Jump to content

KScale64 v1.2.2 16th April 2017

Paul Kingtiger

By Paul Kingtiger
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm having a look at height maps at the moment, but I've never done anything like that before so I'm starting from scratch.

The good news is that I've been taking to Raptor831 about teaming up as he worked on Kerbal 6.4x.

What we could really use is someone with height and texture maps. Mitiya got us started with an excellent texturemap for Kerbin, but for the mod to really shine it needs more.

Also, I'm currently looking at more launch locations with Raptor. But I'm having trouble finding sites that are flat so the KSC model fits on the ground correctly. If anyone has some advice on finding or making flat sites that would be really helpful.

Once we've got the launch sites sorted I think we'll be ready to get the mod off the DEV thread and onto Kerbal stuff, along with AVC and CKAN support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m4ti140

m4ti140

Posted
Posted

Is surface gravity still 1g in this version, or did you change it to match planet's size for real life (aka sane) densities? Assuming Kerbin's density is simmilar to Earth's, the surface gravity should be 0.61g (and Kerbals should behave naturally at this gravity since it's natural to them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starman4308

Starman4308

Posted
Posted
Is surface gravity still 1g in this version, or did you change it to match planet's size for real life (aka sane) densities? Assuming Kerbin's density is simmilar to Earth's, the surface gravity should be 0.61g (and Kerbals should behave naturally at this gravity since it's natural to them).

Surface gravity is the same: ~9.8 m/s^2. The intention of 6.4x Kerbin is, as I see it, not realism, but rather scaling KSP up a bit to ratchet up the difficulty, and help account for the increased performance of rockets using FAR and Real Fuels. It's also big enough to make achieving orbit feel like a big accomplishment: LKO requires a smidge more than 6 km/s orbital velocity, which isn't a hop and a skip from the launchpad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EatVacuum

EatVacuum

Posted
Posted
More good news!

Mitiya, who produced the excellent texture map for Kerbin has offered to come in on the mod.

Good times ahead!

There's more than just redoing height maps that can be looked at. Reworking the real solar system config file can adress many of the terrain flattening issues caused by the rescale. I've had some luck getting Minmus to be close to it's original lumpiness and could share those config changes. For the Mun I've figured out how to deepen the procedural craters by changing the config but to make the big ones have more depth using just config changes will take increasing the height range (I think its called map deformity or something similar, I can't check right now) which will make the mountains too high. So that I think that would be better done by manipulating the height maps.

Maybe we could do it as a community effort. People good with Gimp or whatever fix the height maps, others submit Rss config snippets for each planet and moon for people to try out. The most popular get bundled in a rescale package addon.

An additional thought... the PQS stuff in the RSS configs takes some figuring out. If people who have figured it out could document it in the actual configs that would help. NathanKell put some PQS info on his RSS site, but other than that it takes a lot of reading about libnoise to make heads or tails of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
  • Author
Posted
There's more than just redoing height maps that can be looked at. Reworking the real solar system config file can adress many of the terrain flattening issues caused by the rescale. I've had some luck getting Minmus to be close to it's original lumpiness and could share those config changes. For the Mun I've figured out how to deepen the procedural craters by changing the config but to make the big ones have more depth using just config changes will take increasing the height range (I think its called map deformity or something similar, I can't check right now) which will make the mountains too high. So that I think that would be better done by manipulating the height maps.

Maybe we could do it as a community effort. People good with Gimp or whatever fix the height maps, others submit Rss config snippets for each planet and moon for people to try out. The most popular get bundled in a rescale package addon.

An additional thought... the PQS stuff in the RSS configs takes some figuring out. If people who have figured it out could document it in the actual configs that would help. NathanKell put some PQS info on his RSS site, but other than that it takes a lot of reading about libnoise to make heads or tails of it.

I'd love for this to turn into a community effort! There's a wide range of skills needed for this mod to truly shine and the more people we have pitching in the better the end result is going to be.

Everything is openly licensed (except Astronomers visual pack config which we have permission to distribute).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Any chance of this going on CKAN?

Yes. The next version we release will be on Kerbal Stuff and CKAN. The one of my website is very early alpha code and we're working on the main release on Github.

So I guess we'll have the stable release on Kerbal Stuff and github if you want the experimental builds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Autochton

Autochton

Posted
Posted
Yes. The next version we release will be on Kerbal Stuff and CKAN. The one of my website is very early alpha code and we're working on the main release on Github.

Ah awesomesauce. 64K fits exactly in my realism-vs-Kerbalness sweet spot. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sdj64

sdj64

Posted
Posted

I recently started a career with the old 6.4x Kerbin mod on 0.25. I have two questions now, firstly: does this mod change things enough that it will break my save file if I switch from the old 6.4x? I'm still early in career and I don't have any permanent bases, just a few flags that I wouldn't mind if they got deleted.

Second, I've noticed that the altitudes for "orbiting" and "sub-orbital trajectory" are often inside the atmosphere, preventing me from ever completing these contracts. Is there any way I can change the altitude ranges for these contracts, or does this mod fix that problem? (using Fine Print as well, but I haven't seen any issues with that mod yet except for the possibility that the altitudes in an aerial survey could be underground)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amo28

amo28

Posted
Posted

Second, I've noticed that the altitudes for "orbiting" and "sub-orbital trajectory" are often inside the atmosphere, preventing me from ever completing these contracts. Is there any way I can change the altitude ranges for these contracts, or does this mod fix that problem? (using Fine Print as well, but I haven't seen any issues with that mod yet except for the possibility that the altitudes in an aerial survey could be underground)

In my case, I edited my persistence file to change the minimum altitudes for those missions, then never accepted another one like them. The fine print missions will be fine, it's just those agency "test this suborbital" missions that won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi guys, I'm looking for some community feedback on the scale of some moons.

Smaller moons like Bop and Gilly are supposed to be captured asteroids, but when you scale them up to 6.4x they look much larger and spherical. My question is, would these smaller objects be better off at stock scale, but in orbits 6.4x bigger?

So the system scale would fit but the body itself would be the stock size to keep it's irregular shape.

If we did do this what moons would be included?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eudae55

Eudae55

Posted
Posted
Hi guys, I'm looking for some community feedback on the scale of some moons.

Smaller moons like Bop and Gilly are supposed to be captured asteroids, but when you scale them up to 6.4x they look much larger and spherical. My question is, would these smaller objects be better off at stock scale, but in orbits 6.4x bigger?

So the system scale would fit but the body itself would be the stock size to keep it's irregular shape.

If we did do this what moons would be included?

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matrix Aran

Matrix Aran

Posted
Posted

The smaller Joolian moons would definitely be candidates, as it doesn't really have a drastic effect on dV budgets. Minmus I'd like to see a bit smaller just to have some more defined terrain, but it does beg the question if making minmus smaller would make it too easy to do science or ISRU early on in a save.

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...