Jump to content

KScale64 v1.2.2 16th April 2017

Paul Kingtiger

By Paul Kingtiger
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sandworm

Sandworm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, blowfish said:

You heard right.  The problem is in generating some cache files which get put in the 64k folder.  If those cache files exist already, then it will not try to generate them again (instead just using the existing cache) so you get around the bug.

Thanks.  I managed to get it together and now seem to have 64k running under KSP 1.1

 

(1) Re-download and install KSP 1.0.5

(2) Download and install 64 v1.1.4.0 (meant for KSP 1.0.5) into KSP_1.0.5

(3) Start KSP 1.0.5.  Then exit.

(4) Copy cache folder from  KSP_1.0.5/KSP_linux/Gamedata/Kopernicus/Cache to KSP_1.1/KSP_linux/Gamedata/Kopernicus/Cache

 

Without texture replacer, Kerbin looks horrible.  But at least it ain't so small anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Akira_R

Akira_R

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, NyanTurian said:

I can confirm the above solution by @Sandworm works as expected so far, as I haven't tested celestial bodies beyond Kerbin. Yay for 6 km/s low orbit velocity!

Me too!
 

Thank you @Sandworm!!!!!!!!! :D

Edited by Akira_R
I can grammar??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NyanTurian

NyanTurian

Posted
Posted

Except for the re-entry, RIP Jeb, your heatshield failed you (Mk1 pod with parachute+1.25m heatshield)... even MechJeb (radial attached part) barely survived. Might be a bug. Jeb's spacecraft exploded before it crossed 50km descending from 120km x 60km, low AoA (almost matching surface retrograde).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MatterBeam

MatterBeam

Posted
Posted
On 4/22/2016 at 9:55 PM, Sandworm said:

Thanks.  I managed to get it together and now seem to have 64k running under KSP 1.1

 

(1) Re-download and install KSP 1.0.5

(2) Download and install 64 v1.1.4.0 (meant for KSP 1.0.5) into KSP_1.0.5

(3) Start KSP 1.0.5.  Then exit.

(4) Copy cache folder from  KSP_1.0.5/KSP_linux/Gamedata/Kopernicus/Cache to KSP_1.1/KSP_linux/Gamedata/Kopernicus/Cache

 

Without texture replacer, Kerbin looks horrible.  But at least it ain't so small anymore.

Can you provide the file for a separate download?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandworm

Sandworm

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, MatterBeam said:

Can you provide the file for a separate download?

Working on it.  Give me five.

Ok.  Here are two fixes.  (1) A copy of the cache folder from my working copy of 64k under KSP 1.1.  Its from a linux install, but I don't think that should make any difference.  (2) A copy of the HeatShieldTweak.cfg that I use for 64k.  I got this somewhere in this thread but cannot remember where.  It is a little OP but will allow you to re-enter safely.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ll4660khksuo29z/64k_Temp_Fixes_for_KSP1.1.rar

Edited by Sandworm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jacke

Jacke

Posted
Posted

Was skimming this thread and noticed this 3 posts and the ones around them.

Spoiler

On 2014-10-19 at 5:57 PM, metaphor said:

If you wanted to scale it to stock, the day should be about 15 hours long (6 hours * sqrt(6.4)). That would keep all the orbital resonances the same as stock (e.g. for every Mun orbit, Kerbin would rotate the same number of times). This comes from Kepler's third law, when distance is multiplied by a factor of X, time is multiplied by a factor of X^3/2 to keep the orbits working. You would also end up with the same relative boost of equatorial rotation speed to orbital speed when launching a rocket.

If you did that for every planet and moon, you would also end up with the same resonances as stock, like Duna and Ike facing each other all the time. Basically in order to scale up a system by X but keep the same surface gravity, you just need to multiply distances by X, masses by X^2 , and times by X^3/2 .

On 2016-01-19 at 8:31 AM, Sigma88 said:

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

On 2016-04-11 at 2:54 PM, Citizen247 said:

Kerbin is 9143 kg/m³, Earth is 5,515.3 kg/m³ :)

And did a little checking.  Then I checked my checking.  Then I checked it again.  Checked references.

Long ramble about what Mun's period would be and what you can pick for Kerbin's rotational period.

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period

Obviously, if you scale the sizes and masses (and assume the gravitation constant remains the same, which is easy, as you can just fiddle the masses), it all comes down to what scaling you want to get the results you want.

Squad early on decided they had to scale down the Solar system to a tenth its size to get the Kerbol system with what they had.  They also decided to make the gravity on Kerbin the same as on Earth.

Using the Kerbol system numbers from

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbol_System

and the pages on each body it links, you find wonderful chestnuts like Kerbin's surface gravity is 9.81m/s2, just as on Earth.  Its size and mass were obviously adjusted to make that come out.

Those numbers also mean Kerbin's density is 58,485kg/m3.  That's 58.485 times the density of water.  Not seen in our universe outside of stellar cores as well as white dwarf and neutron stars.

Anyhoo, to keep Kerbin's surface gravity the same in a 6.4x scaled up Kerbol system, as @metaphor said in the post I quote above, with 6.4x greater distances, you have to scale up Kerbin's mass by 6.42 times.

So right now, Mun revolves around Kerbin a bit slower than Kerbin rotates, as you can see Mun proceed from east to west across Kerbin's skys.  With the 6.42 scaling up of masses, what would Mun's period be?  From the Wikipedia article on Orbital period linked above:

Quote
T = 2\pi\sqrt{a^3/\mu}

where:

To determine Mun's period of revolution, here μ here should be the sum of Kerbin's and Mun's standard gravitational parameters.  But using the sum of μ's from the KSP wiki gives an orbital period 1260s longer than the wiki quotes for Mun's revolution.  If you only use Kerbin's μ you get the same answer as the wiki has.

Anyhoo, if Mun's SMA is scaled up by 6.4 and Kerbin's μ by 6.42, then Mun's period of revolution should be scaled up by 6.43/4, or 4.023787.  From the KSP wiki, It's currently 138 984 s, or in Earth time 38 h 36m 24s.  Scaled up, it would be 559,242s, or Earth time 6 d 11 h 20 m 42s.

So, that's going to be a lot longer than any selected Kerbin rotation period.  I'd say go for same as Earth, solar day is 24 hours, or 86,400 s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erbmur

erbmur

Posted
Posted

Is anybody else having problems reentrying using this with version 1.1?  Even on a sub-orbital flight my pods are unable to stay in one peace.  Where there any changes mad to the heating mechanic with the 1.1 update?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Citizen247

Citizen247

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Jacke said:

 

Anyhoo, to keep Kerbin's surface gravity the same in a 6.4x scaled up Kerbol system, as @metaphor said in the post I quote above, with 6.4x greater distances, you have to scale up Kerbin's mass by 6.42 times.

That's not correct. Scaling up mass would increase surface gravity, not keep it the same. On kerbin to Kerbin 6.4 scales mass staying the same would give you roughly the same surface gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jacke

Jacke

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

That's not correct. Scaling up mass would increase surface gravity, not keep it the same. On kerbin to Kerbin 6.4 scales mass staying the same would give you roughly the same surface gravity.

What matters is what you're trying to do in this Brave New Scaled-up Universe.  I take as a design point that in the scaled up system, Kerbin's surface gravity is wanted to be kept the same as it is on stock Kerbin as it is on Earth: acceleration due to gravity is 9.81m/s2.  To have that if you increase the distances by 6.4, you have to increase the masses by 6.42.

g = μ / r2

Different design goals for the scaled up system lead to different changes beyond increasing the distances 6.4 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jacke

Jacke

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

The mass of Earth is about 28 times the mass of stock Kerbin, not 100 times.

Kerbin is downscaled from Earth a little more than 10 times, but still has the same surface gravity.  So the mass has to be downscaled a little more than 100.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

MEarth = 5.97237×1024 kg

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin

MKerbin = 5.2915793×1022 kg

MEarth / MKerbin = 5.97237×1024 kg / 5.2915793×1022 kg = 112.8657

QED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jacke

Jacke

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

Nevermind, you're right I was confusing myself.

I do that a lot meself.  Most of the times I catch it before I post (the comment above about checking, checking again, and again...).  Not always though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dawixx

dawixx

Posted
Posted
On 27.04.2016 at 1:57 PM, erbmur said:

Is anybody else having problems reentrying using this with version 1.1?  Even on a sub-orbital flight my pods are unable to stay in one peace.  Where there any changes mad to the heating mechanic with the 1.1 update?

I'm having problems as well, suborbital is fine for me but returning from any orbit ends in fire...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dawixx

dawixx

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mrtinb96 said:

I am using the mod RealHeat to compensate with that. Maybe also Real Atmospheres does the job. 

I downloaded RealHeat and Deadly Reentry and it fixed the issue, somehow by funds and science got multiplied by 1000 but it works :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandworm

Sandworm

Posted
Posted
On 4/28/2016 at 8:24 AM, dawixx said:

I'm having problems as well, suborbital is fine for me but returning from any orbit ends in fire...

If you look a few posts back, I posted a link with a temp fix for this heating bug.  It's been with Kopernicus/64k for a long while.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ll4660khksuo29z/64k_Temp_Fixes_for_KSP1.1.rar?dl=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OzEtkin

OzEtkin

Posted
Posted (edited)
On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 5:49 PM, blowfish said:

Shouldn't be necessary anymore with Kopernicus 1.0.1

I tried installing 64K with Kopernicus 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, as well as Module Manager 2.6.23 and 2.6.22, but it won't work. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, and thanks for any help. 

Edited by OzEtkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlexGunship

FlexGunship

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, OzEtkin said:

I tried installing 64K with Kopernicus 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, as well as Module Manager 2.6.23 and 2.6.22, but it won't work. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, and thanks for any help. 

 

6 hours ago, Sandworm said:

If you look a few posts back, I posted a link with a temp fix for this heating bug.  It's been with Kopernicus/64k for a long while.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ll4660khksuo29z/64k_Temp_Fixes_for_KSP1.1.rar?dl=0

For what it's worth, I can't seem to get 64k working either. I've tried it with Kop 1.0.2 and without the cache files in Sandworm's fix. And I've tried it with it. I'm still seeing a normal sized Kerbin. So, you're not alone OzEtkin. I think weought'a just wait for the official release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blowfish

blowfish

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, OzEtkin said:

I tried installing 64K with Kopernicus 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, as well as Module Manager 2.6.23 and 2.6.22, but it won't work. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, and thanks for any help. 

"It won't work" is pretty vague.  Could you describe the problem in detail?  Logs would be nice as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...