Bill is very cynical...

[Mitchz95]

I agree Dres needs to be more interesting. Even changing the color would be a great boost.

[KevinW42]

I think you can't make overlapping SOIs with the current physics model. I was thinking maybe something like this

http://i62.tinypic.com/30207t0.jpg

The phantom center would act like a sort of Lagrange point, but I don't know if such a thing would resemble something physically accurate

The planets would rotate around the phantom center, I didn't add the orbits elipses

Ah, I see. I was picturing something more like this:

In this case the SOIs aren't actually overlapping, but it still allows for an SOI change with a high enough circular orbit around one of the "moons", which could allow for some interesting trajectories.

[KerbMav]

In general KSP still suffers from a lack of "reason to go there" other than "have not been there before".

With the resource system (i.e. different resources from different moons/planets) wiped from the drawing board (currently/near future), time based science gathering deemed inappropriate and the surfaces apart from hills and valleys, icecaps and oceans being the same all over a planet/moon (Kerbin having a bit more variations, but still), there is no reason to repeatedly visit a moon/planet repeatedly, even with x biomes, as they all give the same "type" of science. (Which also makes rovers toys instead of tools.)

So, until the planets/moons get some cool details to explore and visit or maybe kerbals gain some kind of benefit from having visited x - Dres may very much remain a far away excentric Mun with an inlination.

But how in the name of the almighty RAM do you generate interesting and high quality surface structures and biomes for x number of moons/planets enabling the player to see something different every few roving minutes with a team the size of Squad and without blowing up the KSP engine?

[NecroBones]

Ah, I see. I was picturing something more like this:

http://i.imgur.com/8THIGDK.png

In this case the SOIs aren't actually overlapping, but it still allows for an SOI change with a high enough circular orbit around one of the "moons", which could allow for some interesting trajectories.

That's probably a better way to do it from a gameplay perspective, and to keep Weird Thingsâ„¢ from happening at the barycenter.

In reality, the barycenter would be a lot like a LaGrange point, in that gravity would be fairly balanced and cancel out there. KSP is using a point-gravity system, which would have the opposite effect of having nearly infinite acceleration as you get close to zero-distance from the barycenter. So you would need the two planetary SOIs to supersede the system SOI and prevent that from happening.

[Tw1]

Ah, I see. I was picturing something more like this:

http://i.imgur.com/8THIGDK.png

This is actually quite clever, and could work with KSP's one-SOI-at-a-time model.

You could orbit one planet, do figure 8 orbits, orbit the common center at a distance, but not have the problem of getting close to a singularity, as its effects would not be active. This sounds like it could possibly work. Planets are 'on rails' after all.

I don't know if KSP's SOIs work that way though, it might just be determined by a distance. I think overlapping SOIs could work, as it seems to be that SOI change is triggered when you enter an SOI, even if you are already in one.

However, odd things could happen near the boundary between three SOIs. PLus, SOI transition errors could add up, leading to problems...

Plus, unless the two bodies where very close in mass, it would not be convincing.

In general KSP still suffers from a lack of "reason to go there" other than "have not been there before".

With the resource system (i.e. different resources from different moons/planets) wiped from the drawing board (currently/near future), time based science gathering deemed inappropriate and the surfaces apart from hills and valleys, icecaps and oceans being the same all over a planet/moon (Kerbin having a bit more variations, but still), there is no reason to repeatedly visit a moon/planet repeatedly, even with x biomes, as they all give the same "type" of science. (Which also makes rovers toys instead of tools.)

This seems to a bit of a flaw with the way the Devs have been going about things. The game seems limited by its initial premise- build rockets, and fly rockets. Most of the game activity revolves around these two activities. A third type has recently began to take shape-managing your space program, answering the 'tycoon style' part of the premise.

However, management, building and flight are really just a means to an end. They haven't made the logical jump of making the game also about exploration.

This is the main reason I was quite disappointed with what they added as 'science'.

I was hoping one day, we'd be able to get close and personal with the planets, dig out detailed data while thumping along on a rover, hunt for past life and water, investigate geological features, trying to find, map, measure.

Instead, we get a broad strokes, in and out, click and collect system.

I'd rather have to earn the science, and have a full space explorer experience in the process.

I also think experiments which take some time makes sense- it would be a lot more immersive, and a lot of time will pass in game anyway. Timewarp mostly negates the inconvenience of real time waiting. Plus, checking an exposed experiment at different times could yield different data points.

It seems odd to me to land, and only take one measurement. Sure, this may be fine for a small, short lived probe, but not an expensive manned expedition.

Improving exploration, and adding it as something to work through makes sense- you'll get so much more fun out of each planet.

Once I thought a saw a mountain on Dres. So I landed there... Instead of a mountain I got a flat, barren wasteland.

I thought the crater I was going to land near had interesting while tops. But it all changed to a muted gray when I got close. But the terrain was full of undulations, rather than a mix of craggy hills and gentle paints like the Mun. Plus, even full sunlight was fairly dim, giving the place a far-flung feel. I didn't mind Dres.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Tw1

[Frannington]

Just as a side note... I realise that my first post and screen grab make me sound like I'm snarking on the developers. But that isn't the case.

I know that this is a beta program at this time, but it's apparently got an open API and already has a very vibrant and creative developer community. I'm grateful to you all for the hours, days, weeks of work that everyone has put in to make this a viable and interesting sim.

It's not perfect, might never be. But the fact that we can say "I want better" and then make it so is fantastic to me. It's what always appealed to me about MS Flight Sim.

[cantab]

There's been loads of discussion on how to handle binary systems in another thread. Can't find it now, but IIRC the "invisible barycentre body" approach was found to be very bad, while approaches using non-spherical touching SOIs worked better.

[Axilourous]

Hello! I am from the future! There is a mod called Sigma Binary that will handle all that for you(if you don't know that already)

Just add a simple node in the cfg of the planet

Edited January 22, 2017 by Axilourous