KScale64 v1.2.2 16th April 2017

[CatastrophicFailure]

Dumb question I'm not finding anywhere....

How long is one Kerbin year with this, assuming 24 hour days?

[legoclone09]

It'll be somewhere in the config, I'll try to find it for you.

[NathanKell]

You'll need to calculate it from the orbital altitude of Kerbin and the masses of the sun and Kerbin (which you may need to calculate from radius and surface gravity).

[CatastrophicFailure]

28 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

You'll need to calculate it from the orbital altitude of Kerbin and the masses of the sun and Kerbin (which you may need to calculate from radius and surface gravity).

...he says to the guy who failed basic algebra twice and remedial  algebra once more. 

[NathanKell]

Or go ingame, and find out its orbital period.

[EatVacuum]

On ‎2016‎-‎01‎-‎15 at 4:22 AM, CatastrophicFailure said:

Well this is annoying. I'm using the configs a fellow on this thread made up (user name escapes me) to restore some bumpiness to Minmus and the Mün, but it seems I cannot switch away from most landed vessels. If I do (like return to the tracking station), it's immediately deleted and I get the "crashed through terrain" entry in the log. But some vessels seem to be fine (the non-important ones, of course). Anyone else having an issue with this? Only tested on the M&Ms so far.

Hmmm, never had this happen and I've been using this (or an earlier version made by Raptor, or was it Regex for 6.4x) for about a year now. I do occasionally lose flags, but that happens on high time warp while waiting for a launch window, not on switching to a craft.

I did warn everyone to make a backup before trying this, but the reason was because this does change the height of the surface so anything that was landed on the original surface, before installing my configs, could end up underground or in mid-air with potentially craft and Kerbal killing results. But it should not happen for anything landed later.

Rescaling everything by 6.4 times does increase the "height error" for surfaces or the things on them by 6.4 times as well. In stock KSP if you look closely you will see that Kerbal feet and landing gear sometimes are sunk a few inches into, or float just above the surface. Scale that up by 6.4 times and you end up with Kerbals sometimes standing waist deep in the ground or floating a foot above the ground.

Have you by chance lowered the terrain settings to minimum to save memory? I know that has caused problems even in stock scale in the past. Try setting your terrain settings to high and see if it solves the problem. The only other thing I could think might be a problem is ground clearance for your craft. Given the increased height error I mentioned I wonder if parts of your craft other than the landing gear might be appearing under the ground by enough that the KSP engine is interpreting it as collided with the ground and causing the error. I did have that happen with a base I built on Minmus when playing 6.4x using Raptor's terrain mods, When I detached landing gear and set the base parts down on their bases it seemed okay, but when going back to the base later... BOOM! Since then I've left ground bases on landing gear.

[CatastrophicFailure]

@EatVacuum yup I've got terrain cranked up to the max. I did notice that in the map view, anything landed there does appear way above the surface too. The probe was indeed on legs, but the two mini-probes are not, and they're just fine. Single parts sitting on the surface. One probe I landed on the Mün is also still fine (I think), while another got eaten. 

[EatVacuum]

30 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

@EatVacuum yup I've got terrain cranked up to the max. I did notice that in the map view, anything landed there does appear way above the surface too. The probe was indeed on legs, but the two mini-probes are not, and they're just fine. Single parts sitting on the surface. One probe I landed on the Mün is also still fine (I think), while another got eaten. 

Dang, those two ideas were my best shot. Has anything fallen through the terrain on the flats on Minmus?

[Sigma88]

5 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

@EatVacuum yup I've got terrain cranked up to the max. I did notice that in the map view, anything landed there does appear way above the surface too. The probe was indeed on legs, but the two mini-probes are not, and they're just fine. Single parts sitting on the surface. One probe I landed on the Mün is also still fine (I think), while another got eaten. 

5 hours ago, EatVacuum said:

Dang, those two ideas were my best shot. Has anything fallen through the terrain on the flats on Minmus?

if you want you can try my mod (Sigma Dimensions)

using that mod you can chose the rescale factors and it will change all the parameters of planets and stuff.

I designed that mod as a tool for modders like @Paul Kingtiger so that they can forget about all the resize troubles and focus on other things like career balancing, science definitions or stuff like that.

It's still in early beta so backup your saves if you don't want to risk losing ships

I've already contacted Paul letting him know about my mod, so make sure you give him your feedback if you like / dislike my mod.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Sigma88

[EatVacuum]

On ‎2015‎-‎12‎-‎31 at 2:17 AM, Mr Betelgeuse said:

Any updates on the surface configs for the rest of the planets?

I got to Duna this weekend and it does look pretty flat, but I only landed in one area and that was in the lowest ground I could find to make it easier. I made a pre-landing save though so I can use that to try other sites to confirm. Given how thin Duna's atmosphere is I don't think increasing the vertical scale of the terrain ( terrain deformity) is a good idea - chutes are barely useful now and making highlands and mountains higher will only worsen things from that point of view. Eve should be easier from that point of view.

Adding the really rugged terrain on Duna like I did for Kerbin's mountains also potentially adds to the height, perhaps too much. So that leaves only adding the smaller lumps and bumps similarly to what I did for highlands and plains on Kerbin. I'm open to suggestions. Or if anyone else has already modded Duna let me know the results.

[CatastrophicFailure]

22 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Or go ingame, and find out its orbital period.

I'm having a rather embarrassing bout of cranial flatulence at the moment, where is it displayed again?

 

12 hours ago, EatVacuum said:

Has anything fallen through the terrain on the flats on Minmus?

That's exactly where it happened the first time.

I'm sending a mission to Eve shortly, to see if it is indeed from the extra configs or something native to 64k.

[Svm420]

5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I'm having a rather embarrassing bout of cranial flatulence at the moment, where is it displayed again?

 

That's exactly where it happened the first time.

I'm sending a mission to Eve shortly, to see if it is indeed from the extra configs or something native to 64k.

If your not mod adverse. This mod simple orbital calculator is one of the handset mod I have ever installed. simple orbital calculator

[NathanKell]

Ah, I thought it was on the Info bit in TS/mapview when you focused on a planet. But maybe only sidereal rotation period, not orbital period, is there. If so, alt * pi / speed (alt and speed are shown when checking the planet's orbit in TS/mapview) = period, since Kerbin has a circular orbit.

[Mr Betelgeuse]

13 hours ago, EatVacuum said:

I got to Duna this weekend and it does look pretty flat, but I only landed in one area and that was in the lowest ground I could find to make it easier. I made a pre-landing save though so I can use that to try other sites to confirm. Given how thin Duna's atmosphere is I don't think increasing the vertical scale of the terrain ( terrain deformity) is a good idea - chutes are barely useful now and making highlands and mountains higher will only worsen things from that point of view. Eve should be easier from that point of view.

Adding the really rugged terrain on Duna like I did for Kerbin's mountains also potentially adds to the height, perhaps too much. So that leaves only adding the smaller lumps and bumps similarly to what I did for highlands and plains on Kerbin. I'm open to suggestions. Or if anyone else has already modded Duna let me know the results.

Hmm, it sounds interesting. I wonder if you can make the mountains on Duna vertically taller to replicate Olympus Mons. I have a proposal for you: A Joint config for 64k. I'm working on the surfaces of Jools Moons and maybe we can put together our work into a piece that maybe @Paul Kingtiger could even implement into his mod!

Anyway, keep us up to date with your work on Duna/Eve. I'll do the same for the Joolian system.

[Tellion]

4 hours ago, Mr Betelgeuse said:

Hmm, it sounds interesting. I wonder if you can make the mountains on Duna vertically taller to replicate Olympus Mons.

It is also possible to use MapDecals to apply high detail to a certain area via a specific height- and colormap. Borisbee's Sentar Expansion does that, even with Olympus Mons iirc. Granted, that would hardly make every part of the planet interesting, but it might be of interest to you nonetheless. 

[EatVacuum]

22 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

That's exactly where it happened the first time.

I'm sending a mission to Eve shortly, to see if it is indeed from the extra configs or something native to 64k.

Ok, I didn't keep notes on what I did, but looking back on pg. 26 and checking the configs themselves here's what I have;

For Minmus I only increased the terrain deformity (by a factor of three or so) to get bring the existing height/slopes to something midway between what they were in stock and the extremely gradual slopes and flattened plateaus and hill tops of the original 64k version. For anyone who wants to play with them here's the snippet of code to look for in Minmus.cfg;

PQSMod_VertexPlanet
        {
            name = VertexPlanet
            seed = 23123
            deformity = 15000
            colorDeformity = 15000

   ... 

I didn't do anything else using other PQS mods that would add additional "lumps and bumps" or alter the surface in any other way. There are references to other deformity values in the file, but they are put there by Kittopia automatically, and (I assume) were gotten from the stock planet info. So that said, I can't see that the bottoms of the flats would be changed by anything in the config, their base height is zero, deformity doesn't impact them.

And in case it comes up for the Mun, I did the same thing, i.e. picked a higher deformity to bring back some of the steepness of slopes and large crater sides without making the high terrain so high that ships couldn't safely orbit at 40-50km height. I might have also deepened the procedural craters (i.e. the small ones scattered all over the Mun that first appeared back in KSP 0.21) a bit. The pqsmod for those is "PQSMod_VoronoiCraters" and there is it the "deformation" value.that controls the max possible depth of the craters.

[EatVacuum]

22 hours ago, Mr Betelgeuse said:

Hmm, it sounds interesting. I wonder if you can make the mountains on Duna vertically taller to replicate Olympus Mons. I have a proposal for you: A Joint config for 64k. I'm working on the surfaces of Jools Moons and maybe we can put together our work into a piece that maybe @Paul Kingtiger could even implement into his mod!

Anyway, keep us up to date with your work on Duna/Eve. I'll do the same for the Joolian system.

I'd be good with that. It'll be a while before I likely do Duna... and then Eve's next on the itinerary so it would be a looong time before I got around to screwing around with improving the terrain for Jool's moons. It would be easy to manage a joint effort, even if several jump on the bandwagon as Kittopia puts each planet/moon into a seperate cfg file.

Another thing I'd like to do is get the missing anomalies back. I mentioned in an earlier post that the ones on Kerbin aren't accessible, at least not in my current save. I just got an anomaly surveyor contract to investigate the arches, so I'll be landing near one soon...I wonder if they will be there? At first I was thinking that the ones that are working on Kerbin (KSC, island airport) have PQSMod_MapDecalTangent to adjust the terrain around the buildings and the missing ones (monoliths, ufo) didn't, so I was going to add map decals. But then today I noticed another, more likely correlation and one that would be easier to try, which is the "reposition" settings.

Accessible sites have;

        PQSCity
        {
            name = KSC
            debugOrientated = False
            frameDelta = 1
            repositionToSphere = True
            repositionToSphereSurface = False
            repositionToSphereSurfaceAddHeight = False

but the missing (or buried?) monoliths have

        PQSCity
        {
            name = Monolith00
            debugOrientated = False
            frameDelta = 1
            repositionToSphere = True
            repositionToSphereSurface = True
            repositionToSphereSurfaceAddHeight = False

I bet changing one or the other of these will get the monoliths back. I'll likely do that before getting back to Duna.

And speaking of map decals...

17 hours ago, Tellion said:

It is also possible to use MapDecals to apply high detail to a certain area via a specific height- and colormap. Borisbee's Sentar Expansion does that, even with Olympus Mons iirc. Granted, that would hardly make every part of the planet interesting, but it might be of interest to you nonetheless. 

Funny you should mention that, on my list of things to (probably never actually) do was to build a really big, high mountain, but on Eve. Larry Niven was a favorite author many years back and on first visiting Eve (back in KSP 0.20 days) it occurred to me that it needed it to have something like Mount LookitThat...

(hopefully I'm not breaking any rules reporting the image from this site - http://news.larryniven.net/concordance/main.asp?alpha=M)

"The colony world itself is a Venusian type planet with a dense, hot, poisonous atmosphere. It would be otherwise uninhabitable, except for a tall monolithic mesa that rises 40 miles up into a breathable layer in the upper atmosphere.This gives the planet a habitable area about half the size of California. The Captain of the first colony vessel named the feature Mount Lookitthat (from his interjection at first sight of it), and the colony became known as Plateau."

Quoted from a  Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gift_from_Earth )

But having said that, you're right, Duna needs it's mega-mountain too, or I guess mega volcano. Now should it be 16 miles/25km high or 64% of that...

Edited January 20, 2016 by EatVacuum
spelling and links

[NathanKell]

The problem IMO isn't that you need greater deformity, but either the frequency needs to go up or the curve PQSMods need tweaking to help make the slopes sharper.

[CatastrophicFailure]

On January 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, NathanKell said:

Ah, I thought it was on the Info bit in TS/mapview when you focused on a planet. But maybe only sidereal rotation period, not orbital period, is there. If so, alt * pi / speed (alt and speed are shown when checking the planet's orbit in TS/mapview) = period, since Kerbin has a circular orbit.

Well I'm doing something wrong, I keep getting like 2400 days, that can't be right. Alt*pi/speed/60/60/24 to get days?

[Sigma88]

12 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Well I'm doing something wrong, I keep getting like 2400 days, that can't be right. Alt*pi/speed/60/60/24 to get days?

orbital period is calculated like this:

 

period = 2*pi* ( a^3 / GM)

since this is a 6.4 rescale NEWa => 6.4OLDa and newM => 6.4OLDM

if you do the math you'll see that NEWperiod => 6.4OLDperiod

and since the day lenght is 4 times greater, a year will have 6.4/4 times the days a stock year has

[HebaruSan]

Does 64K+FAR do anything funny with parachutes? I'm trying to land a 2.68-ton craft with 13 parachutes and 6-8 airbrakes on Kerbin (full KER info in below screenshot, apologies for nighttime.) I have the chutes set to open at 5 km, and I'm staging them as soon as the icon says it's OK, which I think was around 14 km. The equilibrium descent speed near ground seems to be around 75 m/s. The old parachute calculator suggests that 9 radial chutes should do for a 4 m/s landing, and I'm sure that's out of date, but is it this far out of date? How many parachutes should be needed to land 3 tons safely? Do I need to install RealChute?

I tried adding a propulsive descent stage, and I timed it wrong and ran out of fuel too early, but I'd rather get the parachutes right if I can rather than retrying that.

Spoiler

 

[EatVacuum]

On ‎2016‎-‎01‎-‎21 at 11:05 PM, HebaruSan said:

Does 64K+FAR do anything funny with parachutes? I'm trying to land a 2.68-ton craft with 13 parachutes and 6-8 airbrakes on Kerbin (full KER info in below screenshot, apologies for nighttime.) I have the chutes set to open at 5 km, and I'm staging them as soon as the icon says it's OK, which I think was around 14 km. The equilibrium descent speed near ground seems to be around 75 m/s. The old parachute calculator suggests that 9 radial chutes should do for a 4 m/s landing, and I'm sure that's out of date, but is it this far out of date? How many parachutes should be needed to land 3 tons safely? Do I need to install RealChute?

I tried adding a propulsive descent stage, and I timed it wrong and ran out of fuel too early, but I'd rather get the parachutes right if I can rather than retrying that.

 

Nope. I just launched a test vehicle 5km up and landed it at 5.3m/s using nine of the Mk 2-R radial parachutes. It weighed 7.07 tonnes on landing so definitely not a problem for me. I am using KSP 1.04 and FAR 0.15.4 but I doubt that makes a difference.  

It might be some odd mod interaction, the only other thing I can think of is that the drag cubes for the chutes might be messed up. Look for PartDatabase.cfg in the KSP root folder. rename it to PartDatabase.txt. Then launch KSP and it should build a new PartDatabase.cfg file so all your chutes should have the correct values. Hope that helps.

[HebaruSan]

On 1/24/2016 at 0:41 PM, EatVacuum said:

Look for PartDatabase.cfg in the KSP root folder. rename it to PartDatabase.txt. Then launch KSP and it should build a new PartDatabase.cfg file so all your chutes should have the correct values. Hope that helps.

Whelp, now I'm seeing the same problem @PDCWolf described. The atmosphere chews up my first heat shield (from a very shallow initial trajectory) but doesn't slow me down anywhere near enough for parachutes, and I smash into the surface at multiple km/s. I'd try the propulsive descent stage, but I'm pretty sure it (and anything else) would explode in under a second at these speeds. Oddly, the second heat shield's ablator doesn't deplete after the first one explodes; I assume that's a bug. Maybe time to try again without FAR...

 

[lordcirth]

The thread is marked [1.0.X], but on CKAN the mod is listed as maximum 1.0.4.  Is it safe to run on 1.0.5?  Is there a reason it hasn't been marked compatible, or just no one got around to it?

[Joco223]

@lordcirth It's safe to run in KSP 1.0.5. Actually, i'm playing with it right now