KScale64 v1.2.2 16th April 2017

[linuxgurugamer]

Nice to see you made it here

Well depends on what you want it to do. It is very possible that it gets confused about things like ascent and landing guidance (though landing guidance can work rather well, I have not tested ascent guidance); things like maneuver planning or the various utility stuff goes unaffected by this mod.

Thanks.

I'm still working on my first few space stations, actually just marooned a couple of Kerbels on the Mun, need to go rescue them. But I'll keep this in mind for the future.

[NonWonderDog]

Nice! Copying the RealSolarSystem.cfg from the linked github repo in the RSS folder in gamedata will suffice to install this, right?

You also need the KerbinHeight.png terrain map in the RSS plugindata folder. That, and I made some minor adjustments to the positions of the other launch sites in LaunchSites.cfg. Nothing major, but there were a couple launch sites that were no longer on the shore, or sat on a 100 meter tall mesa after my terrain edits.

You might have to delete Kerbin.obj to force RSS to regenerate the terrain, as well. I'm not sure how that works.

There's currently a good chance that the pyramids, monoliths, and suchlike are floating hundreds of meters in the air. I've only repositioned the Island Runway onto the new terrain, so far.

[EDIT]I've updated my repo to have 6-hour and 24-hour day configs, and to raise the Kerbin average terrain height. There should be more gentle hills in the grasslands now. Now if only I can make some fjords...[/EDIT]

Edited January 13, 2015 by NonWonderDog

[Tellion]

@NonWonderDog

Great work! I did not do any long flights on kerbin so far, but for the first time in quite a while I actually said "wow, thats pretty" on kerbin

[rkman]

I wonder if i'm doing something wrong re 64K. It is supposed to work well with stock parts is it not?

I find that a rocket for a manned Mun return mission requires a first stage with 15 mainsails. That still falls short in terms of dV, and is prone to spontaneous explosions on the launch pad. This is in spite of having NEAR installed which reduces dV to LKO to a little under 7000m/s. I think i can not reasonably build even bigger.

Any suggestions welcome.

[Tellion]

Stock parts are much weaker than their real life counterparts in terms of performance which is fine for the stock sized system but not for 64k. Check out Stockalike RF Engine Configs with RealFuels, that should help

[rkman]

But 64K is not intended to be like real life, is it? Isn't that what RSS is for? Would 64K with parts intended for 10x not make 64K to easy?

Has anyone considered scaling the universe so that it would just be 'stock made harder' (but with stock parts)? Scaled up by a factor 2 or 3? I tried halving the scale of 64K, but that didn't work out.

[Shania_L]

64k is scaled to match the parts, the difficulty should be equal to that of the full RSS. It is considered easier because you do not need to upscale the parts to match the universe, so you can use any mod parts you like without additional configs.

More engines do not mean more DeltaV, quite often it means the opposite.

You can put a mk1 can into orbit around Kerbin for under 30tonnes, once in orbit you have no need of the massive thrust of the mainsails, use the tinyest and lightest and above all most efficient engine you can to power your in-orbit craft.

[rkman]

64k is scaled to match the parts, the difficulty should be equal to that of the full RSS. It is considered easier because you do not need to upscale the parts to match the universe, so you can use any mod parts you like without additional configs.

That sounds like 64K is supposed to be usable with stock parts.

More engines do not mean more DeltaV, quite often it means the opposite.

I did not put all those engines there thinking that it would increase dV. I need those engines to lift enough dV to LKO for a manned Mun return mission.

You can put a mk1 can into orbit around Kerbin for under 30tonnes. once in orbit you have no need of the massive thrust of the mainsail

Getting to LKO is not my problem.

I use mainsails on the lifter, not once in orbit. But to get from LKO to the Mun's surface and back you need a couple of thousand dV.

This is the craft i made (using procedural parts and home made engine mounts):

- Mun ascent and Kerbin return stage: 3000m/s twr 2.8 (@Mun)

- Mun lander stage: 3100m/s twr 1.87 (@Mun)

- circularisation, Mun transfer and Mun capture stage: 3400m/s twr 1.86 @Kerbin

- 2nd lifter stage: 2300m/s twr 1.7

- 1st lifter stage: ~3000m/s twr 1.66

Mun lander/return vehicle mass: 33t (6000m/s dV)

total mass: 1460t

total vac dV: 15000m/s (which apparently is not enough)

1st stage thrust: 23787 (15 mainsails + 4 SRB KD25k at about 50% thrust)

(it's missing a couple of engines, exploded due to physics quirks on the pad)

Anyone reading this who has a stock craft for a manned Mun return mission in 64K, i'm interested in seeing it.

Edited January 15, 2015 by rkman

[Tellion]

@rkman If you really want, there is this, but I recommend instead to keep trying with this mod, you will not regret it. With RF and stockalike configs you will still have plenty of challenge, but it will get a little easier and much more varied. It is not RSS or 10x stock size (I think it neither wants nor needs to be that), but its highly enjoyable.

Apart from installing mods that make rockets more efficient or installing FAR/NEAR (you got that one already), you can take a look at the RSS spacecraft thread if you want inspiration for your craft designs. As Shania_L pointed already out, bigger is not always better, and the ridiculous designs seen in stock ksp will not necessarily help you as much here

[rosenkranz]

Haven't gotten that far myself but that doesn't look far off. A saturn V rocket masses in at 2900+ tones. 64% of that would be 1856 or so. If you can get there on 1460, I'd say you were doing pretty good.

Looking more carefully at the pic, I almost wonder if you're going a little too big. The physics quirks might be PP tanks being to big. Can you use the 3.75 and 5m tanks from SpaceY mod?

Using FAR, I've found that a TWR of >1.5 can get mixed results. I try to keep mine between a minimum of 1.15 and 1.5 max.

I'm also not seeing any fins, reaction wheels or RCS. How are you controlling it in flight. It must turn like a pig.

[rkman]

@rkman If you really want, there is this,

Thanks very much, i'll be trying that.

but I recommend instead to keep trying with this mod, you will not regret it. With RF and stockalike configs you will still have plenty of challenge, but it will get a little easier and much more varied. It is not RSS or 10x stock size (I think it neither wants nor needs to be that), but its highly enjoyable.

Apart from installing mods that make rockets more efficient or installing FAR/NEAR (you got that one already), you can take a look at the RSS spacecraft thread if you want inspiration for your craft designs.

If a manned Mun return mission is supposed to be possible in 64K with stock part configs, then i am supposed to be able to do that and if i can't i want to know what i'm doing wrong. Fixing that by making it easier, without knowing what the problem is, is unsatisfying to me.

It can't be that no-one has yet done such a mission in 64K, can it?

As Shania_L pointed already out, bigger is not always better, and the ridiculous designs seen in stock ksp will not necessarily help you as much here

I'd appreciate a more specific critique. See the craft a few posts previous.

Where is it to big? Is it a ridiculous design?

What is the mass and 1st stage thrust of your manned Mun mission lifter?

Looking more carefully at the pic, I almost wonder if you're going a little too big. The physics quirks might be PP tanks being to big.

I think the launch clamps produce a force differential between the plate and the tank, so that the thrust plate pushes on the engines that are on the engine mounts, those mounts attach to the tank not to the thrust plate.

Can you use the 3.75 and 5m tanks from SpaceY mod?

I might give that a shot. But that would solve the explosion thing, not the fact that i'm short on dV and can't reasonably build to carry more dV. If not for the exploding engines, i don't see how i can fit even more thrust under the tank without the tank becoming un-rocket-like (to wide/short).

Using FAR, I've found that a TWR of >1.5 can get mixed results. I try to keep mine between a minimum of 1.15 and 1.5 max.

That might be useful information.

I'm also not seeing any fins, reaction wheels or RCS. How are you controlling it in flight. It must turn like a pig.

The are 4 small fixed fins (hard to see in the image), rcs on the ascent-and-return stage, a reaction wheel in the lander can.

I does turn like a pig but i want AoA to stay below about 12 degrees anyway (mechjeb tells me it does get up to that limit). Otoh, yes the ascent profile does have issues, but i get to LKO for less than 7000m/s, so it can't be all that bad. But maybe a reduction of the lifter's twr will help out there to.

Turning is done by engine vectoring, all but 4 or 5 of the 1st stage mainsails have their gimbal locked otherwise the lifter would wobble itself to destruction.

Edited January 15, 2015 by rkman

[rosenkranz]

Ahh, I see. Yeah, if you can get to orbit for less than 7000 you're doing good. I usually spend about 7100 getting to a 110km orbit.

But 15km dV should get you there and back. Where exactly are you falling short?

[Shania_L]

This is a 340tonne manned Mun mission in 6.4scale Kerbin, using no weirdy overpowered mods or suchlike, the engines are stock (with 1 from AIES), I use FAR and Realfuels with the Stockalike configs.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I burned around 15,500DV on this mission but then I fly manually so you will get inifficiencies in burn times and angles etc, which is why the quoted DV values should always be taken as a minimum. 1400 tonnes however is simply overkill, my entire transfer stage is lighter than your lander.

[NathanKell]

When I did my non-RealFuels 1-kerbal Mun missions, IIRC it took about 1200 tons of LV. That meant, as I recall, something like 4x mainsails on the first stage and a bunch of k125 SRBs as stage 0.

[rkman]

Thanks for the advice everyone, i found and solved several problems with my craft. It was indeed somewhat over-designed and had a twr to high for FAR. Savings on the lander cascaded downwards, ending up with a launch mass of a little over 1200t, 1st stage thrust 18000kN, total dV about 14500m/s. No more exploding engines either.

I don't understand though how Shania_L can build a rocket that carries more dV for 1/4 the total mass, unless Realfuels is the cause of that (in which case although maybe not an overpowered mod, it sure makes a big difference).

I'v come to the conclusion that stock works pretty well with 64K, but KSP lacks suitably high trust engines that fit under a normally proportioned 1st stage tank. Imo the KS25 is to big for that and a bit underpowered, and it does not stack.

So i took a KWR engine, scaled it up a bit and gave it 4500kN, stock ISP, not sure what mass it should have. I followed the trend of 'bigger = better engine twr', but it feels a bit cheaty. Two of those power the 2nd stage, 1 for the 3rd stage.

Edited January 16, 2015 by rkman

[rosenkranz]

Yeah, RF can make a big difference. It's intended to be used with RSS or 10x because at that scale stock fuels, tankage and engines would really gimp your space program. However, combining FAR and RF is a little over powered for 6.4x scale and kinda defeats the purpose (at least to my mind).

[Guest]

However, combining FAR and RF is a little over powered for 6.4x scale and kinda defeats the purpose (at least to my mind).

The original (well, the "I figured it out after playing") intent was for 6.4x to be used with RF. 6.4x was never intended to add tedium or "difficulty", it was to make Kerbin bigger to match the parts, providing an RSS-like atmosphere to stock. With RF, fuels and engines are more in line with stock when used with 6.4x as opposed to RSS because the payload fraction to orbit, while much lower than stock, is much higher than RSS.

Obviously play it however you want, but the "purpose" of 6.4x was to merely be a bigger Kerbin system.

[rkman]

my entire transfer stage is lighter than your lander.

Mine is a two man lander, with a core payload (mk2 lander can +big chute) that's at minimum a little more than 3 times as heavy than an mk1+small chute: 0.94t v 2.96t.

That affects the mass of the rest of the payload (mainly fuel), which cascades down to the rest of the rocket.

Otoh i agree that the 30t lander and consequently te rest of that rocket was overkill, and the 21t lander still carries more than it needs to. The transfer stage has enough dV to do a considerable amount of the landing burn. I leave the landing stage on the Mun with some 500dV still in it.

So yes, there is room for improvement, but it can't get down to anywhere near 340t.

[NonWonderDog]

Seconding regex in that I don't really want this to be significantly harder than stock. What I want is a tiny planet inhabited by little green men, but launching rockets that make sense from a physics and engineering standpoint. The point of this mod in my mind is to allow generous payload fractions and easy interplanetary missions using realistic (but not specifically historical) Kerbal-sized rocket parts. At 6.4x I also find the planet densities believable, if not exactly astronomically possible.

I'm not sure you can quite get there with the mods available, though. RealFuels is a bit too grognard, the stockalike engine pack is a bit too halfway and fiddly, and nobody's maintaining a mod to make the pods and structural parts follow realistic densities. I actually started changing all the pod masses to their real-for-Kerbals equivalents, but it got to be too much. I never worked out a good way to do it programmatically, and I'd rather play with mods than spend all my time editing them. The stockalike engines seem to have too much thrust for their size, as well?

For those interested, the Mk 1 pod should weigh 350 kg including 50 kg of heat shielding, the Mk 1-2 pod should be 1.75 tons after adding a 250 kg heat shield, and Hitchhiker should weigh 1.25 tons. Those are my guesses based on Mercury, Apollo, and Harmony, erring on the heavy side. (Hitchhiker is way too small.) Maybe I can figure out some kind of formula based on those using ModuleManager's variable support.

I think we need a RealFuels version that isn't based on recreating Human space programs. It should have about six or seven fuels, and two of them should be interchangeable with LiquidFuel and Oxidizer so it doesn't require curated fuel tanks. Engines shouldn't have tech levels. The choices should be no more complicated than kerolox, hydrolox, methalox, or hypergolic. There should only be one fuel/oxidizer ratio per pair, independent of engine. And, crucially, it needs to have a way to integrate with MKS, TAC life support, Karbonite, Near Future etc. without huge amounts of curation work.

I've actually gone back to 1x Kerbin using KIDS (at 0.85+Isp fix) instead of Real Fuels just to play with MKS and such.

[Tellion]

Posting this as your 64th post, nice

Personally I am a big fan of the stockalike configs with RF and the variety those two mods add. I like it to be somewhat harder than stock without getting into RSS territory, I mean just try to build a SSTO with some decent payload fraction in 64k* That is what makes this playstyle fun for me, that you do have to push yourself more than in stock, without outright smashing you in the face, confronting you with the difficulty and limits of a real solar system and its space programs. Maybe one day that will be the next step though, who knows

*with AJE

[Guest]

I was talking to someone on the IRC today who used a blanket ModuleManager config to reduce engine and fuel tank dry mass to roughly 1/3 of stock for use with 6.4x. This might be something to consider if RF is too much for you but you want to correct the insane masses of stock parts.

[NathanKell]

rkman: KSP fuel tanks are a bit more than 4x as heavy (in terms of dry mass for given tonnage of fuel) as real life tanks. Engines are anywhere from the correct mass (NTR, SRBs) to 3-6x as heavy as real life equivalents (most liquid engines), to OMGLOLWUTOP like the ions (like, say, 100x the TWR, 10000x the efficiency regarding electricity).

[rkman]

It may be unintended but i do like 64K because it makes the game harder. I really do think that in stock ksp it is to easy to get into orbit.

And in spite of some initial problems i now find 64K quite doable with stock parts (and NEAR), aside from the lack of suitable high power engines.

I find it strangely comforting that a Saturn V -like rocket is near the upper limit of what can realistically be built.

I have the rocket down to 1000tons, 15000kN thrust. Still leaving fuel on the Mun. Reduced the thrust of the custom engine from 4500 to 3000.

KSP's most powerful engine would be suitable for 64K, if it weren't for the fact that fitting five of them under a tank that's taller than it is wide is not possible.

[Tellion]

I made a config for the outer planets mod with its new moons along with some other proposed changes and tweaks to "vanilla" 64k from this thread that I am not quite content with yet...

While adjusting the orbital parameters and densities/masses wasn't too difficult, I struggle with the terrain. Is there any way to resize a planet while keeping its terrain in a similar shape? This should work nicely, with asteroid-like bodies at least. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the 10x rescale did it until finally realizing that the bodies only looked proper in scaledspace. I have tried this suggestion here, dividing frequencies of PQSModVertexSimplexHeightAbsolute and PQSModVertexHeightNoise by 6.4 and multiplying the deformities by the same amount, both with the resized and the unresized version of Hale (gilly based) to no avail. Am I misunderstanding or missing anything?

One more thing that seems to be occurring with rescaled versions of the kerbol system is that kerbol itself is visible through *some* planetary bodies from further distances or everywhere, has anyone else noticed this or knows what the causes behind it are? It really is weird when you are orbiting a gas giant and see kerbol merrily shining through it at its night side...

Any ideas, as always, greatly appreciated.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Tellion

[Shania_L]

One more thing that seems to be occurring with rescaled versions of the Kerbol system is that Kerbol itself is visible through *some* planetary bodies from further distances or everywhere, has anyone else noticed this or knows what the causes behind it are? It really is weird when you are orbiting a gas giant and see Kerbol merrily shining through it at its night side...

I recently noticed Kerbol shining through Kerbin on my Mun mission (mainly because I dont often get further than LKO), is it possible that even though the planets have been scaled up that the disc size for occlusion remains at the stock size?

A stock sized Kerbin occlusion disc from Mun orbit (73Mm) is pretty tiny, whereas the actual planet is still quite largish. My solar panels were getting blocked but there was no shadow being cast on the surface, it was as though it was in full daylight.

See here on this picture, the craft is illuminated (there are no lights on the craft) but the panels are pointed down at the Mun rather than up at the occluded Kerbol.

I'm not sure you can quite get there with the mods available, though. RealFuels is a bit too grognard, the stockalike engine pack is a bit too halfway and fiddly, and nobody's maintaining a mod to make the pods and structural parts follow realistic densities. I actually started changing all the pod masses to their real-for-Kerbals equivalents, but it got to be too much. I never worked out a good way to do it programmatically, and I'd rather play with mods than spend all my time editing them. The stockalike engines seem to have too much thrust for their size, as well?

I think there was a "NEARFuels" type mod in development at some point, I dont know how far it got but it was doing essentially what you are saying. Multiple fuel options requiring specialised tankage, but without the RSS level of detailing and Kerbalised performance levels.

Here ya go NEARFuels Doesnt look like the thread has been active in a few months though.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Shania_L