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

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, pellinor said:

Not sure what examples you are referring to. You are looking for chain-scaling (LeftCtrl-K), this means if you rescale a part it will (try to) propagate that change to its children. This works recursively on whole subassemblies provided all parts in between are able to follow the rescale (I never use this so I do not have much experience with it).

In TweakScale/Examples.cfg, there is a thing that talks about scaling entire ships. I will experiment with Ctrl+K on the root part, and keep it in mind for the next time I make a ridiculously huge ship. Thanks for the tip!

[pellinor]

10 hours ago, cubinator said:

In TweakScale/Examples.cfg, there is a thing that talks about scaling entire ships. I will experiment with Ctrl+K on the root part, and keep it in mind for the next time I make a ridiculously huge ship. Thanks for the tip!

That file is about configs, those only determine the scaleability of parts. In this context "scale everything" means giving every part a TweakScale module.

[cubinator]

3 hours ago, pellinor said:

That file is about configs, those only determine the scaleability of parts. In this context "scale everything" means giving every part a TweakScale module.

Ok, that makes sense.

[Mokmo]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but KAS items stop stacking in KAS/KIS containers when Tweakscale is installed... 

[pellinor]

17 hours ago, Mokmo said:

Not sure if this was mentioned, but KAS items stop stacking in KAS/KIS containers when Tweakscale is installed... 

This is correct behavior, and a known limitation of KIS. KIS refuses to stack a part if copies of that part can be different (because a stack only holds one part config). So stackability gets lost lost if you add stuff like resource nodes or a TweakScale module.

Edited January 1, 2017 by pellinor

[Cratzz]

Great mod, still strange that Squad hasn't implemeted this as standard. Anyhow, scaling slanted parts and nosecones messes up the physics. Plans to fix? It has been like that forever

Edited January 2, 2017 by Cratzz

[pellinor]

On 2.1.2017 at 10:13 PM, Cratzz said:

Great mod, still strange that Squad hasn't implemeted this as standard. Anyhow, scaling slanted parts and nosecones messes up the physics. Plans to fix? It has been like that forever

I'm not aware of any such physics problems. Could you be more precise?

And for "make TweakScale stock" I already wrote my thoughts:

On 25.11.2016 at 3:44 PM, pellinor said:

Most people who say this phrase have no idea what it actually means. First and foremost, scaling would be optional and support would need to be done by the authors of the part mods (today most patches are supported by me). Which means that many mod parts would just not be scaleable anymore. Stock support would be reduced to the smallest common denominator (like tanks, aero and structural). Any functionality that has its quirks (like scaling crew capacity) would be cut out. Last but not least, no updates between KSP versions. Is this really what you want?

The upside would be one folder less in your GameData.

[Jeb!]

Hello,

I recall when using Tweakscale before, if you made a capsule or lander can bigger, you could fit more crew in it. Of course, in Tweakscale when changing the size of fuel tanks, larger tanks carry more fuel and are heavier. This should go without saying. But now, no matter how big I make the capsule, I can only fit one crew! The crew tab only allows one passenger. This is not economical, since I need more crew in a larger capsule! I KNOW it is possible to fit extra crew in Tweakscaled parts, I have done myself before on a lost install, and I have seen pictures of other players who have done this.

Does anyone know how to fix this? There is nothing that should conflict with this mod, I only use stuff like SVE, BD Armory, and Space Y.

Thanks

Edited January 12, 2017 by Jeb!

[Speeding Mullet]

This is possibly a known issue, although I'm not technical enough to digest the information:

https://github.com/pellinor0/TweakScale/issues/42

Snipped reference to current thread because of thread merge. Val.

Good luck!

SM

Edited January 12, 2017 by Val
Snipped

[Jeb!]

12 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said:

This is possibly a known issue, although I'm not technical enough to digest the information:

https://github.com/pellinor0/TweakScale/issues/42

 

Thank you for your reply! From what I can infer from the discussion you linked, PartCrewManifest, and varying crew with the part size is now hopeless in 1.2. So looks like I will have to do without again.  I think Jebediah Kermin is experienced enough now to go to the Mun all on his own I suppose. 

[GreameCheese]

I think I found a small issue with resizing the stock RTGs,

When resized, the RTG generates the same amount of power/second regardless of being 10% size or full sized+ (similar to the NF reactor issue, but with stock RTGs), I wasn't sure how to report this, so I put it here.

As a side note, thanks for putting in so much work maintaining this mod!

[Aleksey Pschenichnikov]

very great. btw do you know how to make huge parts? (i know i am (the crpa of numbers)th human who asking for it) im pretty crappy in english, dont ban pls

[TK421d]

does anyone have a mm patch for Porkjets revamp parts?

[pellinor]

On 15.1.2017 at 9:41 AM, Aleksey Pschenichnikov said:

very great. btw do you know how to make huge parts? (i know i am (the crpa of numbers)th human who asking for it) im pretty crappy in english, dont ban pls

Look into GameData/TweakScale/DefaultScales.cfg. ScaleFactors defines the available sizes, you can change or add numbers if you want.

1 hour ago, TK421d said:

does anyone have a mm patch for Porkjets revamp parts?

Just keep in mind that TweakScale might not work well together with part upgrades (if both change the same value they will probably overwrite each other).

[TK421d]

9 minutes ago, pellinor said:

Just keep in mind that TweakScale might not work well together with part upgrades (if both change the same value they will probably overwrite each other).

I really just want more sizes for the fuel tanks.  was thinking about just making duplicates for 2.5 and 3.75 profiles

[Aleksey Pschenichnikov]

On 17.01.2017 at 2:30 AM, pellinor said:

Look into GameData/TweakScale/DefaultScales.cfg. ScaleFactors defines the available sizes, you can change or add numbers if you want.

Just keep in mind that TweakScale might not work well together with part upgrades (if both change the same value they will probably overwrite each other).

thx)

[Cratzz]

Im trying to find the reason why some parts -when tweakscaled- causes the craft to be glued to the ground. And one of those is the C7 Brand Adapter Slanted, when looking in Squad_Tanks.cfg in Tweakscale/patches/Squad i can't find it which maybe can explain as to why it don't work? @pellinor What would you need in terms of finding the cause? A log or something? Thanks!

[pellinor]

10 hours ago, Cratzz said:

Im trying to find the reason why some parts -when tweakscaled- causes the craft to be glued to the ground. And one of those is the C7 Brand Adapter Slanted, when looking in Squad_Tanks.cfg in Tweakscale/patches/Squad i can't find it which maybe can explain as to why it don't work? @pellinor What would you need in terms of finding the cause? A log or something? Thanks!

I do find it: the name is "adapterSize2-Size1Slant". Yes a log would help since I don't see this with stock+TweakScale. Maybe a conflict with some fuelswitch mod?

[pellinor]

On 14.1.2017 at 11:46 PM, GreameCheese said:

I think I found a small issue with resizing the stock RTGs,

When resized, the RTG generates the same amount of power/second regardless of being 10% size or full sized+ (similar to the NF reactor issue, but with stock RTGs), I wasn't sure how to report this, so I put it here.

As a side note, thanks for putting in so much work maintaining this mod!

Thanks, fixed for the next release

[pellinor]

Release v2.3.4:
* fix exponent for stock ModuleGenerator
* found a way to write dryCost of the prefab early enough (fixes a cost issue with KIS)
* functions to ask the prefab about stats of scaled parts (meant for KIS)

 

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

Hey @pellinor, is there a way to constrain a dimension when scaling a part?

[blakemw]

I find tweakscale to be disappointing for SRBs because it significantly reduces the TWR when upscaling, this rather defeats the main purpose of SRBs which is to increase the launchpad thrust. Also because SRB's aren't really intended to be used inline they are embarrassingly easy to "parallelize", like make a cluster of 8 Hammer boosters on a decoupler, I was hoping that I could use tweakscale to avoid needing to do this (i.e. reduce part count and improve appearance), but if an 8x more massive hammer has significantly less thrust than 8 hammers it's just not worth using. I do understand that upscaled parts are meant to be a little worse performing, but it'd be much preferable if the TWR is constant by scale with the fuel capacity being the penalized aspect, so upscaling results in same TWR but slightly reduced dV, or heck, due to the extreme ease of clustering stock-size SRBs just make both TWR and dV constant so part count savings can be had. Anyway my solution was to just install SpaceY which has large fast burning SRB, but I believe my point here is valid - that making SRBs burn slower makes them not really worth using at all.

Edited January 25, 2017 by blakemw

[Loren Pechtel]

20 minutes ago, blakemw said:

I find tweakscale to be disappointing for SRBs because it significantly reduces the TWR when upscaling, this rather defeats the main purpose of SRBs which is to increase the launchpad thrust. Also because SRB's aren't really intended to be used inline they are embarrassingly easy to "parallelize", like make a cluster of 8 Hammer boosters on a decoupler, I was hoping that I could use tweakscale to avoid needing to do this (i.e. reduce part count and improve appearance), but if an 8x more massive hammer has significantly less thrust than 8 hammers it's just not worth using. I do understand that upscaled parts are meant to be a little worse performing, but it'd be much preferable if the TWR is constant by scale with the fuel capacity being the penalized aspect, so upscaling results in same TWR but slightly reduced dV, or heck, due to the extreme ease of clustering stock-size SRBs just make both TWR and dV constant so part count savings can be had. Anyway my solution was to just install SpaceY which has large fast burning SRB, but I believe my point here is valid - that making SRBs burn slower makes them not really worth using at all.

So that applies to SRBs also.  I had noticed that a TweakScaled liquid fuel engine appeared to have it's untweaked thrust on the pad even though it looks right in the VAB.  My attempt simply roared on the pad, it didn't have the power to lift.  I haven't tweaked any more engines other than for space use since.

[damerell]

1 hour ago, blakemw said:

I find tweakscale to be disappointing for SRBs because it significantly reduces the TWR when upscaling.

This is a natural consequence of the square-cube law; double the linear dimensions of the SRB and the mass increases eightfold but the aperture at the base increases only four-fold. You'd expect it to have to be reengineered carefully to preserve the TWR, not just scaled up.

[pellinor]

1 hour ago, Loren Pechtel said:

I do understand that upscaled parts are meant to be a little worse performing

They are not meant to be, the current default is a compromise between several things. Let's first note that the TWR of an engine (without any tanks) should be preserved for balance reasons, so mass and thrust should use the same exponent.

The straightforward way of scaling engines would be to make the thrust proportional to the area of the nozzle (an exponent of 2). That would mean that the height of the fuel stack an engine can lift is preserved, which makes upscaled engines useless (light but too weak) and downscaled ones too strong (a tiny engine that is heavier and stronger than it looks). Also the density would scale too much which could result in unintuitive physics behavior.

So the current exponent is 2.5. This means that you can not simply scale up a whole vessel an expect it to behave the same behavior. On the other hand the height of tanks you can stack on an engine increases with size ( sqrt(scale) to be precise ).

I do think this is a good compromise for engines. But I'm also not really happy with SRBs, and don't find much use for scaled ones. Their weight is dominated by the solidfuel tank, so the mass exponent needs to stay at 3. We have a tweakable thrust limiter so increasing the thrust should not be much of an incompatibility. Finally I don't see much physical sense in the thrust values of the stock SRBs (other than to make them useful in different stages of the career progression), so there is no stock behavior to be consistent with.

Yes, I think a thrust exponent of 3 makes sense for SRBs. Of course that also means that downscaled SRBs will get weaker. So anyone using them as sepratrons might like the old setting better.

On 24.1.2017 at 4:00 AM, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

Hey @pellinor, is there a way to constrain a dimension when scaling a part?

No, it would mean a lot of additional complexity and there are just to few models that look decent with non-isotropic scaling.