[1.8.1-1.9.1] Rescale Continued v.1.0.0

[Profiremu23]

Rescale Continued

About the mod:

Are you ever thinked about stock scaled Kerbol system is too easy? Or stock engines are overpowered in the default scale? Do you tired from planets are too small to even be called planets? Do you ever wished for larger planets? Some players may remember the Rescale! mod made by Gallieo88, but is outdated, so i decided to convert Rescale to the modern versions of Kerbal Space Program. The Rescale Continued is a small mod used with Sigma Dimensions to change the universal scale, and you can select 2x, 2.5x, 3.5x, 5.4x, 7.6x, and even 10x scale to make the planets larger!

 

Scale examples:

2x Scale: Is for a simple taste for advanced players to try larger stock planets.

2.5x and 3.5x Scale: is for players to play the stock system larger than 2x scale, but still want to use stock parts.

5.4x Scale: 50% Earth scale, if you want to play on this scale with stock parts, i recommend to use Real Fuels or SMURFF to balance the stock parts.

7.6x Scale: 70% Earth scale, this scale is really hard to play with unmodified stock parts.

10.0x and 10.618x Scale: On this scale, every stock planet is 1:1 copies of real life counterparts.

 

How to install?

To install, you need to install the required mods. Select ONLY one of scale configs, for example to play 2.5x scaled system, you only need the Rescale 2.5x folder. After downloading finished, unzip the Rescale folder to your GameData folder.

 

Requirements

Kerbal Space Program 1.8 or 1.9 (1.10 in correctly unsupported because Kopernicus dont have a 1.10 release)

Kopernicus for 1.8: https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus

For 1.9 Kopernicus, download link: https://github.com/prestja/Kopernicus/releases/tag/release-1.9.1-4

Kronometer (not required, but i recommend for setting the date display accurate): https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kronometer

Module Manager: https://github.com/sarbian/ModuleManager

ModularFlightIntegrator: https://github.com/sarbian/ModularFlightIntegrator

Sigma Dimensions: https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Dimensions/releases

And Rescale Continued's download link: https://github.com/Profiremu23/RescaleCoutinued/releases/tag/master

 

Special Thanks for:

Profiremu23 for making and testing the mod.

This addon licensed by GNU General Public License: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Wishlist:

-Support for planet packs

Edited July 15, 2020 by Profiremu23

[etmoonshade]

If I'm reading the configs correctly, this will also keep the altitudes of terrain features (e.g. the mountains west of KSC) at roughly stock heights? Won't this result in incredibly flat terrain? I think that's why the previous Rescale mod only reduced it to 0.5, even if it's sometimes incredibly inconvenient.

Although I admit, this has been an issue for me lately since I've been playing with aircraft... having to fly at 35km to get over that one mountain as you approach KSC heading 90 degrees.

Would there be a way to use these configs to put KSC (and the runway, and VAB, and etc.) where various things (like MechJeb APs for example) expect them to be?

[Sigma88]

  On 7/12/2020 at 3:11 PM, Profiremu23 said:

Special Thanks for:

Profiremu23 for making and testing the mod.

Expand  

[Kerbal01]

What even is the point of this mod? Rescale for 1.3 works just fine.

[Stone Blue]

Looks like (mostly) different scales, for some reason? vOv

[Profiremu23]

My main goal is to make custom configs for EVERY planet pack in my mod, because the Gallieo88 version only the GPP pack had custom configs, and i will try to add custom configs like JNSQ

[Sigma88]

  On 7/13/2020 at 6:13 AM, Profiremu23 said:

My main goal is to make custom configs for EVERY planet pack in my mod, because the Gallieo88 version only the GPP pack had custom configs, and i will try to add custom configs like JNSQ

Expand  

 

if you run into some trouble feel free to ping me

[Nightside]

  On 7/12/2020 at 4:52 PM, etmoonshade said:

If I'm reading the configs correctly, this will also keep the altitudes of terrain features (e.g. the mountains west of KSC) at roughly stock heights? Won't this result in incredibly flat terrain? I think that's why the previous Rescale mod only reduced it to 0.5, even if it's sometimes incredibly inconvenient.

Expand  

The mountains of Kerbin are already the height of Himalayas, and way steeper. If you increase them with the planets radius they will be out of the atmosphere.

The flat terrain is sorta realistic, but the stock terrain map is so boring it aggravates the problem.

[etmoonshade]

  On 7/13/2020 at 2:20 PM, Nightside said:

The mountains of Kerbin are already the height of Himalayas, and way steeper.

Expand  

Not quite that tall, but it'd be at almost 8 times the height of Everest if terrain altitude scaled with planet radius. At the 0.5 scaling from the previous rescale mod, it results in roughly 35km at the approach going east. So yeah, full scaling would be... if not out of the atmosphere, just a jump away.

My question was more about understanding that the effects of that height scaling parameter in the configs worked the way I thought they did. It's not exactly easy to balance between "too flat" and "too tall" since most people probably have different opinions on what those mean.

(note, I'm using the 10.625x scale from the old .cfgs, so none of these would really be a drop-in replacement even if they did anything extra)

[OhioBob]

  On 7/13/2020 at 6:13 AM, Profiremu23 said:

... and i will try to add custom configs like JNSQ

Expand  

You probably already know this, but JNSQ is 1/4 real scale.  So a 4x config would be perfect to make it real scale.  And if you want to downsize it, 0.375x would make Kerbin stock size.

[OhioBob]

@Profiremu23, I have a suggestion.  For atmosphere rescaling, use atmoTopLayer instead of Atmosphere.  For instance, for 2.5x Kerbin, change your settings to,

     Atmosphere = 1
     atmoTopLayer = 1.214285714285714 

The exception would be for the 10x and 10.618x, in which case I recommend the following for Kerbin,

     Atmosphere = 1.25
     atmoTopLayer = 1.6

Note that the product of those two numbers is, 1.25*1.6 = 2, which is the same multiplier that you're currently using.

Below is the detailed explanation for this:

  Reveal hidden contents

There's a distinct difference between what the Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer settings do.  Atmosphere rescales the existing pressure and temperature curves, while atmoTopLayer extrapolates the curves beyond where they left off (or truncates them if <1).

So for instance, let's say we have Atmosphere = 1.5.  In this example the existing atmosphere will be stretched to 1.5x its original height.  The atmospheric pressure will drop more slowly with increasing height, and the conditions at the top of the atmosphere will be essentially the same as the original.  This could have some detrimental effects.  For instance, the lower rate of pressure drop would be unnatural and make the atmosphere thicker than it should be.  Also, with the larger scale, we have higher entry speeds.  So a vessel is going to hit the upper atmosphere going faster while the atmospheric density is unchanged.  This could result in an undesirably rapid onset of drag and heating effects (the "wall of air" effect).

If instead we use atmoTopLayer = 1.5, then the lower part of the atmosphere is unchanged from the original.  Instead the atmosphere is extended by adding on a thinner upper atmosphere.  Sigma Dimensions uses the existing pressure curve to estimate how it should be extrapolated, and can continue the curve out to whatever height is desired.  In this case fight behavior in the lower atmosphere will be just the same as everyone is familiar with.  But we now have a thin upper atmosphere that we must get above to achieve orbit.  And the thinner upper air provides an additional buffer that the faster reentering vessels must pass through before reaching the familiar lower atmosphere.

If both Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer are used, then the existing curves are both stretched and extrapolated.  The final height of the atmosphere will be increased by the product of the two multipliers, i.e. Atmosphere*atmoTopLayer.

The reason I suggest using Atmosphere = 1.25 for the 10x and 10.618x versions is because of the way Kerbin's stock atmosphere is made.  Kerbin's atmosphere is based on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, but the temperature and pressure curves were compressed using a 0.8 multiplier.  Using an Atmosphere multiplier of 1.25 reverses the compression factor and makes Kerbin's lower atmosphere 100% Earthlike.  After that, atmoTopLayer will extrapolate the atmosphere further up to its final desired height.  This will produce the most realistic atmosphere possible for the larger scales.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by OhioBob

[Profiremu23]

  On 7/13/2020 at 3:56 PM, OhioBob said:

@Profiremu23, I have a suggestion.  For atmosphere rescaling, use atmoTopLayer instead of Atmosphere.  For instance, for 2.5x Kerbin, change your settings to,

     Atmosphere = 1
     atmoTopLayer = 1.214285714285714 

The exception would be for the 10x and 10.618x, in which case I recommend the following for Kerbin,

     Atmosphere = 1.25
     atmoTopLayer = 1.6

Note that the product of those two numbers is, 1.25*1.6 = 2, which is the same multiplier that you're currently using.

Below is the detailed explanation for this:

  Reveal hidden contents

There's a distinct difference between what the Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer settings do.  Atmosphere rescales the existing pressure and temperature curves, while atmoTopLayer extrapolates the curves beyond where they left off (or truncates them if <1).

So for instance, let's say we have Atmosphere = 1.5.  In this example the existing atmosphere will be stretched to 1.5x its original height.  The atmospheric pressure will drop more slowly with increasing height, and the conditions at the top of the atmosphere will be essentially the same as the original.  This could have some detrimental effects.  For instance, the lower rate of pressure drop would be unnatural and make the atmosphere thicker than it should be.  Also, with the larger scale, we have higher entry speeds.  So a vessel is going to hit the upper atmosphere going faster while the atmospheric density is unchanged.  This could result in an undesirably rapid onset of drag and heating effects (the "wall of air" effect).

If instead we use atmoTopLayer = 1.5, then the lower part of the atmosphere is unchanged from the original.  Instead the atmosphere is extended by adding on a thinner upper atmosphere.  Sigma Dimensions uses the existing pressure curve to estimate how it should be extrapolated, and can continue the curve out to whatever height is desired.  In this case fight behavior in the lower atmosphere will be just the same as everyone is familiar with.  But we now have a thin upper atmosphere that we must get above to achieve orbit.  And the thinner upper air provides an additional buffer that the faster reentering vessels must pass through before reaching the familiar lower atmosphere.

If both Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer are used, then the existing curves are both stretched and extrapolated.  The final height of the atmosphere will be increased by the product of the two multipliers, i.e. Atmopshere*atmoTopLayer.

The reason I suggest using Atmosphere = 1.25 for the 10x and 10.618x versions is because of the way Kerbin's stock atmosphere is made.  Kerbin's atmosphere is based on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, but the temperature and pressure curves were compressed using a 0.8 multiplier.  Using an Atmosphere multiplier of 1.25 reverses the compression factor and makes Kerbin's lower atmosphere 100% Earthlike.  After that, atmoTopLayer will extrapolate the atmosphere further up to its final desired height.  This will produce the most realistic atmosphere possible for the larger scales.

 

Expand  

Intresting, maybe i can make the change in 1.1, and i will start to work a Rescale Coutinued-JNSQ config

Edited July 13, 2020 by Profiremu23

[OhioBob]

  On 7/13/2020 at 3:59 PM, Profiremu23 said:

Intresting, maybe i can make the change in 1.1

Expand  

If you have any interest in providing compatibility with Realistic Atmospheres, I can give you some recommendations.

[Sigma88]

  On 7/13/2020 at 2:39 PM, etmoonshade said:

My question was more about understanding that the effects of that height scaling parameter in the configs worked the way I thought they did. It's not exactly easy to balance between "too flat" and "too tall" since most people probably have different opinions on what those mean.

Expand  

Resize is a multiplier on the distance between surface and center of the planet

landscape is a multiplier on the distance between surface and sea level

 

so if you have landscape = 1 / Resize  they would cancel each other out, and the altitude of the mountains measured from sea level would be the same in the original planet and the rescaled planet.

hope this makes sense

[etmoonshade]

  On 7/13/2020 at 9:11 PM, Sigma88 said:

Resize is a multiplier on the distance between surface and center of the planet

landscape is a multiplier on the distance between surface and sea level

 

so if you have landscape = 1 / Resize  they would cancel each other out, and the altitude of the mountains measured from sea level would be the same in the original planet and the rescaled planet.

hope this makes sense

Expand  

That pretty much confirms what I'd guessed - the landscape is indeed 1/resize (give or take a few decimal points.) I just wanted confirmation that it'd have the effects I thought it would.

[OhioBob]

The topographic range of the Earth, Moon and Mars are about 19.8 km, 20 km, and 29.4 km respectively.  For comparison, stock Kerbin, Mun and Duna have topographic ranges of 8162 m, 7313 m, and 8145 m respectively.  So if we wanted these stock bodies to have deformities comparable to their real-life analogs when scaled up to 10.618x, then we would have to give them landscape multipliers of about 0.23, 0.26 and 0.34.  Or an average of about 0.275.

[Sigma88]

  On 7/13/2020 at 9:43 PM, OhioBob said:

The topographic range of the Earth, Moon and Mars are about 19.8 km, 20 km, and 29.4 km respectively.  For comparison, stock Kerbin, Mun and Duna have topographic ranges of 8162 m, 7313 m, and 8145 m respectively.  So if we wanted these stock bodies to have deformities comparable to their real-life analogs when scaled up to 10.618x, then we would have to give them landscape multipliers of about 0.23, 0.26 and 0.34.  Or an average of about 0.275.

Expand  

the problem with that is earth is much less flat below the sea level, if you only consider above sea level both earth and kerbin go from 0 to about 8 km

[DeadJohn]

Is the spelling error in the mod name intentional, maybe some play on words I'm missing? Coutinued -> Continued. It's in the thread title as well as Github.

[OhioBob]

  On 7/14/2020 at 1:37 PM, Sigma88 said:

the problem with that is earth is much less flat below the sea level, if you only consider above sea level both earth and kerbin go from 0 to about 8 km

Expand  

Yep, Kerbin's shallow flat bottom oceans seem a bit unnatural.  If we wanted Kerbin's tallest peak to be equal to Mt. Everest, then we'd need a landscape multiplier of about 0.13.

Mars is also a bit of an outlier with its large deformity.  This is of course due to the enormity of Olympus Mons, which is quite an unusual feature.

There may be exceptions, but overall it looks to me that a landscape multiplier of 0.25 seems about right for a 10+ resize.  That makes the deformity of the stock bodies in the range of that of real life bodies.  But just going by hard numbers may not necessarily be the best answer.  It may be better to go with something that looks and feels right regardless of what the numbers say.

[Profiremu23]

  On 7/14/2020 at 2:38 PM, DeadJohn said:

Is the spelling error in the mod name intentional, maybe some play on words I'm missing? Coutinued -> Continued. It's in the thread title as well as Github.

Expand  

I will fix the misspelling error

[Dux Aquila]

How can we integrate into this mod, Kerbinside Continued, KSC++ and Kerbin City? I wish I could play in the maximum size extension 10.618.

Would any KKtoSD configuration work? Anybody got one?

 

 

[Emilius73]

After downloading this mod and trying to open the .zip file, I cannot open it, with Windows claiming it's "invalid". Are the zip downloads corrupted?

 

Edit: Nevermind, I can open the files with 7-Zip

Edited July 18, 2020 by Emilius73

[OhioBob]

  On 7/18/2020 at 2:46 PM, Emilius73 said:

After downloading this mod and trying to open the .zip file, I cannot open it, with Windows claiming it's "invalid". Are the zip downloads corrupted?

Expand  

I had the same problem, Windows Explorer wouldn't open it.  I had to download the master to get it to work.  Click on "Source code (zip)" and it will download the master with all seven rescale configs.

[Sigma88]

  On 7/18/2020 at 7:32 AM, Dux Aquila said:

Would any KKtoSD configuration work? Anybody got one?

Expand  

KKtoSD is no longer required since KK handles groups natively now

[The_Arcitect]

I tried to download the zips with 7-zip, but they are corrupted.

EDIT Source code worked.

Edited September 12, 2020 by The_Arcitect