor831
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really like this mod.

However i would realy like to see a 6.4 config with the solars system, not the kerbol system.

Basically a 6.4 config of the actual RSS( for exemple earth would be ~4000 Km in radius and the moon ~1100 km) I also want to keep the solar system textures.

Does it work if i alter the RealSolarSystem.CFG file

If it doesn't already exist, i would be happy to make it.

As far as I know, none exists, so have at it. :) I know there's a 1/10th scale solar system (i.e. kerbal-sized), so between that and the default RSS one you should be able to get a good start.

What's the Dv requirements? Can I just multiply the stock ones by 6.4?

To get off Kerbin, you'll need about 7.5km dV. For a Munar transfer, you'll need around 2km dV, and for a Mun landing and takeoff you'll need at minimum 1500 m/s dV each if you do it perfectly. I'd bring 2km dV per if you can swing it. And Moho is, well, insane...

One of the things I've been working on as an extension of this config is a delta-V calculator for this scale. I've got a modified version of Alex Moon's calculator (found here) that appears to work fine, which I will hopefully be putting up somewhere soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I've been working on as an extension of this config is a delta-V calculator for this scale. I've got a modified version of Alex Moon's calculator (found here) that appears to work fine, which I will hopefully be putting up somewhere soon.

I would love to get my hands on that modified version of the calculator!

Also, does anyone have a config for EVE Overhaul 9-2 that includes planets other then Kerbin?

Edited by nebuchadnezzar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've put up the delta-V calculator on the web, so you'll be able to plan your trip accordingly. Link is here: http://ksp.joshuawagneronline.com/dvcalc64/

It all should be accurate, and the stuff I've checked has been. But, do take those numbers with a grain of salt, too, since they assume perfect transfer burns. In other words, take some extra fuel! :) Also, they don't account for any possible aerobraking, so for example, you can shave some delta-V off the Duna transfer since you can aerocapture there and then circularize your orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. No wonder my 1.25 rockets weren't getting anywhere. I was off by 1.5 kM/s of DV. Good sir, your first page lies! One cannot use stock arrangements to get into orbit! At least not in the 1.25 meter category. This is a really cool concept though. Makes career mode basically impossible using stock-ish parts w/ Ackander's tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. No wonder my 1.25 rockets weren't getting anywhere. I was off by 1.5 kM/s of DV. Good sir, your first page lies! One cannot use stock arrangements to get into orbit! At least not in the 1.25 meter category. This is a really cool concept though. Makes career mode basically impossible using stock-ish parts w/ Ackander's tree.

I shall quote myself, emphasis for effect:

...in which launchers need to be larger than in stock KSP, but you can still use stock-sized parts (i.e. not Realism Overhaul adjustments).

:wink:

I need at least a 2.5m rocket (single core) to get a 1-kerbal pod into orbit. You could probably asparagus your way into orbit with 1.25m parts though. I haven't gotten a reasonable 2.5m rocket to push the 3-kerbal pod to orbit, at least without using some boosters (a la Titan IIIC). I can make a Saturn-V-alike rocket with 5m parts from NovaPunch, KW, FASA, or SXT. Note, this is all with Real Fuels + my stockalike engine/RCS configs (link in sig), which decreases the mass of engines and tanks. So if you're trying to use straight stock parts, you'll be throwing many boosters on to make this work.

Also, RE: career mode. I have no idea how this handles in a career setting, mostly because I can't ever seem to play that way. I know RSS/RO is not set up to deal with that, and the 6.4x size is closer in style to full RSS than stock. That said, if anyone has some configs to make this play nicely career, do let me know so I can post it and/or link to it.

I like this size because it still represents a challenge to get to orbit and beyond, but it still doesn't feel like hard-core mode. You can always upgrade to full RSS/RO if you want, which I'd like to try at some point. But that's for another time... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if you play with Real Fuels and realistic masses for things, it turns out that *then* you need about the same rocket you would in pure-stock KSP. Hence why 6.4 is about right for "stock feel, realistic parts"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah fair enough. I'm heavily modded (pushing 43 metric tons into LKO is a massive friggin' undertaking lol. Three stage rocket using all KW parts (with a KSP-I trans-wherever the hell I want to go-stage payload using ammonia / fusion (27 kilometers of DV) and the 2.5 meter pod with a near-future propulsion habitation module (Itinerant pod; smaller living space than the hitchhiker; but someone needs to man the controls!). Not using real fuels; but am using FAR / DRE; I'll have to give realfuels another chance; last time I loaded it up it didn't want to play nicely with tweakscale (which has grown on me quite a lot). The rocket itself was above the rafters in the VAB (first stage was under 2500 DV; including two of the new KW SRBs; second was around 2.3-2.4k; final stage using the 3.75 KW upper stage engine had 3.4k to give that final push into orbit). This does however give me an excuse to use KW's monster Century engine more. That bass drop rattles my brain in the best way lol. But definitely agree Nathan that this feels decently RSS enough without going full blown 6 year mission to Saturn / Jupiter (not counting return; if you could even pack enough DV to return lol). This works well especially if you're ram-tight like I am already (2.5k in the VAB with ATM basic / texture replacer) as you don't need anymore planetary PQSs or whatever the wrap that goes over the planet mesh is to eat up more texture memory.

One serious question though; would I be better off using RSS styled heatshields over stock ones with the orbital velocities we're talking (6.2 km/s @ 150 kM altitude circular) or have you attempted re-entry? I ask because I have yet to even try and my "Hell Ride" using KSP-I's 1.25 meter fusion reactor (5 intercooled intakes equivalent to B9's sabre + 2x ramp intakes) lost half a wing at mach 15-ish so I couldn't test re-entry effects with it. (what I get for not strutting spaceplane+ wing components together).

This post has gone on long enough; but my last post was really in jest; as this is really enjoyable. Thanks for taking up the reigns on this Raptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One serious question though; would I be better off using RSS styled heatshields over stock ones with the orbital velocities we're talking (6.2 km/s @ 150 kM altitude circular) or have you attempted re-entry?

RSS class heatshields are needed, but they're still a bit too good. For the "stock-alike" feeling, I think they're fine because you can go a bit Kerbal on the re-entries without too much worry but coming in hot at 10km/s from interplanetary space will fry your dudes. To fix that the easy way, adjust the DRE settings to taste; don't bother reconfiguring the heat shields.

On the other hand, if you play with Real Fuels and realistic masses for things, it turns out that *then* you need about the same rocket you would in pure-stock KSP. Hence why 6.4 is about right for "stock feel, realistic parts"

Even more than this, I prefered to play with Real Fuels and Procedural Parts, but leave all the other masses unmodded (without RO). This gave about a 7~10% payload fraction, IIRC (I can never remember... Much more "real" than stock but nowhere near as demanding as RSS proper). I wouldn't recommend the RO scripts (not because it's bad, but because it doesn't fit 6.4x), just Real Fuels and Procedural Parts for tanks.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I'd share the mockup I did of the 6.4x Kerbol map for Custom Biomes.

It's created by taking a ScanSAT map and cutting it down to 7 dissimilar colors based on terrain height from the altimetry scan.

This means there are only 7 biomes, mainly because of the limitation of terrain height. If I could find a good way to add deserts and what-not without manually painting it, I'd be happy to add those in.

I tested it in a 2 hour flight in my Cessna recreation and found that the biomes are well placed and the transitions between biomes were smooth.

You can take a look at the map here: Imgur Link

Download here: 6.4x Kerbol Custom Biomes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Export the PQS to texture using RSS. That will give you the color map. Then you can copy it into a new layer, select only sand-colors with Select By Color, and presto, you can fill that on the other layer with the desired color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to like this, and I really want to use this, but it's just so ugly.

I think what this really needs is non-linear height scaling. Making everything 1.5x taller doesn't really work, and adding what looks to be a couple kilometers of random noise just makes everything slightly ridiculous. I tried 2x height and less randomness on Kerbin and I suppose it looked slightly better, but the mountains were still just rolling hills at a higher altitude. If it could just put a power law on the height map it would probably be a lot better.

Maybe it's easier just to work with a texture and figure out what all the terrain noise options mean. What would I have to do to get a high-res image of the default terrain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is not to be found in heightmaps, since the default heightmap, at 2048 pixels wide, yields a resolution of 1 pixel = about 12km x 12km. Even an 8192 heightmap would only yield a resolution of 3km x 3km per pixel.

Instead, you need to play with the procedural PQSMods; they are the ones that do finer detail; heck, if you set the frequency high enough you'll have significant height variation meter-to-meter.

That said, if you want to export the final map that combines all the PQSMods (the heightmap and all the procedural height modifiers) you can use the Export node in the RealSolarSystem.cfg file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to like this, and I really want to use this, but it's just so ugly.

I think what this really needs is non-linear height scaling. Making everything 1.5x taller doesn't really work, and adding what looks to be a couple kilometers of random noise just makes everything slightly ridiculous. I tried 2x height and less randomness on Kerbin and I suppose it looked slightly better, but the mountains were still just rolling hills at a higher altitude. If it could just put a power law on the height map it would probably be a lot better.

Maybe it's easier just to work with a texture and figure out what all the terrain noise options mean. What would I have to do to get a high-res image of the default terrain?

I'm trying to get a bit better looking terrain, on Kerbin at least. I have to go through and test individual settings to see what I can come up with, but once I hit on something good I'll let everyone know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. No wonder my 1.25 rockets weren't getting anywhere. I was off by 1.5 kM/s of DV. Good sir, your first page lies! One cannot use stock arrangements to get into orbit! At least not in the 1.25 meter category. This is a really cool concept though. Makes career mode basically impossible using stock-ish parts w/ Ackander's tree.

I tell you it is totally possible. I even got it working in 10 times RSS. No mods only stock 1.25m parts. In 6.4x I got a lunar flyby with 1.25 meter parts, but that is not needed. You get enough science from low and high orbit for 2.5m parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have made a RSS config that shrink our planets to 64% of their sizes.

http://www./view/3dzw5jbkt9uu8i6/RealSolarSystem.cfg

I will improve it later. I post it now if somebody is interested.

There is some problems with gilly/deimos , vessels explodes when they land on it.

http://imgur.com/a/2T5O4#0

Note that earth's atmosphere is 91 km high and not 130Km.

Edited by TheKutKu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Export the PQS to texture using RSS. That will give you the color map. Then you can copy it into a new layer, select only sand-colors with Select By Color, and presto, you can fill that on the other layer with the desired color.

Tried doing this using


Export
{
resolution = 2048
ocean = true
}

But I don't get a color map. Just a normal map and a greyscaled map. Am I doing something wrong, or is this not "Exporting PQS to texture"? I looked in the RSS Wiki and through the forums and came up with nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question to anyone who played 6.4 in career mode: Its my understanding, that launch vehicles will cost about 3 times more than stock ones - is it affordable? Are incomes (with reasonable gameplay and recovering stages) high enough not to go bancrupt? Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is not to be found in heightmaps, since the default heightmap, at 2048 pixels wide, yields a resolution of 1 pixel = about 12km x 12km. Even an 8192 heightmap would only yield a resolution of 3km x 3km per pixel.

Instead, you need to play with the procedural PQSMods; they are the ones that do finer detail; heck, if you set the frequency high enough you'll have significant height variation meter-to-meter.

That said, if you want to export the final map that combines all the PQSMods (the heightmap and all the procedural height modifiers) you can use the Export node in the RealSolarSystem.cfg file.

I don't know. It's not so much the frequency of vertical variation (as you said, that's what the noise generators are for), but the amount of vertical resolution that's bothersome with PQSMod_VertexHeightMap tuned upwards. On 1x scale Kerbin everything below 28 on the height map (I think?) is underwater, but the coastline is at 70. The beaches are already unreasonably steep, and if we want taller mountains on 6.4x Kerbin, it doesn't make sense to me that we'd also want even steeper beaches. I'm going to see if I can get anywhere by making the grasslands lower.

I was able to get an almost perfect height map by doing an export with "heightMapOffset = 0" and "heightMapDeformity = 255", though, thanks. Turning the radius down to stock helped to get a height map of the cape, too, although I have no idea what the stock settings for PQSMod_MapDecalTangent would be. A RealSolarSystem.cfg for the stock 1x Kerbol system would be very helpful.

Stock Kerbin terrain seems to be 30 (?) meters per pixel value and -850 (?) m at the bottom of what I'm going to call "Great Smile Trench" (pixel value 1), so 1x Kerbin would appear to be "heightMapOffset = -880", "heightMapDeformity = 7650" or thereabouts. If I've understood this properly, to put the highest peak on Kerbin at 9000 meters (a bit taller than Everest) we'd need to scale up by 33%, or to 40 m per pixel value. To keep the same sea level we would need "heightMapOffset = -1200" and "heightMapDeformity = 10200"... except that's not right at all. You need heightMapOffset closer to -1800.

Anyway, I've had massively good results by putting some luminance curves on Kerbin's heightmap. I'm still fiddling with it, but not only does the low-res texture better match the terrain, but you can actually see the mountain range west of KSC starting at 1500 m altitude (Kerbin's horizon distance is still pretty short at 6.4x scale). It actually looks pretty decent with all the random noise turned off, but it will obviously need some added to get some hills back.

The problem I do run into is z-fighting on the beaches. And the buildings at KSC. I think the correct solution for the beaches is to fade the low-res texture in sooner... but it will have to be significantly higher resolution for that.

[EDIT] The actual numbers are heightMapDeformity=5000, heightMapOffset=-1500 for stock Kerbin. The mountains are done with the random noise, which has 4000 deformity.

Edited by NonWonderDog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is there a way to get an exponential modifier within a PQS mod? My original thought about tweaking the terrain was pretty much scale the height with some kind of exponential curve. So, height 20 in the heightmap comes out height 40, but height 200 in the heightmap comes out 800. The idea being the grasslands and such stay lower in absolute altitude with the peaks rising (relatively) quickly from them. I like the gradual rise in terrain (which feels more realistic to me), but I do miss having definable peaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question to anyone who played 6.4 in career mode: Its my understanding, that launch vehicles will cost about 3 times more than stock ones - is it affordable? Are incomes (with reasonable gameplay and recovering stages) high enough not to go bancrupt? Thanks in advance.

I've been playing with the 6.4 rescale since .24 came out and that estimate of the rockets costing 3x as much seems about right. It is tight using the stock parts, but you can (barely) get enough funds by picking your contracts carefully and designing very efficiently, but you'll have little surplus for side missions. The first couple of tries I did get deep into the debt hole and gave up.

As you mentioned, Stage Recovery will allow you to recover most of that cost, which for me is usually 15% or so of the total rocket cost, which is a good start and can make the difference. One thing though that you could consider is reducing the masses of the stock and many mods' parts. Stock KSP has overly heavy capsules and parts in general - that and the gluey atmosphere rebalances the game to make it necessary to build reasonably big rockets on such a tiny planet. So, if you rebalance the part masses, it will bring down the size and costs of rockets, and I wouldn't consider it cheating. To show what I mean, here are comparisons of the Mark 1 and Mark 1-2 capsules with their real world equivalents, bear in mind that they are about 64% the length and width of the real thing, and so should probably weigh about (0.64^3=) 0.262 times their RW equivalents;

(These weights are taken from
which has some good vehicle specs, broken down into component weights, as well as some good general information on space craft systems, technical term translations, and sections on orbital mechanics and such. In short, not a bad primer for a virtual rocketeer, tweaker or would-be modder)

Mk 1 Pod - Mass (per part.cfg) = 0.8 tonnes, 0.84 when you bring one up in the VAB (with consumables included).

Real world Mercury Capsule - 1.1 tonnes launch weight (including crew mass and consumables), about 1 tonne with crew and consumables stripped out.

Mercury Capsule rescaled should therefore have a part.cfg mass = about 0.26 tonnes

Mk 1-2 Pod - Mass (per part.cfg) = 4.0 tonnes, 4.12 when you bring one up in the VAB (with consumables included).

Real world Apollo Command Module - 5.8 tonnes launch weight (including crew mass and consumables), about 5.2 tonnes with crew and consumables stripped out.

Apollo Capsule rescaled should therefore have a part.cfg mass = about 1.36 tonnes

Reworking the masses of the capsules alone will bring down your rocket size a fair bit, and you definitely should be using one of the engine reconfigs that are can be found in the RSS threads - the stock engines are also overweight and so have lower TWRs that their RW analogues. I've been using one called "Stockalike_RF_Configs" which rebalancesnot just Squad's, but also the most popular parts pack (Novapunch, KW, AIES, FASA...) engines. If you are using mods like Remotetech and one of the life support mods, this is practically a necessity as you have the extra weight of additional batteries, antennas and of course food, water and oxygen that you'll be adding to your craft.

All of this combined should result in a level of challenge that is about mid-way between the original stock game and the challenge of the full scale RSS. You can get a 1.25m rocket into orbit, it will take multiple stages and boosters, but it is doable.

Hope this helps.

Edited by EatVacuum
fixing math error and such
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten to the point where I'm pretty happy with this. It's gone from intriguing but unbearably hideous to pretty much indispensable to me now. At least, that is, until I find another planet I can't stand.

The cape is a lighter color in stock because the grass color is blended with sand. Adding noise makes it a bit like scrubland instead, but I wanted to at least try to match the altitude texture:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This is mostly untested, so there might be some oddities around. I haven't taken a look at the island runway, either. Feel free to do whatever you want with this:

download

EDIT: Actually, it didn't occur to me to change the altitudeBlend in PQSLandControl. That would probably smooth out the color around KSC.

Edited by NonWonderDog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten to the point where I'm pretty happy with this...

... The cape is a lighter color in stock because the grass color is blended with sand. Adding noise makes it a bit like scrubland instead, but I wanted to at least try to match the altitude texture:

http://imgur.com/a/F5ro9

This is mostly untested, so there might be some oddities around. I haven't taken a look at the island runway, either. Feel free to do whatever you want with this:

download

EDIT: Actually, it didn't occur to me to change the altitudeBlend in PQSLandControl. That would probably smooth out the color around KSC.

I just installed it and I'm pretty impressed. The mountains look like mountains, not low mounds. +1 rep... if I can figure out where the button is.

I like the look of the mixed sand and grass around KSC, I's leave it as is. I'm not seeing sand on the beach or snowy mountain tops as there seemed to be in your pictures, but that's a little thing and I'll try reinstalling later since I may have changed a setting while poking around in your files.

A6BC97746638D541C58B1BE7DEE7A7DE9BAA8079

272423C7FA816D9E2125434778BB30784D3DFDA8

Speaking of mounds - the offshore islands look good, the islands are pretty low lying now. The island airport itself is on quite the mound - maybe 20m high on the ocean side but only half that on the inland side, that could be brought down a bit, but at least it's not hanging off a cliff. :D

55603D361AC240F41736B3CDC9CF16AAF2BD4F1B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...