Sigma Dimensions

[Zuthal]

That would be awesome, even if it would have to be limited to transfers and takeoffs from nonatmospheric bodies - since atmosphere losses will be quite difficult to predict.

For simple orbital maneuvers (escape and going to synchronous orbit) you should be able to just use Kepler's Laws, and for transfers, https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp this tool allows you to define your own bodies, though it of course isn't automagic. But you could maybe take a look at the source on github and implement some automagic from that.

[Sigma88]

23 minutes ago, Zuthal said:

That would be awesome, even if it would have to be limited to transfers and takeoffs from nonatmospheric bodies - since atmosphere losses will be quite difficult to predict.

For simple orbital maneuvers (escape and going to synchronous orbit) you should be able to just use Kepler's Laws, and for transfers, https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp this tool allows you to define your own bodies, though it of course isn't automagic. But you could maybe take a look at the source on github and implement some automagic from that.

yes I can definitely figure out the math myself, I just would rather someone else do that for me and we can make the delta-v map a collaboration because I have a lot of other mods and I'd rather not have to figure out everything myself, expecially if someone already went through the process of figuring out what the best approach is.

I've PMed the guy who made the original delta-v map, if he is interested I think we can make something in a decent time frame

[Karamon]

Gravity /drag delta v loss does not change much with scale . in stock total loss is around 2000 and with 10x scale 1.2 atmo and 1.2 toplayer (100km atmosphere total) delta v loss due to gravity and atmosphere drag is around 2100-2200 to get into LKO . So if you don't scale atmosphere several times difference in delta v loss will be marginal

[Ninadragonborn]

for any one want as close as possible to real life earth size this is setting i done in the game and it works 

// Base Settings

SigmaDimensions
{
    Resize = 10
    Rescale = 10
    Atmosphere = 1.42
    dayLengthMultiplier = 4
}

// Advanced Settings

@SigmaDimensions
{
    geeASLmultiplier = 1
    landscape = 0.3
    atmoVisualEffect = 1
    resizeScatter = 1
    CustomSoISize = 0
    CustomRingSize = 0
    atmoASL = 1
    tempASL = 1
    scanAltitude = 1
    resizeBuildings = 0
}
 

if you the landscape size is 1 

you will face 50 kilometer mountain size i found that when returning from orbit i splashed into huge mountain but this will make the size of mountain to real size earth 

but be warned the 10 scale and real size earth is very hard really hard you need at least 9800 V to reach orbit and to go to mun and return back just any where on kerbin and not just near space center you need at least 19000 V i have not done that yet but i am going to do it and i strongly advice using the mod like soviet rocket real scale booster spacex rocket and some other mod like smurff otherwise you will not ever reach even into orbit with normal part and with out this but if you do it will be amazing like real life 

 

[Karamon]

Use SMURFF to make fuels/engines/pods weight more realistic than stock game  .And all those delta V are not so difficult to achieve .

 

As for me 0.3 landscape was too flat, 10 km mountain range looks like a tiny bump in the road i keep it 0.5 and avoid landing in mountain regions , and mountains look like mountains . It is very hard to make Kerbin "earth-like" it wasn't designed like that and to make it more like earth landscape should be 0.1

Edited December 16, 2016 by Karamon

[Zuthal]

2 hours ago, Karamon said:

Gravity /drag delta v loss does not change much with scale . in stock total loss is around 2000 and with 10x scale 1.2 atmo and 1.2 toplayer (100km atmosphere total) delta v loss due to gravity and atmosphere drag is around 2100-2200 to get into LKO . So if you don't scale atmosphere several times difference in delta v loss will be marginal

Okay, so then the difference in launch delta-V should just be the difference in low-orbit velocities. That simplifies things quite a bit

[Karamon]

yes

 

stock orbital velocity ~2500 - that means rocket at the pad need ~4500 delta v

10x scale atmo 100km orbital velocity ~7500 - if you launch perfectly you can get it with 9500 delta v  (9700 is more than enough)

 

so in both cases total loss during ascent is somwhere around 2000 , it is harder in 10x to launch perfectly and air drag matters more than stock but in perfect conditions there is not much difference . And most likely it is from 30 km higher atmosphere rather than scale of the planet

[Zuthal]

Hmm... I think those loss figures aren't accurate anymore. Using the GravityTurn mod, I can, with stock scale, get a rocket into a circular 100 km prograde orbit with only ~3500 m/s, so it seems the losses are only ~1000 m/s. Will test how much delta-V it takes to orbit now in 64k scale, with atmo scaled to go away more gradually and end at 100 km, for a 150 km orbit.

My science has a result: Using a four-booster pairwise two-stage asparagus launcher (3000 m/s second stage, 3500 m/s first stage, 3500 m/s in the boosters), I achieved, using the config posted earlier, a circular orbit of 153 km, with a total burn of 6942.1 m/s plus 24.7 m/s circularisation, with a total loss of 1492.76 m/s.

Conclusion: In 6.4x scale, you will be on the safe side (if you fly an efficient ascent) if you use 7.5 km/s in your launcher.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Zuthal

[Karamon]

On 16.12.2016 at 9:42 AM, Sigma88 said:

 

for example you could choose a Rescale value that keeps the synchronous orbit around kerbin at the same relative distance between kerbin and mun

so try using this formula:

Rescale = (dayLenghtMultiplier*Resize)^(2/3)

 

 

This is awesome

[Zuthal]

I think the scaling between the terrain colliders and the terrain model, at least on Kerbin, is very slightly wonky - for example, at least in some places landed craft sink in a little bit (close to KSC, but not on the actual KSC territory, a Kerbal sinks in about up to the lower edge of his helmet). This seems to be visual only, but does anyone know how to fix it?

[Akira_R]

On 12/17/2016 at 0:45 PM, Zuthal said:

I think the scaling between the terrain colliders and the terrain model, at least on Kerbin, is very slightly wonky - for example, at least in some places landed craft sink in a little bit (close to KSC, but not on the actual KSC territory, a Kerbal sinks in about up to the lower edge of his helmet). This seems to be visual only, but does anyone know how to fix it?

Unfortunately I think this can only be fixed by changing the meshes of the planet themselves,  basically the texture and the collision mesh were always slightly off, in stock this is not noticeable (you might notice the boots sink in by a very tiny amount) but when you resize the planet the discrepancy is magnified.

[Karamon]

A thing i noticed. Resize setting is affecting cloud layers in EVE

 

I use Sci-Fi Visual Enchancement from @panzer1b and clouds set to 6000 m altitude in 10x scale were at 60 000 m . Not an issue cause i set them to 600m (x10 = 6000 m ) but just wanted to inform

[Eklykti]

On 01.05.2016 at 11:36 PM, Sigma88 said:

A lower altitude would mean the clouds could clip through the terrain

But real clouds can have this issue too:

Wouldn't be better to multiply by Atmosphere instead?

Edited December 22, 2016 by Eklykti

[Sigma88]

10 hours ago, Eklykti said:

But real clouds can have this issue too:

Wouldn't be better to multiply by Atmosphere instead?

problem is, most people would use

Resize = 10 (or 6.4)
Atmosphere = 1.25 (or slightly less than that)

which would bring mountains to 80km and cloud layers from 10km to 12.5 km

which means that cloud layers that in stock abundantly clear any mountains, in the resized version would clip through highlands

same issue for resize < 1 but with cloud layers that stay too high since for Resize = 0.1 you would use Atmosphere = 0.8

anyways, if you don't like the standard way SD changes clouds you can specify custom multipliers by using the parameter

EVE_CLOUDS
{
	OBJECT
	{
		customResize = xxxxx
	}
}

you can write that by hand in the EVE cfg or use a MM patch to set it (which is definitely the best option)

[Eklykti]

54 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

cfg or use a MM patch to set it (which is definitely the best option)

Already did this:

@EVE_CLOUDS:BEFORE[SigDim2]:NEEDS[ScifiVisualEnchancements]
{
	@OBJECT,* {
		customResize = 1.33
	}
}

 

[Sigma88]

1 minute ago, Eklykti said:

Already did this:

@EVE_CLOUDS:BEFORE[SigDim2]:NEEDS[ScifiVisualEnchancements]
{
	@OBJECT,* {
		customResize = 1.33
	}
}

 

is it working fine or are you having issues?

it's been a while since I tested that feature

[Norcalplanner]

On 12/16/2016 at 8:42 AM, Zuthal said:

Hmm... I think those loss figures aren't accurate anymore. Using the GravityTurn mod, I can, with stock scale, get a rocket into a circular 100 km prograde orbit with only ~3500 m/s, so it seems the losses are only ~1000 m/s. Will test how much delta-V it takes to orbit now in 64k scale, with atmo scaled to go away more gradually and end at 100 km, for a 150 km orbit.

My science has a result: Using a four-booster pairwise two-stage asparagus launcher (3000 m/s second stage, 3500 m/s first stage, 3500 m/s in the boosters), I achieved, using the config posted earlier, a circular orbit of 153 km, with a total burn of 6942.1 m/s plus 24.7 m/s circularisation, with a total loss of 1492.76 m/s.

Conclusion: In 6.4x scale, you will be on the safe side (if you fly an efficient ascent) if you use 7.5 km/s in your launcher.

Mechjeb has readouts for both gravity losses and aero losses, which I used in my "A degree makes a difference" posts, which can help optimize a craft's ascent profile.

Your numbers seem right on to me. I find that a good rule of thumb is to add 2,000 m/s to each launch requirement as you increase through the common rescale sizes. Thus stock is 3,500 m/s, 3.2x is 5,500 m/s, 6.4x is 7,500 m/s, and 10x is 9,500 m/s. Although it's possible to get to orbit using less delta V, you'll rarely go wrong with these numbers as a general guideline in rescaled systems.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Norcalplanner
Dang autocorrect

[Eklykti]

On 23.12.2016 at 0:36 PM, Sigma88 said:

is it working fine or are you having issues?

MM Config generation seems to be OK, and clouds appear where they should be at least for Kerbin.

[Ninadragonborn]

in order to reach orbit 100k in 10 scale or real size earth you need at least 9800 m/s it's really rare to achieve orbit with 9500 m/s and even 10000 m/s is also possible because of a huge difference in atmospheric drag with even little difference in design the Delta V require to reach low orbit can increase even into 10200 m/s this is personal experience so do not expect miracle because 10 scale is very close to real earth and things can get really massed up even trough reentry . deorbit in wrong place and use a lot of propellant to deorbit trying get close to KSC and you will face up to 30 gforce this is also personal experience i bring tourist back from orbit and try to minimize the gforce but even with all things good and good calculation the poor tourist face 6 g during reentry and this is what astronaut face during earth reentry . so this is really a hard mod because it's close to real earth

          

[Norcalplanner]

9 hours ago, Ninadragonborn said:

in order to reach orbit 100k in 10 scale or real size earth you need at least 9800 m/s it's really rare to achieve orbit with 9500 m/s and even 10000 m/s is also possible because of a huge difference in atmospheric drag with even little difference in design the Delta V require to reach low orbit can increase even into 10200 m/s this is personal experience so do not expect miracle because 10 scale is very close to real earth and things can get really massed up even trough reentry . deorbit in wrong place and use a lot of propellant to deorbit trying get close to KSC and you will face up to 30 gforce this is also personal experience i bring tourist back from orbit and try to minimize the gforce but even with all things good and good calculation the poor tourist face 6 g during reentry and this is what astronaut face during earth reentry . so this is really a hard mod because it's close to real earth

          

It's certainly possible with 9,500 m/s or less, so long as the TWR is high enough, the rocket is aerodynamic enough, and a good ascent profile is chosen.  I think aero may have changed a little bit since 1.1.3 when I did the post below, but not a whole bunch.

 

[Ninadragonborn]

can some one tell me why when i return from Minmus to kerbin my heat shield with 280 Ablator depleted all of it and exploded in less then 20 second 

[blowfish]

25 minutes ago, Ninadragonborn said:

can some one tell me why when i return from Minmus to kerbin my heat shield with 280 Ablator depleted all of it and exploded in less then 20 second 

Probably because stock heating is balanced for the stock system.  If you enter at much higher speed, it isn't going to behave the same way.  Try turning down re-entry heating in the difficulty settings.

[Karamon]

3 hours ago, Ninadragonborn said:

can some one tell me why when i return from Minmus to kerbin my heat shield with 280 Ablator depleted all of it and exploded in less then 20 second 

 

If you use 10x scale then atmosphere rescaling is a problem. Check some posts earlier about AtmoToplayer . Sigma gave there some nice examples how atmosphere is rescaled using this

If you rescale Atmosphere , to be realistic so 100km it means ~1.42 then at the moment you hit it it is like a wall , your HS start deplete like crazy even barely scratching the atmosphere .

 

I play in a 10x scale and made setings:

 

Atmosphere 1.2

atmoToplayer 1.2

 

Looks not bad , no more "wall" when you get into atmo , heat and drag is now growing slowly when i get deeper in atmo.  I am still not sure is it best setting cause i had not enough time to play so i didn't go beyond LKO

 

On 8.12.2016 at 0:19 PM, Sigma88 said:

thanks @OhioBob for the explanation, it was 3AM when I finished and I wasn't able to write a good explanation myself, so I postponed

your description works great, for anyone still having doubts on how it works here some visuals to help:

(and to showcase my top level ms_paint skillz)

"atmoTopLayer" gets applied after "Atmosphere" so if you change both of them, firstly the Atmosphere changes will be applied, and then the rescaled atmosphere will be extended/trimmed

in this example the original atmosphere ends abruptly, this is not the case usually, I have enhanced it for making the example easier to understand

Edited December 30, 2016 by Karamon

[Ninadragonborn]

1 hour ago, Karamon said:

 

If you use 10x scale then atmosphere rescaling is a problem. Check some posts earlier about AtmoToplayer . Sigma gave there some nice examples how atmosphere is rescaled using this

If you rescale Atmosphere , to be realistic so 100km it means ~1.42 then at the moment you hit it it is like a wall , your HS start deplete like crazy even barely scratching the atmosphere .

 

I play in a 10x scale and made setings:

 

Atmosphere 1.2

atmoToplayer 1.2

 

Looks not bad , no more "wall" when you get into atmo , heat and drag is now growing slowly when i get deeper in atmo.  I am still not sure is it best setting cause i had not enough time to play so i didn't go beyond LKO

 

i try using your advice thanks

i see if things work good 

[Ninadragonborn]

didn't work

as soon as i touch atmosphere the temperature reaches above the 3300 kelvin and heat shield and everything explode 

there is something wrong with last release of sigma i did not have the problem before but i have it in new version

the only way it did work was to decrease the reentry heat to 70%