It's not 1.25 meters after all!

[Whirligig Girl]

[EDIT] DISCLAIMER: Upon recent evidence, I am now even more confused, and it seems that there is a great inconsistency in the game versus out-of-game programs. Take everything further that I say with a grain of salt, and be sure to read throughout the rest of the page.

The debate on what to call different sized parts has come to an end. If you haven't noticed, the part viewer window in the part palet shows a scale of 1 meter. Sonce the parts are drawn isometrically, no perspective, then from looking at any size 1 part it is evident that the part sizes are 1 and 2 meter, not 1.25 and 2.5 meter as previously thought, and CERTAINLY not 1 and 3 meters.

If I'm not mistaken, the conception that parts are based on 1.25 meters comes from when people had to size their parts to 1.25 units. Clearly the meter in KSP equals 1.25 BasicUnitsâ„¢ for some reason, even if stock parts don't follow this rule.

In the end, though, the KSP wiki states that they are called size (not meters or feet) 1, 2 and 0 parts, along with MK1, 2, and 3 fuselages. But if you have done math assuming that the diameter of parts is 1.25 meters, you might want to fix it.

Edited February 17, 2014 by GregroxMun
Disclaimer

[TheDarkStar]

Actually, the reason that people say they are 1.25m comes from the dev blogs from a while ago. They used to be actually 1m parts, and then the parts were scaled up when EVAs were added. Also, AFAIK modded parts have to be made following this scale change, with 1.25 meters for 1m parts, but that might have been changed.

[kujuman]

In the end, though, the KSP wiki states that they are called size 1, 2 and 0 parts,

Meh. I think this is an artifact from the different size connection nodes, which are 0, 1, 2 etc.

I'm pretty sure that if you used a plugin to measure from one side of a size1 tank to another, it would return the result of 1.25m.

And finally, 1.25m and 2.5m sounds nicer, since then the kerbals have just that much extra room in their capsules

[lammatt]

is there even a "debate" going on? i dont think so.

it's been a consensus since day 1 while these number comes out, whethere or not Devs comment on them.

and then, why do the numbers bother you anyways.

they're just numbers. you know there're three sizes in the stock game and then people make it six (0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5)

and they make a lot of sense when you realize stock symmetry goes all to 8 and these numbers are all multiples of 1/8

making it a lot easier to estimating the spatial arrangement of the radial attachments (unless you like working with non-integer *pi instead of integar*pi)

[Whirligig Girl]

It is actually in game that shows that the parts are 1 and 2 meter parts, NOT 1.25 and 2.5 meter parts. I'd like a dev to prove me right or wrong, either would be good, but the ACTUAL GAME says that the Mk1 command pod's diameter is 1 meter.

EDIT: so my response clearly indicates, Lammatt, that there is a debate.

[Captain Sierra]

It is actually in game that shows that the parts are 1 and 2 meter parts, NOT 1.25 and 2.5 meter parts. I'd like a dev to prove me right or wrong, either would be good, but the ACTUAL GAME says that the Mk1 command pod's diameter is 1 meter.

EDIT: so my response clearly indicates, Lammatt, that there is a debate.

Just because that's what the scale bar says does not mean that's the diameter. The game as a stock rescale factor of 1.25, which dates back to when IVA and EVA were added. Want proof? I can model a part at 1.25m diameter, put it in the game with a rescale factor set to 1, so what I model and what it is ingame is exactly the same, and it matches stock parts seamlessly.

Long story short, it's 1.25m, end of story.

[ferram4]

My plugin measures the size of the parts in order to determine how much surface area they have for applying drag. The "size 1" parts end up being ~1.25m, the "size 2" parts end up being ~2.5m, and the "size 0" parts end up being ~0.625m. The numbers aren't exact since there are flanges and pipes on the sides of the cylinders that mess things up, but those are numbers taken directly from the meshes as they are displayed in-game. So the descriptions are wrong and the parts actually are 1.25m, 2.5m, etc.

[razark]

It is actually in game ... the ACTUAL GAME says that the Mk1 command pod's diameter is 1 meter.

Can you please clarify exactly where it says that?

[bs1110101]

My thoughts on this are that 1 Kerbal meter is 1.25 metric meters.

[Holo]

Just because that's what the scale bar says does not mean that's the diameter. The game as a stock rescale factor of 1.25, which dates back to when IVA and EVA were added. Want proof? I can model a part at 1.25m diameter, put it in the game with a rescale factor set to 1, so what I model and what it is ingame is exactly the same, and it matches stock parts seamlessly.

Long story short, it's 1.25m, end of story.

It's 1.25 human-metres which equals 1 kerbal-metre. The fact that Kerbal metres are smaller also explains why planets seem so small in KSP.

[Dodgey]

It's 1.25 human-metres which equals 1 kerbal-metre. The fact that Kerbal metres are smaller also explains why planets seem so small in KSP.

Wait wait wait. Kerbal meters? And planets are smaller purely for gameplay reasons.

[Holo]

And planets are smaller purely for gameplay reasons.

Lies! That's just what they want you to think!I know they're smaller for gameplay reasons, but I also like actual explanations for things. I saw evidence that was consistent with the existence of Kerbal-metres (i.e. this post), and leapt at the opportunity.

[Dispatcher]

As "they" say, 'it is what is is'. I've built models in Blender at a scale of 1 meter, imported them into Unity and exported them for KSP. Usually my .cfg file is scaled at 1, but not always. If the OP was begun in part (no pun intended) to figure out how to scale mod parts, usually 1 meter works for a "medium" diameter part.

[Red Iron Crown]

they're just numbers. you know there're three sizes in the stock game and then people make it six (0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5)

and they make a lot of sense when you realize stock symmetry goes all to 8 and these numbers are all multiples of 1/8

making it a lot easier to estimating the spatial arrangement of the radial attachments (unless you like working with non-integer *pi instead of integar*pi)

0.5, 1, and 2 are all multiples of 1/8, too. Not really sure how that applies to radial spacing, though. Can you give an example?

[NovaSilisko]

All stock "size 1" parts are 1.25m in diameter. Every cylinder I started with for the size 1 parts was 0.625m in radius, or 1.25m in diameter. Unity uses units equivalent to meters, and parts are also 1.25 unity units in diameter. Not sure why this is worth arguing about. The scale bar just shows one meter because that's a nicer round number than 1.25, I guess.

[Whirligig Girl]

Can you please clarify exactly where it says that?

The new gui when you mouse over a part on the part list in the VAB has a line that says "1m" on it with a line that indicates the scale, and if you take that length and make it sideways, it is exactly equal to the diameter of the size 1 part.

I think the problem is in inconsistency with part sizes in game and units in mods. This is evidenced by Ferram's testimony.

[Whirligig Girl]

All stock "size 1" parts are 1.25m in diameter. Every cylinder I started with for the size 1 parts was 0.625m in radius, or 1.25m in diameter. Unity uses units equivalent to meters, and parts are also 1.25 unity units in diameter. Not sure why this is worth arguing about. The scale bar just shows one meter because that's a nicer round number than 1.25, I guess.

But why is it the same length as the Mk1 pod diameter? (no longer in debate mode, now in learning mode) Perhaps, since you are no longer a dev, they decided to round it off to smaller scale, or maybe they just made a mistake.

Edited February 17, 2014 by GregroxMun

[Whirligig Girl]

It's 1.25 human-metres which equals 1 kerbal-metre. The fact that Kerbal metres are smaller also explains why planets seem so small in KSP.

I know it may seem like a great opportunity to find in-universe reason instead of out-of-universe reason, changing the scale that Kerbals use when they refer to meters will not make such a big difference that planets would be scaled down to 11%.