[1.4.x] TweakScale v2.3.12(Apr-16)

[pellinor]

On 29.2.2016 at 4:57 PM, allmhuran said:

I also have no tweakscale control on any part using the stable release. This is with a completely fresh (non steam) KSP 1.05 install, no other mods loaded. The log contains what appears to be the relevant exception (included below).

The dev WIP version works.

This is strange because as of today the dev version should still be identical to the latest release. In any case, scale_editor.dll is not needed and yoiu can safely remove it (I'll also remove it for 1.1).

[pellinor]

6 hours ago, Shiolle said:

Is it possible to disallow scaling parts above their default scale, so that parts could be made smaller, but not larger? I'm asking because in career this mod is basically cheating, allowing you to build huge rockets before you get to them in the research tree. Yet it is now required by some mods I'd like to use, i.e. KSP interstellar? I've seen a similar questions asked a couple of times, but I wasn't able to find an answer.

Actually scaling things down can be just as cheaty. For example the tiny stock engines are less efficient and often don't come in the ecact size you need them.

If you only want to use TweakScale for a certain mod, you can safely remove some (or all) of the config files in the 'patches' folder. This is the typical solution for people who want to scale something specific but otherwise keep the 'lego blocks' feel of restricted puzzle pieces.

There is a config interface for size restrictions, where you can unlock scaleFactors with techs. However it uses absolute scales, so you can write "this scaleType(or part) needs techX to scale to 2.5m" but not "you can now scale everything to half size". I currently don't include restriction configs because I consider them a pain to do and maintain, and it would break easily as soon as someone moves parts in the tech tree.

[Shiolle]

9 hours ago, pellinor said:

Actually scaling things down can be just as cheaty. For example the tiny stock engines are less efficient and often don't come in the ecact size you need them.

If you only want to use TweakScale for a certain mod, you can safely remove some (or all) of the config files in the 'patches' folder. This is the typical solution for people who want to scale something specific but otherwise keep the 'lego blocks' feel of restricted puzzle pieces.

There is a config interface for size restrictions, where you can unlock scaleFactors with techs. However it uses absolute scales, so you can write "this scaleType(or part) needs techX to scale to 2.5m" but not "you can now scale everything to half size". I currently don't include restriction configs because I consider them a pain to do and maintain, and it would break easily as soon as someone moves parts in the tech tree.

Thank you very much. I've tested this solution and so far it works well with career.

[damerell]

On 07/03/2016 at 1:03 PM, Shiolle said:

Is it possible to disallow scaling parts above their default scale, so that parts could be made smaller, but not larger? I'm asking because in career this mod is basically cheating, allowing you to build huge rockets before you get to them in the research tree.

I don't want to seem facetious, but "don't do that, then?"

I use Tweakscale to reduce part count on things like batteries and solars; I don't feel the need to start Tweakscaling everything.

[MarkTheRabidCat]

 

On 2016-03-07 at 1:09 PM, pellinor said:

On 2016-03-07 at 6:03 AM, Shiolle said:

Is it possible to disallow scaling parts above their default scale, so that parts could be made smaller, but not larger? I'm asking because in career this mod is basically cheating, allowing you to build huge rockets before you get to them in the research tree. Yet it is now required by some mods I'd like to use, i.e. KSP interstellar? I've seen a similar questions asked a couple of times, but I wasn't able to find an answer.

Actually scaling things down can be just as cheaty. For example the tiny stock engines are less efficient and often don't come in the ecact size you need them.

If you only want to use TweakScale for a certain mod, you can safely remove some (or all) of the config files in the 'patches' folder. This is the typical solution for people who want to scale something specific but otherwise keep the 'lego blocks' feel of restricted puzzle pieces.

There is a config interface for size restrictions, where you can unlock scaleFactors with techs. However it uses absolute scales, so you can write "this scaleType(or part) needs techX to scale to 2.5m" but not "you can now scale everything to half size". I currently don't include restriction configs because I consider them a pain to do and maintain, and it would break easily as soon as someone moves parts in the tech tree.

On 2016-03-08 at 8:13 AM, damerell said:

I don't want to seem facetious, but "don't do that, then?"

I use Tweakscale to reduce part count on things like batteries and solars; I don't feel the need to start Tweakscaling everything.

Actually 1 HUGE problem wth being able to scale things down, is, the fact that, 4 scaled down material research bays inside a 1.25m service bay COSTS LESS and WEIGHS LESS than ONE material research bay, and once you're doing that you may aswell scale down your whole ship, bring thing mission cost from 23,000 to 700! scaling up isn't actually that bad, because it justs allows you to get around the part limits, and that you haven't unlocked a larger engine. However, once your able to scale down your payloads, science and crew pods, all bets are off!

And the problem with just ignoring the ability, is once you know it's there, any time where you could solve a problem just by using it, it becomes very hard to think about a different solution. I"m currently trying to build a ship to escape the atmosphere with a few material bays, but all I want to do is just say screw it, and make them tiny. And you have to remember there is Dark Multi-Player, where it stops being about going against your own ethics and now going against other peoples.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by MarkTheRabidCat

[pellinor]

4 hours ago, MarkTheRabidCat said:

4 scaled down material research bays inside a 1.25m service bay COSTS LESS and WEIGHS LESS than ONE material research bay, and once you're doing that you may aswell scale down your whole ship, bring thing mission cost from 23,000 to 700! scaling up isn't actually that bad, because it justs allows you to get around the part limits, and that you haven't unlocked a larger engine. However, once your able to scale down your payloads, science and crew pods, all bets are off!

And you have to remember there is Dark Multi-Player, where it stops being about going against your own ethics and now going against other peoples.

This is not a general problem with downscaling, but with the behaviour of specific parts. You are right, science parts currently get too strong when shrinked and useless when enlarged. Maybe I should just keep mass and cost constant. Inverse proportional cost would make sense for the material bay but not for the tiny science parts.

There is always the possibility to remove TweakScale from certain parts with a simple MM patch. For crew pods (or parts with a certain module) this patch is even shipped with TweakScale (see examples.cfg), you just have to activate it. The same applies to multiplayer: if you want to compare yourself to others you need to agree on a common set of rules. This includes the choice of mods, but also their settings.

To allow everything by default was a conscious design decision because reverting to default should not break crafts. Also, if you add a restriction patch, a user with default settings will be able to use all your crafts.

[MarkTheRabidCat]

On 2016-03-11 at 4:53 AM, pellinor said:

This is not a general problem with downscaling, but with the behaviour of specific parts. You are right, science parts currently get too strong when shrinked and useless when enlarged. Maybe I should just keep mass and cost constant. Inverse proportional cost would make sense for the material bay but not for the tiny science parts.

There is always the possibility to remove TweakScale from certain parts with a simple MM patch. For crew pods (or parts with a certain module) this patch is even shipped with TweakScale (see examples.cfg), you just have to activate it. The same applies to multiplayer: if you want to compare yourself to others you need to agree on a common set of rules. This includes the choice of mods, but also their settings.

To allow everything by default was a conscious design decision because reverting to default should not break crafts. Also, if you add a restriction patch, a user with default settings will be able to use all your crafts.

Well, that makes sense. I think the only science part that wouldn't make sense for inverse cost is the goo pod. Because unless you can reduce the ammount of science you get from smaller parts, we have to assume that you're packing the same amount of accuracy into even a smaller thermometre. AI core should also probably be inverse, and even with not wanting to break crafts I'd really argue that squishing 3 kerbals into a 1.25m command pod is inkerbane no matter how you slice it.

[pellinor]

40 minutes ago, MarkTheRabidCat said:

we have to assume that you're packing the same amount of accuracy into even a smaller thermometre.

The problem is large thermometers. If size and weight are negligible, a larger thermometer should not become cheaper. So preserving the price sounds like a good solution to me. I'm not sure yet what to do wiht probecores, probably some sort of inverse pricing.

40 minutes ago, MarkTheRabidCat said:

even with not wanting to break crafts I'd really argue that squishing 3 kerbals into a 1.25m command pod is inkerbane no matter how you slice it.

Which is why there is a config switch for scaleable crew parts. Configuring your game is not cheating :-)

TweakScale serves many different playstyles, and career mode is only one of them. Another would be aesthetic building, where often people do not care for the function of a part at all. And I can't tell how big the different groups are since I get almost no feedback about the user base of this mod. I mainly build it for my own playstyle (occasional scaling in career mode, where it seems reasonable and looks good). Personally, I tend to overlook the more unreasonable sliders because I never search for them. It's like having Hyperedit installed but still using rockets to get my payloads into orbit.

If someone wants to put in the work to publish and maintain a proper restrictions config for career mode, feel free. There clearly is a demand for it. It just hasn't happened yet because nobody wanted it badly enough.

[Grease1991]

So I understand the the Camera Bug might be a ksp thing, but i haven't been able to replicate it without the use tweakscale.
Have you considered messing around and seeing if you can't fix it, 

[MarkTheRabidCat]

3 hours ago, pellinor said:

The problem is large thermometers. If size and weight are negligible, a larger thermometer should not become cheaper. So preserving the price sounds like a good solution to me. I'm not sure yet what to do wiht probecores, probably some sort of inverse pricing.

Which is why there is a config switch for scaleable crew parts. Configuring your game is not cheating :-)

TweakScale serves many different playstyles, and career mode is only one of them. Another would be aesthetic building, where often people do not care for the function of a part at all. And I can't tell how big the different groups are since I get almost no feedback about the user base of this mod. I mainly build it for my own playstyle (occasional scaling in career mode, where it seems reasonable and looks good). Personally, I tend to overlook the more unreasonable sliders because I never search for them. It's like having Hyperedit installed but still using rockets to get my payloads into orbit.

If someone wants to put in the work to publish and maintain a proper restrictions config for career mode, feel free. There clearly is a demand for it. It just hasn't happened yet because nobody wanted it badly enough.

...... I... I might just do that... and put it into CKAN, like the RSS and Default configs for TACLS.... could even make a few different ballences... maybe after I get a new job and can devote the time without worrying about my rent.

[pellinor]

17 hours ago, Grease1991 said:

So I understand the the Camera Bug might be a ksp thing, but i haven't been able to replicate it without the use tweakscale.
Have you considered messing around and seeing if you can't fix it, 

It also happened to the Flea booster on its first release (and was fixed by avoiding the 'rescale factor' config option). And yes I tried to code around it, asdid my predecessor. Obviously we did not find a way that wouldn't break other things.

[DerekL1963]

19 hours ago, pellinor said:

And I can't tell how big the different groups are since I get almost no feedback about the user base of this mod. I mainly build it for my own playstyle (occasional scaling in career mode, where it seems reasonable and looks good).

For my part, probably 75% of my use of Tweak Scale is to turn the Skipper into a 3.75 meter engine...     It makes a dang fine insertion engine.

[pellinor]

On 14.3.2016 at 6:48 AM, MarkTheRabidCat said:

...... I... I might just do that... and put it into CKAN, like the RSS and Default configs for TACLS.... could even make a few different ballences...

Just keep in mind that people like to share crafts. So it would be nice to keep some compatibility (like "craft from the restricted config will load and behave the same under the liberal config").

[Ryusho]

Does this still support KW Rocketry? I was trying to adjust some, I noticed some of the radial deploying engines don't seem to allow it, ,but I may of gotten mods confused.

[pellinor]

1 hour ago, Ryusho said:

Does this still support KW Rocketry? I was trying to adjust some, I noticed some of the radial deploying engines don't seem to allow it, ,but I may of gotten mods confused.

I don't use KW myself, so most likely the config is out of date. I'll have a look.

[Bit Fiddler]

trying to rescale a fuel tank that is setup for modular fuel tanks.  however I cant get the fuel capacity to change with the part scale.  How do I go about making the modular fuel tanks scale their fuel capacity to match the new part scale?

 

Just a note here.  the part is not a fuel tank that is in the game already, it is a part that as of now has no fuel capacity, or tweakscale support.  I have put the tweak scale in by using a MM patch, and the same for a basic modular fuel tank.  however when I then resize with tweak scale the modular fuel tank has the same fuel capacity as before the rescale.  If anybody can help me with this MM patch to not only add Tweak Scale, and Modular Fuel Tank, but also make them play together I would be very happy.

 

 

 

[pellinor]

7 hours ago, Bit Fiddler said:

trying to rescale a fuel tank that is setup for modular fuel tanks.  however I cant get the fuel capacity to change with the part scale.  How do I go about making the modular fuel tanks scale their fuel capacity to match the new part scale?

Just a note here.  the part is not a fuel tank that is in the game already, it is a part that as of now has no fuel capacity, or tweakscale support.  I have put the tweak scale in by using a MM patch, and the same for a basic modular fuel tank.  however when I then resize with tweak scale the modular fuel tank has the same fuel capacity as before the rescale.  If anybody can help me with this MM patch to not only add Tweak Scale, and Modular Fuel Tank, but also make them play together I would be very happy.

The code for that interaction is part of MFT, and currently not part of the release. I hope we will get it back for 1.1. You can not fix this with a MM patch.

Edited March 19, 2016 by pellinor

[Bit Fiddler]

ok thanks..  it is possible to do it with some stock tank setup however?   I can skip the MFT and just use a stock liquid fuel tank and it will scale along with part size?

[pellinor]

6 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:

ok thanks..  it is possible to do it with some stock tank setup however?   I can skip the MFT and just use a stock liquid fuel tank and it will scale along with part size?

Sure, MFT is special because it is supposed to have its own scaling code and TweakScale is set to not interfere if a MFT module is present in the part.

Edited March 19, 2016 by pellinor

[Bit Fiddler]

ok so how do I go about making a MM patch that will add in Tweak scale and a stock liquid fuel tank that will then resize with the part?

[mr_trousers]

I'm also having a problem with fuel tank capacity... No tanks, stock or otherwise, have their capacities change when I scale them. I installed TweakScale on CKAN, and I just tried reinstalling but the problem persists. Any ideas?

Edit: Whoops, I had modular fuel tanks installed and I didn't even realize. My bad.

Edited March 27, 2016 by mr_trousers

[TheCrazyHeadGamer]

Is it 1.1 friendly ?

[Virtualgenius]

Seriously your asking that, it was released today and its a pre-release so they can fix the mod for 1.1 come back in two weeks when the release is official 

[TheCrazyHeadGamer]

I didn't ask if there was a new version of the mod, i just asked if it's 1.1 friendly in its current version...

[Conventia]

No mods that require plugins will work without changes and I assume part mods will probably require changes as well. So, for the vast majority of mods, the answer to your question will be no.