[1.0.5]SKY - Scale-up Kerbalism for You - Kopernicus Rescale [v2.0]

[marchingknight11]

Are there any plans to add this mod to CKAN? Would make it much easier to keep up to date.

[TheAurora]

Is there a solution for Gilly's SOI being under its surface? I learned the hard way you can't get near it. The surface isn't solid for some reason. Is this a known issue?

[Svm420]

Is there a solution for Gilly's SOI being under its surface? I learned the hard way you can't get near it. The surface isn't solid for some reason. Is this a known issue?

Depends. There is an easy one if your comfortable editing the config file.

[TheAurora]

Yes. I think I can do that. Don't have anything going on in the save. How do I do it?

[Svm420]

Yes. I think I can do that. Don't have anything going on in the save. How do I do it?

Go into the SKY folder open the rescale config file. Locate the line with gilly. Under properties add a line titled sphereOfInfluence = whatever number you feel is good. Make sure spelling and capitalization is exact as that is a variable name and must be exact. I would try the stock value of 126123. I don't use this mod so this is just a guess. It could be the moon is outside the sphere of influence of whatever parent body it has. So if this doesn't fix it grab your Kopernicus logs and jump in the Kopernicus thread the experts there will quickly be able to diagnose the issue. If you don't know where to find those logs they are in the root game folder, along side GameData, title Logs. The Kopernicus log and the logs for the moon and parent body would get you what you need. That's all assuming this doesnt fix it.

    @Body[Gilly]
    {
        @Properties
        {
            sphereOfInfluence = [COLOR=#252525][FONT=sans-serif]126123 //For example this is the stock value[/FONT][/COLOR]
         }
     }

[TheAurora]

Okay. I will look into this. Thank for your help!

[Lucius]

Anyone touched this in 1.0.5?

Had any problems?

Love this pack personally would be interested to see that its still good

[TheAurora]

[quote name='Lucius']Anyone touched this in 1.0.5?

Had any problems?

Love this pack personally would be interested to see that its still good[/QUOTE]

I have been messing around with it. Nothing seems broken. Launched a space station the other day, and nothing seemed wrong. Still safe to play in 1.0.5 from my observations.

[pacbard]

[quote name='marchingknight11']Are there any plans to add this mod to CKAN? Would make it much easier to keep up to date.[/QUOTE]

I've opened a pull request to add SKY to CKAN. It should become available soon-ish.

[SkyRex94]

I made a quick update to change Gillys SOI and to make it work properly with the new Kopernikus Version (included).

Cheers

[SkyRex94]

[video=youtube;L9H3F7Pfxts]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9H3F7Pfxts[/video]

[Templar Knight]

Is there an easy way of relocating the KSC back to the location it is at in vanilla. I'm liking the mod, just not thrilled with the new KSC location. lol

[StevenJ]

SkyRex, on prior versions of your SKY config you had used KSC Switcher to have multiple KSC bases on Kerbin. Would you re added KSC Switcher back into the mod? 5 x Kerbin is kind of big and it is nice to have multiple launch locations.

[.50calBMG]

Are there any cloud configs for this wonderful piece of work?

[SkyRex94]

[quote name='StevenJ']SkyRex, on prior versions of your SKY config you had used KSC Switcher to have multiple KSC bases on Kerbin. Would you re added KSC Switcher back into the mod? 5 x Kerbin is kind of big and it is nice to have multiple launch locations.[/QUOTE]
I have removed it deliberatly as soon as Kopernicus was able to relocate the KSC. One of the goals with this to be as lightweight and undependent as possible, and thats the reason why I won't add KSCSwitcher back in, sorry...

But it should work fine AFAIK, so go ahead and install KSCSwitcher if you'd wish more launch sites ;)

@Templar Night: Yes there is: Go into the rescale config--> go to Kerbin---> and remove the new location for the KSC. Be aware that the stock location might bew slightly off/floating caused by the upscaling of the planet.

Cheers

[Ohm Machre]

HI!! Just saying that I really love this mod. I'm having some EXTREME difficulty in reorbiting, namely in spaceplanes.

Are there any recommended thermal settings I should try to use, or were there supposed to be different thermal values changed for the planets?

I have several mods installed, including the New_Horizons pack. (I didn't add the planets centric to this mod, not sure how well that'd have played with N_H in there at the same time.)

[Joco223]

Is there a DeltaV map for this mod?

[TheAurora]

On December 3, 2015 at 0:04 AM, Ohm Machre said:

HI!! Just saying that I really love this mod. I'm having some EXTREME difficulty in reorbiting, namely in spaceplanes.

Are there any recommended thermal settings I should try to use, or were there supposed to be different thermal values changed for the planets?

I have several mods installed, including the New_Horizons pack. (I didn't add the planets centric to this mod, not sure how well that'd have played with N_H in there at the same time.)

I use the Real Heat plugin. If I understand correctly, it calculates heat based on the speed, and seems to make heating a bit more realistic for rescaled systems. Just leave the KSP heat setting at 100% when you start the save. The plugin works from there. Ablation still happens, but it isn't extremely severe. I think your planes should be able to survive with a decent reentry trajectory. Hope this helps Ohm Machre!

[TheAurora]

 

19 hours ago, Joco223 said:

Is there a DeltaV map for this mod?

As far as I know, there is not one. I use the 64k map as a basis since it has similar scaling. Planets with atmospheres will most likely have the biggest difference in ascent Delta V since SKY and 64k have different atmospheric scaling. 64k has higher DeltaV values, so for SKY just budget a little lower. For the other planets, I would just calculate the Delta V by hand. Calculating the Delta V for Hohmann transfers shouldn't be to difficult. Just like it was done in the good old days of KSP! Hope this helps Joco223! 

[Joco223]

3 minutes ago, TheAurora said:

 

As far as I know, there is not one. I use the 64k map as a basis since it has similar scaling. Planets with atmospheres will most likely have the biggest difference in ascent Delta V since SKY and 64k have different atmospheric scaling. 64k has higher DeltaV values, so for SKY just budget a little lower. For the other planets, I would just calculate the Delta V by hand. Calculating the Delta V for Hohmann transfers shouldn't be to difficult. Just like it was done in the good old days of KSP! Hope this helps Joco223! 

Thanks for the help!

[Joco223]

Is there a version of SMURFF that is a bit harder than this one? I play with KSP SKY and for stock i need to build too big rockets for larger missions but with SMURFF is just way too easy. Is there any mod to fix this?

 

[TheAurora]

24 minutes ago, Joco223 said:

Is there a version of SMURFF that is a bit harder than this one? I play with KSP SKY and for stock i need to build too big rockets for larger missions but with SMURFF is just way too easy. Is there any mod to fix this?

 

Have you used the mod called Space Y? It has larger engines and massive fuel tanks. This means you don't have to cluster bunches of smaller tanks. It helped me out so much. Went from rockets made of clusters of Kerbodyne tanks perhaps 30 tanks wide at the base to rockets of only 3 cores. Greatly enabled future exploration and really helped my frame rate. If you have already tried this and prefer SMURFF, or just don't want any extra mods, I believe SMURFF allows you to make your own config for the engines and tanks. If possible, just make the engines heavier and it will reduce their TWR to a middle ground between real life and KSP, which should be right for SKY. Might have to check on the SMURFF configs though. I don't use it, but I believe I saw that it allowed you to make your own config.

[TheAurora]

Yes, I am looking at the config for SMURFF right now. If you scroll down to the Engine section, you will see the values that I believe control the mass and thrust. Just lower the " @maxthrust * =1.5 to lower the thrust, a value of 1 will set it to the original thrust value. Or you can raise the @mass*= .375 to raise the mass and thus alter the TWR. I think that if you do these things it should allow you to basically create your own SMURFF config. May not work, I don't really know, but it is worth a try. Further questions should be asked at the SMURFF thread if you need more help. They will know more about it than I do, this is just my guess. Good luck Joco223.

[Joco223]

2 hours ago, TheAurora said:

Yes, I am looking at the config for SMURFF right now. If you scroll down to the Engine section, you will see the values that I believe control the mass and thrust. Just lower the " @maxthrust * =1.5 to lower the thrust, a value of 1 will set it to the original thrust value. Or you can raise the @mass*= .375 to raise the mass and thus alter the TWR. I think that if you do these things it should allow you to basically create your own SMURFF config. May not work, I don't really know, but it is worth a try. Further questions should be asked at the SMURFF thread if you need more help. They will know more about it than I do, this is just my guess. Good luck Joco223.

Thanks for the help. I changed some stuff in the .cfg file and now everything is better. I'm using procedural parts so i don't have to cluster up many tanks but engines from Space Y could definetly help to replace 8 skipper on first stage

If i may ask what .cfg settings do you suggest to make it a bit easier and not making gigantic rocket just for manned landing on mun?

-EDIT-

Nvm i found a perfect balance for me

Edited January 9, 2016 by Joco223

[Joco223]

Why is Eello in this wierd position? I use SKY without additional planets and Eello looks like remained in the same place and not resaled?