RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Quick question... if we use 6.0 Alpha 1 can we install TweakScale ? Will it work or do I have to add cfg files for the tanks present ?Correct, v6.0 Alpha1 now uses/supports TweakScale, simply download and install TweakScale, leave TS *.cfgs alone, everything in RO that should have it does...there are likely some things that does have it that won't or isn't right...this is an Alpha release, but there are so many changes and getting bug reports makes my job easier if everything is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Some tings have it, some don't. I assume its still a work in progress.Works for me... As long as it doesn't crash my game and the mod calculates the fuel correctly I'll use it.Well right now I don't think any of the fuel tanks have it enabled. It does seem to re-calc fuel though in my own tests.The fuel tanks generally have it...and sometimes it updates ok, sometimes it doesn't, that is an interface problem between the TweakScale and RealFuels though, once that is resolved, all is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The fuel tanks generally have it...and sometimes it updates ok, sometimes it doesn't, that is an interface problem between the TweakScale and RealFuels though, once that is resolved, all is well.Really? Absolutely none of the tanks I tried had it, and looking at the configs for said tanks I didn't see TweakScale added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Question: Last night, with the latest RSS/RO in a clean install, I noticed there don't appear to be any docking ports that fit the small Mk-1 pod (Mercury-sized) and none of the exiting ports had TweakScale options. Did I not install correctly or are the docking ports supposed to be TweakScaleable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I think the intentino was to move to one standard docking port size. Not sure the reasoning behind it, but RedAV8r mentioned in in the old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 That could be problematic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Really? Absolutely none of the tanks I tried had it, and looking at the configs for said tanks I didn't see TweakScale added.You are right, they aren't, it's in the tweakscale configs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valentinlup Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I got some results with TweakScale but more often than not the game crashes and I'm left literally looking at the sun ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 You are right, they aren't, it's in the tweakscale configs.No the ones I was looking at didn't even have the TweakScale module applied. I see it now though. It just so happened that the ones I was looking at didn't have it. Most do, just not all. AIES tanks for example aren't hooked up. I'll see if I can get to that here soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Question: Last night, with the latest RSS/RO in a clean install, I noticed there don't appear to be any docking ports that fit the small Mk-1 pod (Mercury-sized) and none of the exiting ports had TweakScale options. Did I not install correctly or are the docking ports supposed to be TweakScaleable?I think the intentino was to move to one standard docking port size. Not sure the reasoning behind it, but RedAV8r mentioned in in the old thread.That could be problematic...Well...that could be a problem... Being that Mercury never docked with anything I'm not inclined to add a docking port for it. Gemini on the other hand did, with Agena, which is simulated in FASA. I am open to adding an Apollo sized port, but that won't help much as I'm pretty sure that's similar in size to what APAS is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) No the ones I was looking at didn't even have the TweakScale module applied. I see it now though. It just so happened that the ones I was looking at didn't have it. Most do, just not all. AIES tanks for example aren't hooked up. I'll see if I can get to that here soon.Yep, AIES sure isn't yet. Edited July 3, 2014 by RedAV8R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 LM Drogue assembly was 80cm in diameter. That's smaller than the nose of the Mk1 pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 What size ports are used now though with the ISS and international standards? Is it the same as Agena? I'm guessing not. What about earlier, like Skylab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 What size ports are used now though with the ISS and international standards? Is it the same as Agena? I'm guessing not. What about earlier, like Skylab?The ISS uses Russian Docking, Hybrid, APAS, all pretty much 1.55m outer diameter, and the CBM which is a 2.0m outer diameter. The new NASA Docking System which will have adapters for the APAS side of the PMAs are also 1.55m outer diameter. Which actually gives a roughly 800mm (80cm) inner passage diameter. The same as Apollo Docking System, which was also used with Skylab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 So really that sounds fine to me then. If they all pretty much use the same size. I Assume you can do the 1.55 + 2.0 in one as I saw a part that had two docking sizes already. It might pose a challenge for smaller craft but i'm actually ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Well...that could be a problem... Being that Mercury never docked with anything I'm not inclined to add a docking port for it. Gemini on the other hand did, with Agena, which is simulated in FASA. I am open to adding an Apollo sized port, but that won't help much as I'm pretty sure that's similar in size to what APAS is.Right, but this isn't Mercury Space Program. It's simulated space legos! Just gimme versatile, realistic parts and I get to assemble them into whatever I want!However, if it's the general consensus that this exceeds the scope of RO, I'll start mucking about with TweakScale configs now that TweakScale and the latest RO release seem to play nice again. That's the beauty of the ModuleManager approach to things and stuff and parts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Right, but this isn't Mercury Space Program. It's simulated space legos! Just gimme versatile, realistic parts and I get to assemble them into whatever I want!However, if it's the general consensus that this exceeds the scope of RO, I'll start mucking about with TweakScale configs now that TweakScale and the latest RO release seem to play nice again. That's the beauty of the ModuleManager approach to things and stuff and parts!Honestly i've always questioned why the stock game provides so many size ports? I'm just curious. Why do you even need more than one size? The only thing I can think of is maybe needing a small one for very small craft like satellites or something. In reality you don't need to use a docking port to connect to a satellite to do things to it. They use capture points instead. Which we don't really have in KSP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I'm trying to increase the size and weight of porkwork's inflatable habitats to make them match Transhab's and BA330's stats, but so far it doesn't work. Anyone has an idea why this would freeze the game?@PART[centrifuge1]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]{ %RSSROConfig = true @rescaleFactor = 2.4 @mass = 15.0} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 So really that sounds fine to me then. If they all pretty much use the same size. I Assume you can do the 1.55 + 2.0 in one as I saw a part that had two docking sizes already. It might pose a challenge for smaller craft but i'm actually ok with that.The way I've got things set up is the old 0.625 docking port became the 1.55m OD APAS89/95, the 1.25m port became the 1.55m NASA Docking System, and the 2.5m port became the 2.0m OD CBM. Each is set to only attach to other docking ports of that type...so a 1.55m NASA Docking System port WILL NOT attach to a 1.55m APAS89/95 port. APAS to APAS, NDS to NDS, CBM to CBM. The SDHI came with two docking ports, I made the stock looking one NDS and the IACBM a 2m CBM type. The Fustek Station the 1.25m IACBM became the 2m CBM and the 2.5m became a 4m fictional docking port...it's either that or it gets hidden which I'm ok with too. Other docking ports will be judge accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 I'm trying to increase the size and weight of porkwork's inflatable habitats to make them match Transhab's and BA330's stats, but so far it doesn't work. Anyone has an idea why this would freeze the game?@PART[centrifuge1]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]{%RSSROConfig = true@rescaleFactor = 2.4@mass = 15.0}Not sure if your code was like that or not...but mass needs to be on a new line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Right, but this isn't Mercury Space Program. It's simulated space legos! Just gimme versatile, realistic parts and I get to assemble them into whatever I want!However, if it's the general consensus that this exceeds the scope of RO, I'll start mucking about with TweakScale configs now that TweakScale and the latest RO release seem to play nice again. That's the beauty of the ModuleManager approach to things and stuff and parts!May not be (Mercury) Space Program, but this is "REALISM Overhaul". Not going to do it, sorry, you are on your own. This was discussed and NK gave his nod of approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 May not be (Mercury) Space Program, but this is "REALISM Overhaul". Not going to do it, sorry, you are on your own. This was discussed and NK gave his nod of approval.Understood! If I get this to work I'll post the config for others who may want to use it.Out of curiosity, what does the "%RSSROConfig = true" line I keep seeing pop up these days do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hattivat Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 @PART[centrifuge1]:FOR[RealismOverhaul]{%RSSROConfig = true@rescaleFactor = 2.4@mass = 15.0}Not sure if your code was like that or not...but mass needs to be on a new line.That did it, thanks a lot. Such a simple error, I feel silly now. Notepad displayed the config as a wall of text that seemed to be separated with tabs, so I thought that's the ModuleManager format.On a side note, you guys may want to look into the Porkworks config, the OP lists it as supported, but the config doesn't even change the habitat's mass, which is rather implausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I've just noticed that the inline docking port appears very squished in the vertical direction. MODEL { model = Squad/Parts/Utility/dockingPortLateral/model scale = 1.722222, 1.0, 1.722222 }Should the Y rescaling value be 1.722222 instead of 1.0 here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Understood! If I get this to work I'll post the config for others who may want to use it.Out of curiosity, what does the "%RSSROConfig = true" line I keep seeing pop up these days do?That was an idea courtesy of Agathorn( I believe, I may be wrong), what this will do, is allow those who want to set a small MM config to REMOVE all parts which don't have this tag. When 6.0 is ready for final release all current and future configs will have this tag set for all parts touched and verified "RO/RSS Compatible". That way a person isn't searching through mods which aren't compatible, or even parts within a pack that have been intentionally left out for one reason or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts