• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

502 Excellent

About LitaAlto

  • Rank
    Kerbal Bothering Stick

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

4,040 profile views
  1. I'd argue that it'd only seem like an absolute reference frame from the perspective of the the KSC, which is where you'd be spending the bulk of your time. I wonder if it'd make sense to switch reference frames between the active ship and the KSC, but no other objects in the game.
  2. I think I'd rather see it baked into the stock game, personally. Forward-thinking is not a bad thing in game design, especially if the game is designed with modding in mind--and KSP2 is claiming to have enhanced modding support. And to be clear, I'm not even talking about adding time dilation, only an upper speed limit and possibly nerfing acceleration as you approach the limit.
  3. I personally think that will be part of the challenge, and would be most educational on its own. After all, this is a problem that all interstellar flight will need to reckon with.
  4. Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that some KSP player with a bad reputation for doing horrible things with the game will figure out something. For once, I'm *not* including me in those ranks... although I don't know if I'll be able to withstand the temptation forever. Also, what do you think about Cydonian_Monk's comments about what n-body physics might do?
  5. Yeah, no worries, but the discussion of this thread is about game physics, so while this is all kinda off-topic, it's still relevant. Especially if.... ...which would be REALLY INTERESTING if you had, say, a colony there at the time. Shades of Space: 1999 there, with a side of Einstein spinning in his grave.
  6. Yes, I'm aware of the rocket equation, which is why I phrased it like that. I dunno, I admit that the whole argument from impracticality is still dissatisfying. But it's getting harder to put my thumb on what exactly about it is not satisfying. I still find myself wanting, if nothing else, the option to throttle vessel speeds to simulate relativistic effects on ships, just in case. Flipping? How so? You mean moving out its orbit? I admit, Jool's SOI is pretty big, and the moons are very close in. And wouldn't even minor instabilities amplify over time? Or does it amount to such ridiculous levels of deep time that no KSP player has, or *can*, experience it, even if they left the game open on top warp for decades?
  7. I'm expecting Whackjob's Glorious Return to be a cluster of over 100 Daedalus engines taking off from Kerbin's surface. (It's "over 100" because he lost count, understandably.) ... *takes off sunglasses* That's... absolutely brilliant. Doesn't that imply changes in the Chandrasekhar limit and changed effects on a number of other celestial objects which aren't currently planned to be included in stock KSP2? DON'T WORRY, SCIENTIST BRAIN, I'LL SAVE YOU!!! *builds a rocket for a scientist rescue mission* Would we be able to have a stable Kerbolar system and maintain current orbits and gravitational accelerations if KSP2 had N-body physics? We'd need a lot of planets to have harmonic resonances with one another, right?
  8. Integrating a notification/warning system like that would be very handy in general, and the deeper it is integrated into the stock game, the better. I'd definitely want a tab in either the flight view or map view that shows me upcoming events--not just maneuver nodes but arbitrarily set values like transfer windows or even RL events like, "Save the game and get some fresh air, you've been at it for six hours straight, yeesh!" I know many players prefer to fly one mission at a time, but I figure that a sufficiently advanced space agency will have multiple missions going at a given time, with dedicated resources. Without KAC in KSP1, I'd lose my mind, not to mention, my contracts. So yeah, fully agreed on that point. I'd say they should add that even if they make it relatively easy to fly from one star to another in a single gaming session, or throttle contracts to force you to complete only a few at a time at all stages of gameplay, or what-have-you. *mutters under her breath* I still want speed caps, darn it.
  9. That's actually part of my concern. In stock career mode, if you get caught up in a long-term mission without paying attention to the rest of the game, you can have contracts expire, transfer windows missed, and in some cases, slingshotting if you're not careful to avoid your ship's orbit passing too close to a body with an SOI. I can only imagine these issues amplifying once space travel is measured in terms of decades or centuries.
  10. Those are fair points. I just don't think we can presume that KSP2 developers will nerf Orion/Daedalus engines by default. Also, I half-expect someone to create a Whackjob-inspired monstrosity. Although the overall mass if the ship, including fuel, may prevent sizable fractions of the speed of light, I can't rule out someone finding a way to kludge around that. Maybe I *am* making much ado about nothing in the end, but all the same, this is the kind of thing I think about, maybe to the point of obsession, when playing games like this. Please don't get me started about Kerbin's density.
  11. For me it has more to do with setting the realistic expectation that traveling between stars takes a lot more time than it would between planets. I agree that, for gameplay purposes, the developers may decide this is too much of a complication to add in. I'm not sure we can presume that Orion/Daedalus derived parts will only reach speeds in the neighborhood of 0.1c, however. The devs could decide that speeds that would be relativistic in the real world is the more practical approach, and that could occur even if the galaxy is scaled down similar to the way the original solar system is. I'm sure a modder will add some sort of FTL drive, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first mods for KSP2 is a variant of the Alcubierre drive.
  12. I'm not sure I see how having stars and planets closer together would reduce the maximum practical speed to be lower than 0.1c. Could you elaborate?
  13. That's a fair point, although one could say GR is a generalization of SR that accounts for spacetime curvature, while SR presumes flat spacetime. But that wasn't really the point of confusion. It had more to do with people presuming I wanted FTL, when I thought I had made clear that I didn't. No. N-body physics has to do with the collective gravitational influences of more than two bodies in a given system. And as @chaos_forge pointed out, I mispoke. I meant Special Relativity, since SR is where the speed of light was first set as a hard limit. That hard limit holds true for General Relativity and I tend to refer to GR more than SR, but all the same, my main question has to do with whether it's possible that KSP2 will prevent FTL travel by any means at all, even accidentally through glitches, or if that loophole will still exist in some sense.
  14. I'm going to try to be as careful as I can with my phrasing here, because I really don't want to be misconstrued. (I tried asking this on one of the KSP groups on Facebook and it spiraled out of control pretty fast.) KSP2 developers stated that there will be no FTL drives in the game. I'm perfectly happy with this, and to be honest, would have been let down if they did add warp drives, wormholes, or other handwavium. Also, implementing full Special Relativity is way impractical for a game, and besides, the math gets hairy enough that I can't imagine a developer spending time trying to add proper SR into a game. However, it does occur to me that a developer could easily add the speed of light as an upper speed limit for ships, and also model acceleration so that, as your velocity is a larger and larger fraction of the speed of light, it becomes harder to accelerate faster. For stock KSP1, the parts are nowhere near powerful enough to reach sizable fractions of the speed of light with a reasonable fuel supply. However, they can in theory exceed the speed of light with the infinite fuel cheat, and with enough patience. Also, glitches can and have sent craft well exceeding the speed of light, as Danny2462 and others can attest. For KSP2, presuming that the Project Orion/Project Daedalus parts are similar to their real-world counterparts, they'd be able to reach a top speed in the neighborhood of 0.1c, but I can't hold myself to that presumption. It's entirely possible that these parts will perform more powerfully than their real-world equivalents, to reduce the travel time between stars. So having said that: What is the likelihood that KSP2 will have an upper speed limit? Do we even want an upper speed limit, as a community? (There are arguments for and against. I'd favor the realism of it taking a long while to reach other stars, even with advanced sublight drives, but I know some will insist on a mod that permits FTL travel, or think the concern is irrelevant.) I welcome your well-considered and respectful thoughts. Thanks. NOTE: I've updated the title and the post below to reflect that I was saying "General Relativity", but as @chaos_forge pointed out, Special Relativity is where the cosmic speed limit was first set. As SR is a special case of GR, my statement wasn't entirely inaccurate, but it was imprecise.
  15. It looks like it will support PS4 and XBox One, and if it's being built from the ground up, it should avoid the pitfalls that made porting to console so difficult to start with.