KScale64 v1.2.2 16th April 2017

[SpaceHungryMan]

They come with this mod, no Kerbin-side required. You can see their location data in the LaunchSites.cfg within the RSS folder. I believe that building upgrades/restrictions are carried across all three sites (someone correct me if I'm wrong).KSC will still be the default starting location but you can simply choose to launch and land at the other sites instead. This still accomplishes the goal of increasing difficulty while minimizing the amount of modification you have to do.

[Errol]

Thank you. That sounds perfectly acceptable to me. Infact better, I think kerbinside is cool and all, but I'm planning to run the full USI constellation in 1.0 and would rather not add a mod I don't need. I don't plan to do much on kerbin, because I figure that a space agency probably doesn't bother much with exploration on a home planet, as there are other dedicated agencies for that sort of stuff. I don't need the extra bases kerbinside gives, as I fear the memory hungry kraken.

As such I will be tinkering and messing with .cfgs to see what kind of compromise of fun and difficulty I can come up with. I'll post what I come up with if anyone is interested.

[Mein_Gott]

Hello

If i wish only for Kerbin to be 6.4 times bigger (and maybe mun orbit to be a little futher), will it work if i edit your cfgs so that there are only code lines respectively for kerbin and mun?

I just thought it would be cool to have 7km/s launch deltav, but not neccesarily every other period of the voyage extended in the same manner

[NathanKell]

If you remove the others but keep Kerbin, then Kerbin will probably have the largest orbit of all, or maybe be near Eeloo's orbit.

[Mein_Gott]

oh i see. so i also need to adjust kerbin's orbit in cfg, so that it is stockalike, thank you

[SpaceHungryMan]

Hello,

Is anyone else experiencing an issue where memory usage rapidly and sharply increases when switching to a different launch site? Normal memory usage is 7.3GB at KSC but when I switch to and launch from Baikonur it quickly works its way up to 9.2GB.

[Raptor831]

Hello,

Is anyone else experiencing an issue where memory usage rapidly and sharply increases when switching to a different launch site? Normal memory usage is 7.3GB at KSC but when I switch to and launch from Baikonur it quickly works its way up to 9.2GB.

I'm not so lucky to be able to use 7.3GB of RAM to start with (I should install Linux!) but yes, switching launch sites tends to make the game more unstable for me (which generally is due to RAM limits).

[SpaceHungryMan]

I'm not so lucky to be able to use 7.3GB of RAM to start with (I should install Linux!) but yes, switching launch sites tends to make the game more unstable for me (which generally is due to RAM limits).

Good to hear! Well, in the sense that I don't have to comb through my mod folder trying to find the culprit. Just wanted to confirm that it's a known issue.

And I cannot recommend Linux enough.

[Pokerdope]

Happy gamers are, too frequently, quiet gamers. Just wanted to say thanks for all of your hard work on this -- exactly the challenge I needed to get into the game again after a break. Next stop Jool!

[blackrack]

I am looking for a mod like this, but instead of scaling the planets up it scales them down.

I know everyone is always raving about that bigger planets mod but I want the opposite. Since the planets are fairly low-detail and there's plenty of empty space everywhere I figured making them smaller would make them much more interesting and more fun to visit.

Where do I find this?

[NathanKell]

Search in Addon Development, there's a 1/10th size Kerbin system floating around for lulz.

[blackrack]

Got it, should be fun.

Anyway, how do people make SSTO spaceplanes in 64k with FAR? It seems impossible to me. Are there any balanced scramjet mods? I found one but I am not sure how balanced it is.

[Sandworm]

Got it, should be fun.

Anyway, how do people make SSTO spaceplanes in 64k with FAR? It seems impossible to me. Are there any balanced scramjet mods? I found one but I am not sure how balanced it is.

They don't. The SSTO-related hardware in KSP is basically magic. Scaling the wizardry up to 64k can be done, but defeats the increased difficulty that is the point of 64k and RSS.

[Konnor]

Anyway, how do people make SSTO spaceplanes in 64k with FAR?

I've managed to crawl to the orbit with HL-based dual SABRE powered Skylonesque monstrosity with empty cargo bay and ended up with barely enough deltaV to deorbit. It should be possible to add even more fuel and lift some payload this way, but it becomes too cumbersome for me to be practical.

Oh, and SABREs in Stockalike Real Fuels Engine Configs have real life thrust values. These seem overpowered for 64k, I've nerfed them a bit for that experiment.

[Overjay]

Greetings gentlemen.

I want to try running this mod, but I want it to run with SETI-balance mod (and all of theese compatibles, of cource). Will it be ok, or I'll need to make some config magic?

[MrMeeb]

Is there an increased resolution/detail texture for kerbin included? I find that at lower orbites (around 150km) that kerbin is fairly blurry, with max settings. Other than that, amazing mod! Really does up the difficulty, but maintains the fun at the same time.

P.S how did you get your clouds on Kerbin to look as they do (on your website)...they don't look like that for me with AVE

[Paul Kingtiger]

Yes there is a custom texture and normal provided in the mod. It's a compromise between quality and memory space.

The clouds are from an older version of Astronomers Visual Pack, I've had problems running the latest version due to the memory requirements. I just use EVE these days.

[Ricardo.b]

hi guys

I decided to go one step further with KSP difficulty and installed this mod but I think there is a problem with drag of FAR ( I also tried NEAR). during reentry there is no enough drag to slow down my space shuttle. the rate of deceleration is lower than 0.3m/s², [5389.4m/s-5387m/s]/9s see pictures below

I've seen some videos on youtube and at 60km the velocity should be way smaller

so, what you think?

thanks for any help or enlightenment

Edited April 4, 2015 by Ricardo.b

[Paul Kingtiger]

The real space shuttle had this problem. The flight profile included a number of tight turns to bleed off speed. Also where were you coming from? The Space Shuttle only had to deal with low orbit so had less velocity to loose as opposed to say Apollo coming back from the moon.

Try including some turns to lose the speed and see if it helps.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

hi guy

I decided to go one step further with KSP difficulty and installed this mod but I think there is a problem with drag of FAR ( I also tried NEAR). during reentry there is no enough drag to slow down my space shuttle. the rate of deceleration is lower than 0.3m/s², [5389.4m/s-5387m/s]/9s see pictures below

I've seen some videos on youtube and at 60km the velocity should be way smaller

http://i.imgur.com/PiFtFcS.png

http://i.imgur.com/sBIf6bk.png

so, what you think?

thanks for any help or enlightenment

Your Angle of Attack is too low for a spaceplane/shuttle/glider design on Reentry. The problem isn't that Far's aerodynamics aren't giving you the right kind of drag, it's that you're gliding rather than braking, and those airbrakes are useless at altitude.

On your NAVBall, it shows your AoA as something around 5 to 7 degrees. In a shuttle design like that, your AoA has to be beyond 20 degrees and more towards 40 degrees for a proper aerobrake operation. The airbrakes and spoilers you put on there are worthless at that altitude and not at all what you should be using to slow down.

Thing that bothers me, is that SmartA.S.S. on the left says you're set to a pitch of 45 degrees, and your orientation selector says Surface Velocity + (Forward in relation to surface velocity.) I haven't used all the settings on MechJeb there so I'm not sure, but I THINK you need to set to SURF for that setting to take effect.

If you've got FAR installed as you say, you need to bring up the FAR in-flight data window on the screen and bring up the Flight Data display. The best indicator of what you should be experiencing should show up there. Such as your Q, and your Cd.

[Ricardo.b]

The real space shuttle had this problem. The flight profile included a number of tight turns to bleed off speed. Also where were you coming from? The Space Shuttle only had to deal with low orbit so had less velocity to loose as opposed to say Apollo coming back from the moon.

Try including some turns to lose the speed and see if it helps.

I removed FAR and played without it to see, the drag was gigantic! then I reinstalled and worked! I also added a new small wing in front of that already exist making a transition between wing and fuselage and removed the canards from the tip to shift CoL forward

now when I'm at 65km altitude my velocity is something around 4800m/s and decelerating fast

I'm not sure what solved the problem but my flight path still the same, an orbit from 100km to more or less 85km. and trying to keep the nose 45 degree up.

next time I will include some turns to see what happens, It might help to not overpass the runway

Your Angle of Attack is too low for a spaceplane/shuttle/glider design on Reentry. The problem isn't that Far's aerodynamics aren't giving you the right kind of drag, it's that you're gliding rather than braking, and those airbrakes are useless at altitude.

On your NAVBall, it shows your AoA as something around 5 to 7 degrees. In a shuttle design like that, your AoA has to be beyond 20 degrees and more towards 40 degrees for a proper aerobrake operation. The airbrakes and spoilers you put on there are worthless at that altitude and not at all what you should be using to slow down.

Thing that bothers me, is that SmartA.S.S. on the left says you're set to a pitch of 45 degrees, and your orientation selector says Surface Velocity + (Forward in relation to surface velocity.) I haven't used all the settings on MechJeb there so I'm not sure, but I THINK you need to set to SURF for that setting to take effect.

If you've got FAR installed as you say, you need to bring up the FAR in-flight data window on the screen and bring up the Flight Data display. The best indicator of what you should be experiencing should show up there. Such as your Q, and your Cd.

in these screns I'm using NEAR, but at first time with FAR the Drag coefficient was very low (10^-2), when I reinstalled it worked and increased as altitude droped, but as I said, there was some changes in design

thanks!

Edited April 4, 2015 by Ricardo.b

[255]

I use KSPRC.

Any way to fix this weird sky effect and/or the clouds?

[ThorBeorn]

255: You need to manually edit the cfg file called cloudLayers.cfg. Look for this:

 SAVED
		{
			body = Kerbin
			altitude = 30000
			volume = False
			color
			{
				r = 0.25
				g = 0.48
				b = 1
				a = 0.42
			}
			main_texture
			{
				file = BoulderCo/Clouds/Textures/extlayer
				scale = 1
				offset
				{
					x = 0.452678
					y = 0
				}
				speed
				{
					x = 0
					y = 0
				}
			}
			detail_texture
			{
				file = BoulderCo/Clouds/Textures/empty
				scale = 1
				offset
				{
					x = 0.452678
					y = 0
				}
				speed
				{
					x = 0
					y = 0
				}
			}
			scaled_shader_floats
			{
				falloffPower = 3
				falloffScale = 3
				detailDistance = 0.02
				minimumLight = 0.5
				fadeDistance = 100
				rimDistance = 1
			}
			[COLOR="#FF0000"]shader_floats[/COLOR]
			{
				falloffPower = 2
				falloffScale = 3
				[COLOR="#FF0000"]detailDistance = 0.01[/COLOR] <------ try with 1000
				minimumLight = 0.5
				fadeDistance = 100
				[COLOR="#FF0000"]rimDistance = 1[/COLOR] <------try with 0.0001 
			}
		}
	}

Under shader_floats (NOT scaled_shader_floats), you can increase detailDistance and decrease rimDistance. That will make the atmospheric blue layer "disappear" beyond the horizon, until you launch something. It should then fade in gradually from below as you ascend. I suggest going with a factor of ten maybe, until you're happy.

I fiddle with these values from time to time. Still don't know exactly how they work though.

[255]

Tried, didn't change anything. I also tried changing it on other altitudes.

[ThorBeorn]

Sry I meant fadeDistance instead of detailDistance. It must have changed something though. Are you sure you edited the layer under "SAVED" and not under "DEFAULTS"? That could explain it if nothing changed.