[1.3.1] Rescale! Comprehensive SD Configs [1.0.2.8] [03 Dec 2017]

[JPGSP]

How much delta v is needed to achieve an orbit around kerbin in x3.2 rescaled?

[HoveringKiller]

4 hours ago, JPGSP said:

How much delta v is needed to achieve an orbit around kerbin in x3.2 rescaled?

To figure out the delta-v, multiply it by the squareroot of whatever rescale you are using. So for example, in stock KSP it takes ~3400 m/s of delta v to reach orbit. To figure it out in 3.2x rescale, multiply 3400 * sqrt(3.2), which is equal to roughly 6,082 m/s give or take. I made an excel sheet for myself that I got all the values from a delta-v map, which should be fairly easy for anyone to set up as well. I'll upload it later today if you remind me as well.

[StarStreak2109]

Thanks for that piece of information!

[OhioBob]

4 hours ago, HoveringKiller said:

To figure out the delta-v, multiply it by the squareroot of whatever rescale you are using. So for example, in stock KSP it takes ~3400 m/s of delta v to reach orbit. To figure it out in 3.2x rescale, multiply 3400 * sqrt(3.2), which is equal to roughly 6,082 m/s give or take. I made an excel sheet for myself that I got all the values from a delta-v map, which should be fairly easy for anyone to set up as well. I'll upload it later today if you remind me as well.

This method should be spot on for things for things like interplanetary transfers.  For launch delta-v, however, it over estimates the delta-v required.  This is because the planet scales up more than the atmosphere.  For example, for the 3.2x rescale, the atmosphere is only 1.4x as tall.  Therefore, proportionate to the planet, we don't have to launch into as high an orbit.  Nonetheless, the described method is a good start and should give a safe value.  You can always adjust the number down later as you gain experience.

[HoveringKiller]

1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

This method should be spot on for things for things like interplanetary transfers.  For launch delta-v, however, it over estimates the delta-v required.  This is because the planet scales up more than the atmosphere.  For example, for the 3.2x rescale, the atmosphere is only 1.4x as tall.  Therefore, proportionate to the planet, we don't have to launch into as high an orbit.  Nonetheless, the described method is a good start and should give a safe value.  You can always adjust the number down later as you gain experience.

Well that explains why I keep ending up with extra fuel even though the launchers are only designed to get the designated payload into orbit only just haha. Oh well, at least it'll help when designing atmospheric landers, as a little extra delta-v never hurt

[Norcalplanner]

1 hour ago, HoveringKiller said:

Well that explains why I keep ending up with extra fuel even though the launchers are only designed to get the designated payload into orbit only just haha. Oh well, at least it'll help when designing atmospheric landers, as a little extra delta-v never hurt

It's possible to launch into orbit in stock for only 3200 m/s with a halfway decent rocket and ascent profile, and 3100 m/s with an optimized design. Doing the math based on these lower numbers should get you in the ballpark. 

[HoveringKiller]

1 minute ago, Norcalplanner said:

It's possible to launch into orbit in stock for only 3200 m/s with a halfway decent rocket and ascent profile, and 3100 m/s with an optimized design. Doing the math based on these lower numbers should get you in the ballpark. 

Yea, I used the 3200 m/s as a baseline, however because the atmosphere doesn't scale the same as the planets, multiplying 3200 * sqrt(3.2) (or whatever rescale factor you're using) gives a higher than needed value, which I used to define my launch vehicles. Because of that, I have been designing my ships with the requirement of 6,082 m/s to reach orbit in x3.2 when it is actually lower and therefore I have extra fuel left over.

[OhioBob]

I haven't played 3.2x, but I have 2.5x.  From that experience, I estimated the launch delta-v for Kerbin is about 4700 m/s at 2.5x.  Using the mathematical method we get, 3200*SQRT(2.5) = 5060 m/s.  So you can see there's quite a bit of difference.  At 3.2x I'm guessing it can probably be done for 5700 m/s or less.

[JPGSP]

9 hours ago, HoveringKiller said:

To figure out the delta-v, multiply it by the squareroot of whatever rescale you are using. So for example, in stock KSP it takes ~3400 m/s of delta v to reach orbit. To figure it out in 3.2x rescale, multiply 3400 * sqrt(3.2), which is equal to roughly 6,082 m/s give or take. I made an excel sheet for myself that I got all the values from a delta-v map, which should be fairly easy for anyone to set up as well. I'll upload it later today if you remind me as well.

Thanks!!

[okbillybunnyface]

On 12/28/2017 at 5:35 AM, eberkain said:

What would be cool is a 'live' delta v map, where you could go to a website or something and plug in your rescale factor and it would show you something like this, but with updated numbers.    

 

On 3/30/2018 at 1:12 PM, okbillybunnyface said:

 

I also like this idea. Maybe I could try and set something up in the next few weeks. I don't suppose anyone knows if there is an SVG version of this image or something similar?

I did it! I made a simple Delta V Map SVG generator that lets you input a scale. It's also procedural, so it should be possible to add custom planets to it. It doesn't take into account atmospheres yet, so the atmospheric values are a bit off. I'll add features to it over the next while. http://gingles.cc/dvmap

Edited April 20, 2018 by okbillybunnyface

[theonegalen]

On 4/20/2018 at 12:19 AM, okbillybunnyface said:

 

I did it! I made a simple Delta V Map SVG generator that lets you input a scale. It's also procedural, so it should be possible to add custom planets to it. It doesn't take into account atmospheres yet, so the atmospheric values are a bit off. I'll add features to it over the next while. http://gingles.cc/dvmap

That's awesome! How does it react if I'm using different values to resize the planets vs the orbits? For example, in my next career, I'm going to use 2.5x stock planet size, but 5x stock orbit size / distance.

[okbillybunnyface]

1 hour ago, theonegalen said:

That's awesome! How does it react if I'm using different values to resize the planets vs the orbits? For example, in my next career, I'm going to use 2.5x stock planet size, but 5x stock orbit size / distance.

It doesn't know how to do that. That should be something I could add though. The planet size should only affect landing dVs and orbit heights/dVs (I think). I will have to math that out this weekend.

Edited April 21, 2018 by okbillybunnyface

[theonegalen]

15 minutes ago, okbillybunnyface said:

It doesn't know how to do that. That should be something I could add though. The planet size should only affect landing dVs and orbit heights/dVs (I think). I will have to math that out this weekend.

Fantastic, thank you.

[Tiankay]

On 4/20/2018 at 7:19 AM, okbillybunnyface said:

 

I did it! I made a simple Delta V Map SVG generator that lets you input a scale. It's also procedural, so it should be possible to add custom planets to it. It doesn't take into account atmospheres yet, so the atmospheric values are a bit off. I'll add features to it over the next while. http://gingles.cc/dvmap

Awesome! Just what i have been looking for over the past few weeks. Any chance you might add OPM to it?

 

Peace

TK

Edited April 30, 2018 by Tiankay

[Tyko]

Rescale and Sigma Dimensions for 1.3.1 was (mostly) working under 1.4.2. As soon as I installed 1.4.3 the older mods weren't scaling any more. Did others see this too?

NOTE: I'm not asking for official support. I'm just asking from others who are probably fooling around with this too

[Tiankay]

@Tyko Just fired up to check and its still working fine for me. Did you update your Kopernicus to the new 1.4.3 version?

 

Peace

TK

Edited April 30, 2018 by Tiankay

[Tyko]

6 minutes ago, Tiankay said:

@Tyko Just fired up to check and its still working fine for me. Did you update your Kopernicus to the new 1.4.3 version?

 

Peace

TK

Thanks, yes...when i updated to 1.4.3 with the new Kopernicus it stopped. You're response is really helpful though. Now I know it WILL work and I'll just have to figure out why mine isn't

 

[TheRubyEmerald]

While playing with the 10.625 rescale, the terrain looks very low detailed from orbit, even when my terrain setting is high. How do I fix this?

[Galileo]

3 hours ago, TheRubyEmerald said:

While playing with the 10.625 rescale, the terrain looks very low detailed from orbit, even when my terrain setting is high. How do I fix this?

You don’t. That’s what happens when you stretch textures 10x their original size. There is nothing that can be done.

 

edit: there is something that could be done, but that would require recreating the maps at 8k or bigger so that it’s not so noticeable. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Galileo

[danfarnsy]

Sigma Dimensions has been updated here, with the change log indicating it supports KSP 1.4.3.

[Galileo]

2 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Sigma Dimensions has been updated here, with the change log indicating it supports KSP 1.4.3.

Oh, I know. Sigma and I hang out in the same discord and talk pretty regularly. I just haven’t had time recently. It’s been a really busy semester for me this go around. I have 4 classes I’m teaching, and a lot of projects to grade  

im slowly plugging away at all of my mods. GPP was the big one and since it’s a team project, it got done quicker. This will come soon, though

[VFB1210]

For what it's worth, I've been using Rescale! 3.2x with the latest version of Sigma Dimensions, and it seems to work just fine. I can't confirm that it's 100% bug free, but I haven't noticed anything catastrophic.

[CobaltShock]

Yes, 6.4x seems to work fine. Other than a couple atmospheric things (mainly with scatterer, so I'm not using it), the game works fine. 

[macenkodenis]

I can confirm, that 3.2 Rescale work just fine on 1.4.3 with newest Kopernicus and SD for 1.3.1

 There was my gilty, when Rescale not work, coas I forgot to install module flight integrator. Don't be like me, cerifuly read the instructions!

Thanks to @Galileo for personal help in troubleshooting!

Edited May 18, 2018 by macenkodenis

[Someone2018]

Does anyone else suffer the problem (on he 10.625x scale) that the Kerbal Space Center is not properly on the ground, so it looks like the whole landmass around KSC is floating (when trying to drill for example its hard to reach the ground) and when returning with a vessel the KSC is often underwater, but before landing on water it crashes into invisible ground. I'm not using scatterer.