KScale64 v1.2.2 16th April 2017

[Eudae55]

I adjusted the Mun heightmap for my own taste. I've made the difference in terrain more exaggerated so craters are a little bit better. I suspect there are few more tweaks I could do to further improve it.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

How to put this in your game:

1) Edit your RSS config so the section regarding the Mun looks like this:

Mun

{

PQSMod_VertexHeightMap

{

heightMapOffset = =371.9

heightMapDeformity = 10591.5

heightmap = GameData/RealSolarSystem/Plugins/PluginData/MunHeight.png

}

2) Put this image in GameData/RealSolarSystem/Plugins/PluginData, saving it as MunHeight.png (case-sensitive)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone needs the other heightmaps, I exported them for you here:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited December 7, 2014 by Eudae55

[CatastrophicFailure]

Make a poll?

Personally I'd like to see Bop, Gilly, and Minmus retain their original size but perhaps be equal in density relative to the other bodies (they would thus have much less gravity than what they currently have)

Now that WOULD be interesting... Being able to actually jump a full kilometer into the "air" on Gilly like the wiki says...

What would the proper gravity be on stock sized Gilly with realistic density?

[Raptor831]

Maybe try scaling Bop, Gilly, and Minmus to their 3.2x size (i.e. Jumbo 32 scale). Might be a nice balance. Though for Bop and Gilly, you might still want stock size since they are supposed to be captured bodies.

[Eudae55]

Maybe try scaling Bop, Gilly, and Minmus to their 3.2x size (i.e. Jumbo 32 scale). Might be a nice balance. Though for Bop and Gilly, you might still want stock size since they are supposed to be captured bodies.

Here's a config that makes the following changes:

Gilly = Stock Radius, 6.4RSS Density

Bop = Stock Radius, 6.4RSS Density

Minmus = 3.2RSS Radius, 6.4RSS Density

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I can't seem to get Gilly go back to the Stock shape through PQS mods as it keeps breaking. Anyone have any ideas?

[westamastaflash]

Whem I'm walking around on the mun, my kerbal clips about 1/2way through the ground... then he dies in a puff of smoke... Not sure if it's specific to 6.4x kerbin. I've got a boatload of mods. I'm building my MKS base with KAS, and not being able to walk around without dying is frustrating..

[Paul Kingtiger]

Whem I'm walking around on the mun, my kerbal clips about 1/2way through the ground... then he dies in a puff of smoke... Not sure if it's specific to 6.4x kerbin. I've got a boatload of mods. I'm building my MKS base with KAS, and not being able to walk around without dying is frustrating..

You're not the first one to report this. I need to check if it happens with RSS, so I can find out if it's a 6.4 issue or a general RSS issue.

[westamastaflash]

You're not the first one to report this. I need to check if it happens with RSS, so I can find out if it's a 6.4 issue or a general RSS issue.

Thanks :-) Loving the 6.4x sized kerbin though. Getting even one fully loaded MKS module to the Mun cost about 200,000 kerbalbucks!

[NathanKell]

Generic RSS issue. Might mess with minDistance in the KSP/settings.cfg file, but to some extent it's a FP precision issue (at Earth's radius, float precision is ~= 0.5m).

[Socke]

If anyone needs the other heightmaps, I exported them for you here:

http://imgur.com/a/m0VJ9

I'm wondering, would it be possible to raise the resolution of the heightmaps without it making problems? It would be interesting to try to create a more detailed and realistic heightmap for Kerbin.

[FlexGunship]

I sincerely wish this were an option in the stock game. The difficulty and realism are SO SO SO SO welcome. I'm thrilled with the decisions I'm forced to make and love the fact that, out of the realistic physics environment (NEAR and 64k) suddenly real-life rocket designs emerge. Turns out the Atlas V 5xx configuration is really smart! It's pretty close to an optimal cost/weight/payload solution in KSP now.

I have similar complaints as above... terrain geometry intersects with my Kerbals sometimes. Would love to see this solved. (Also, the height-map change could probably be included by default. Bodies are too bland when stretched out like this.)

[Paul Kingtiger]

The next thing we're working on at the moment is terrain. Getting things less smooth and making sure the mountains look closer to stock.

[westamastaflash]

I can't seem to get the Scansat SAR sensor into an ideal altitude. If I take it up to 1230k on the mun, it says I'm "too high".

[TrabantDeLuxe]

I'd thought I just drop by and say how awesome this mod is. Thanks!

[Sandworm]

I just tried 64k with the new RSS dll. It's working for me under .90. I make no claims as to stability.

[amo28]

6.4x is also working well for me with the new RSS.

However career mode seems to be impossible with the launch facility weight restrictions. It's pretty damn hard to get a payload in orbit for less than 18t.

[Lubergo]

Works for the most part with RSS update but I'm encountering a bug in which if I change the launch site, I can no longer click on the Launchpad, Tracking Station, or the Admin building. Anyone else having this issue? Make a save point before testing it out as that was the only way I found to restore functionality.

[NathanKell]

Now that RSS caches meshes again, you will want to grab the latest plugin, do a load (it'll take 20+ minutes) and then zip up PluginData too so other users don't have to wait forever on first load.

[Shania_L]

Works for the most part with RSS update but I'm encountering a bug in which if I change the launch site, I can no longer click on the Launchpad, Tracking Station, or the Admin building. Anyone else having this issue? Make a save point before testing it out as that was the only way I found to restore functionality.

Yes I had this also, fortunately I found it early enough in career that deleting the save was no big issue.

Had it occur in a sandbox as well as career mode. clicking on any alternative launch site (even the KSC) would render the admin building, launchpad and tracking station inaccessable.

Although I think the multiple launch locations is from Raptor831's DL link rather than Paul Kingtigers.

Incidentally as these two threads are essentially supporting the same mod, which is the official one? I like the inclusion of the edited astronomers config in Pauls(is this working with interstellar or should I keep edge of oblivion?). However the multiple launch/remotetech locations in Raptors is very useful.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Shania_L

[Paul Kingtiger]

I like the inclusion of the edited astronomers config in Pauls(is this working with interstellar or should I keep edge of oblivion?). However the multiple launch/remotetech locations in Raptors is very useful.

Keep Oblivion for the moment. I've been testing Interstellar, but it's such a memory hog that I haven't had a lot of success (it looks amazing but I need to find the balance between looks and usability, especially with the larger universe.

There's going to be a bunch of issues caused by the latest update, that all need to be checked. Please do share your findings and thoughts here, it'll really help

[NathanKell]

Might consider using RVE now, actually.

[Northstar1989]

@Paul Kingtiger

Why 6.4x, that's an odd number?

Stock parts are scaled to roughly 64% of their real world equivalent, so by picking 6.4x scale up (the stock game is about 10% of the real solar system) you have rockets that match the size of the system they are working in. Along with an new drag model, like FAR or NEAR, that gives you a realistic payload fraction which means rockets that look 'right'.

In short you get a slice of realism without worrying about scaled up or procedural parts (required for the Real Solar System mod).

I used to think all of that too, but actually there are a few things wrong with those statements:

(1) Stock parts are actually almost all *LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO* 50% the scale of real life parts. SLS has a 8.4 meter core, whereas the stock SLS parts have a 3.75 meter diameter (44% the size), for instance. The Saturn V was even larger (10 meters), but most mods that implement analogs use 5 meter scale.

(2) Stock (and stock-like mods') rocket engine parts have a MUCH lower TWR, and much less thrust for their cross-sectional area, than real-life rocket engines.

To give a couple instructive examples, the stock Mainsail engine has a mass of 6 tons and a thrust of 1500 kN (TWR 25.5 ; ISP 320 SL, 360 vac), and the stock K-2X engine has a mass of 6.5 metric tons and a thrust of 2500 kN (TWR 39.25 ; ISP 280 SL, 380 vac).

The real life RS-68A rocket engine, on the other hand (an engine of 2.43 meters in diameter), has a thrust of 3,137 kN while burning LH2/LOX and a mass of 6.74 tons (TWR 47.5 ; ISP 365 SL, 412 vac). The real life Rocketdyne F-1 engine (the engine type that lifted the Saturn V's first stage; diameter 3.7 meters) had a thrust of 6,770 kN and a mass of 8.4 tons (TWR 82.24 ; ISP 263 SL).

Are you seeing a pattern here? The *GREATLY* reduced TWR of stock engines even compared to LH2/LOX burning engines (which have a much higher ISP) as well as the reduced total thrust for the cross-sectional area (important for ballistic coefficient- meaning stock rockets cannot be built as tall off rocket engines at their base, and thus suffer increased drag) means that a KSP rocket of even the same diameter as a real-life rocket will under-perform it. Not to mention that the KSP rocket parts are LESS than 64% the scale of their real-life analogs (between 40 and 50%, usually). So, if you're aiming to maintain the relationship of rocket size to planet size, you should probably only be using a 5x-sized Kerbin (the stock Kerbin is 1/11th the diameter of Earth, not 1/10th, by the way).

If you install Real Fuels + Stockalike, the mass of the stock engines is reduced to bring the TWR in line with real engines, and the ISP is adjusted to match real fuel mixes- but the total thrust is still much lower. So, even then, the engines still are greatly out-performed by their real life analogs. And, if you use FAR, then a 50%-scale rocket experiences MORE than 50% the total drag of the rocket it is based on, due to the Square-Cube Law.

(3) Like mentioned above, Kerbin is actually only 1/11th the scale of Earth. so to get a 64% scale, you'd need to create a slightly larger than 7x scale Kerbin. PLEASE DON'T change the scale to make it even larger though- like I've already pointed out, the stock rocket parts are actually only 40-50% the scale of their real counterparts (which would correlate to a 4.4x - 5.5x sized Kerbin system).

What I'm saying, in short, is that in *some* ways RSS 6.4x scale is actually HARDER than real life. The only thing that saves it from being a more challenging experience overall than full-sized RSS with Realism Overhaul is the beauty of the Rocket Equation: 70-75% the Delta-V to orbit (7.5 - 8 km/s in 6.4x Kerbin, vs 10-11 km/s in real life) with a 50%-scale rocket and under-powered engines is NOT as hard as 100% the Delta-V to orbit on a realistic-sized rocket.

Think of it this way: you have to stack something slightly smaller than a rocket capable of making orbit on stock-sized Kerbin (3.5 km/s with FAR) on top of a rocket capable of making orbit in 6.4x Kerbin, in order to get a rocket that can make orbit in 100%-scale Earth. Even with under-powered Real Fuels + Stockalike engines, and Procedural Parts Real Fuels Tanks, this is *STILL* an at least slightly more difficult task. And you also need to lift more payload to orbit to go anywhere beyond LKO in the 100% scale RSS game...

Just some thoughts really. I hope you learned at least a few valuable tidbits out of my monlogue. Honestly, I'm thrilled that somebody took up the mantle and made a all-in-one RSS 6.4x version: stock KSP is just *WAY* too small for me (I'd prefer the 3.2x scale config, actually, even if it's much easier than real life- but it does silly things I don't like such as giving Dres a rotational speed fast enough to completely eliminate all surface-gravity there similar to in Krag's "Inaccessible"...) And despite some of my personal play preferences for something a *little* smaller, I think it's GREAT work you've been doing with the 64K config, and I hope you'll continue it well into the future!

Regards,

Northstar

Edited December 24, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Mtshaw113]

Is 6.4x updated to 0.90 RSS yet?

[EatVacuum]

@Paul Kingtiger

I used to think all of that too, but actually there are a few things wrong with those statements:

(1) Stock parts are actually almost all *LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO* 50% the scale of real life parts...

Actually, he mispoke. from what I recall of discussion in the forums around the time of KSP 0.19 or so, the 0.64x scale "rule" was worked out by modders based on the fact that the Kerbals were just over 1m tall and so approximately 64% the size of humans - a little shorter, but wider with those oversized heads and the proportionately huge helmets.

As for the size of parts, ignoring modders (who are all individuals so I can't say what they base their decisions on) and the NASA parts which came later (and were made to be one size larger than the "large" 2.5m parts, not to accurately represent a particular scaling of real life), let's look at the stock parts. It seems to me that the stock parts are sized to fit the original Mk 1 and 1-2 capsules, and those capsules are 64% of the linear dimensions of their real world equivalents;

Mk 1 pod is 1.25m diameter, which when you compare it to the Mercury capsule real world equivalent is pretty close to 0.64x the diameter. Mercury capsule was 1.9m in diameter, times 0.64 equals 1.22 m.

Mk 1-2 pod is 2.5 m diameter, Apollo capsule is 3.9 m diameter. 3.9m x 0.64 = 2.496m

Squad has not made a point of sizing components to represent some arbitrary realistic scale, beyond the above. They certainly didn't make the effort to scale their rocket engines or part weights to be proportionate to the scale of the capsules. Stock rocket parts are overweight and underpowered compared to their real world equivalents. And most other parts are way over weight as well, the reason for that was discussed somewhere in the forums a year or two back. If I recall correctly, a Squad dev explained that the weights and thrusts were balanced to make it necessary to build rockets that "looked right" to get into orbit or to the Mun. (Can anyone find that thread?). So it was all about game balance and appearances, not about realistic scaling. That also explains why the atmosphere is as thick as soup - it increases the delta vee requirements to get to orbit.

And since someone is undoubtedly going to question my overweight comment, here's the weight calculations for the capsules;

Mercury capsule weighed 1.5t, Mk 1 pod weighs 0.8t, about 0.53 x the weight. But a capsule that is 0.64 times the linear dimensions should weight about 0.64^3 = 0.26 times the weight, or 0.39t

Apollo capsule weighed 5.8t, Mk 1-2 pod is 4 tonnes. But 5.8t x 0.26 would be 1.50t as a more realistic weight.

And as for underpowered;

One rocket engine example, chosen randomly - the Mainsail has a mass of 6t, and a max thrust of 1500, giving it (assuming my math is right) a TWR of 25. That compares rather poorly with the real world first stage rocket engines that have TWRs in the range of 70 to 130. And those are 60s-70s era rockets, not modern ones. If Squad had made the TWR's real, their engines would be OP for their tiny little planets.

The specs quoted are from the Braunig and Astronautix sites, any math errors are my fault. And all of this of course assumes that all of the components, structural member and skin thicknesses etc. scale proportionately.

So all of this is to say, Squad isn't religious about the scale, it varies to suit their needs. And equally, modders go with their best guess when they make their parts.

[westamastaflash]

I'm having good luck with this.

I also ran the MapSatAltitude octave script for the 24hr day configuration. I'll be creating some wiki pages on the GitHub site to display the results, if that's OK?

[NathanKell]

The Mercury craft with its LES was 1.5t; the spacecraft alone was 1.1t for the capsule and another 240kg for the retro pack. If you add the mass of a DRE heat shield, the numbers come up pretty much right.

Same with the Mk1-2 pod: if you add to it all the stuff the Apollo capsule had, the mass comes out about the same.

Probes is where it gets weird, KSP probes are far heavier than real life ones.