LitaAlto

Members
  • Content Count

    748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LitaAlto


  1. 33 minutes ago, rmaine said:

    Of course then you are basically establishing KSC as an absolute reference frame, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of the whole idea of relativity. And once you try to go down that line, everything falls apart. That's what lead Einstein into time being relative - it was needed to make it all hold together. Hmm, speaking of things falling apart when you try to enforce an absolute reference frame, I just now thought to ask what people would mean by an upper speed limit in KSP. Relative to KSP as an absolute frame? That's not how most speeds in KSP are given and it could result in odd artifacts when near light speed; granted the real world has odd artifacts near light speed, but different ones.

    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. 17 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

    The solutions tend to ship with the mods; if someone develops a crazy planet pack that has planets multiple parsecs out then I can almost guarantee that someone will make an SR implementation.

    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.

    10 minutes ago, rmaine said:

    And time raises further issues than "simple" dilation. Time being relative to the observer ends up implying that you can't even say whether two things happened at the same time or not. Also, the thing about light speed as a limit applies to information - not just physical objects. So if you wanted to do time "correctly" (or even some approximation to it), you would not be able to switch back and forth between focusing on your interstellar craft and the space center.

    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. 20 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

    Because of the scale of KSP I actually think even 10% of C will be less useful than people think; what use is getting where you want in days or minutes if it turns a lander into a kinetic impactor because you can't slow down fast enough.

    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. 15 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

    I tend to agree it might make things more complicated than necessary to model special relativity. Im sure they can just set engine power and interstellar distance such that getting above ~.3 c is unlikely.

    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. 18 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

    No one brought up performance (except you ;)). The question was stability.

     

    13 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

    oh my bad, I confused this discussion with the one in the n-body thread

    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....
     

    30 minutes ago, Cydonian Monk said:

    ...in a forced inherently unstable system there will be cases in which the math breaks down and things that were previously in safe orbits end up being ejected at superrelativistic speeds. 

    ...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. 1 minute ago, chaos_forge said:

    Yep, that's exactly the case. The rocket equation tells us that the delta-v of a rocket is equal to its exhaust velocity times the logarithm of the ratio of wet to dry mass. Since fuel tanks have mass, the mass ratio of a ship can only ever be at best equal to the mass ratio of the fuel tanks. So, given an engine with a certain ISP and fuel tanks with a certain mass ratio, there is a set maximum delta-v we can achieve. Asparagus staging can help somewhat, but you hit diminishing returns pretty quick.

    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.

    1 minute ago, Cydonian Monk said:

    A bit off topic from SR, but it does "mostly" work now using Principia. The only majorly unstable system is Jool, but flipping the orbit of one of the small moons (Bop? Pol? I forget exactly which) resolves much of the near-term instability. Long term stability would require some other tweaks. No reason those small tweaks couldn't be made by the KSP2 devs at launch. (Or even recognizing the instability inherent in Tylo and ejecting it off into its own orbit?)

    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. 38 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

    You might be able to  do asparagus staging with orion pulse nuclear drives , that would be kind of Kerbal. 
    Hold my beer. 
    You could do it with the big fusion powered craft to :wub: 1+8 to top it. 
    Jeb is running away visibly scared 

    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.)

    39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    In KSP orbits and planets are ~1/11 of their real size.
    But their gravity acceleration is same.

    Usually they say, the planets are dense.
    I always insist that their density is normal, they are made of same rocks, but in the Kerbal Universe gravitational constant is increased.
    (You don't know which part of GM is increased, so I believe that G).

    ...

    39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    So, just decrease c, say, by an order of magnitude.
    Then if Kerbal lightspeed = 30 000 km/s = 0.1 lightspeed IRL, then both Orion and Daedalus become relativistic starships.

    *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?

    7 minutes ago, Cydonian Monk said:

    No. Because I'm an engineer, and I keep the scientist part of my brain that constantly spouts off about SR and the inviolate nature of the speed of light bound and gagged and locked in a box somewhere in the back of my brain. ;) 

    DON'T WORRY, SCIENTIST BRAIN, I'LL SAVE YOU!!!

    *builds a rocket for a scientist rescue mission*
     

    7 minutes ago, Cydonian Monk said:

    As a game mechanic I think it would be interesting to see relativistic effects modeled, but I'd rather have other things first. Like true N-body physics. 

    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. 35 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

    In this case, something like Kerbal alarm clock, might be a much more important mod. Maybe important enough to become stock. Especially if you could make the game stop timewarp before any certain point so you don't miss things like that.

    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. 5 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

    Well, not really I would say. We have timewarp, so we don't need to wait several years real-time to get somewhere. So why would that matter? Yes, waiting for timewarp between stars would take longer than waiting in interplanetary space (unless they add enhanced timewarp for interstellar space), but other than that, I don't feel that expectation. just boredom unless I have another mission going. [Emphasis added.]

    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. 15 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

    It's not that having them closer together would reduce the speed, it's that engines in KSP tend to be less powerful than their IRL counterparts, because things are closer together. So if anything, I'd expect the engine in KSP to be less powerful than the Daedalus engine, not more powerful.

    ...

    Would that expectation not already be established by the simple fact that stars are way father away from each other than planets are?

    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. :D 


  11. 3 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

     

    It really comes down to fun gameplay, and accuracy (and the learning curves associated). Where would things be more worthwhile?

    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.

    2 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

    I was kinda hoping for FTL drives so that I could send a message back to Jeb telling him to send an expendable Kerbal instead. ;)

    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. 17 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

    One more thing:

    Generally, KSP reduces travel times by making things smaller and closer together, not by making parts more powerful. Engines in KSP actually tend to be less powerful than their real-life counterparts (apart from the ion drive, but that's because you can't accelerate during time warp). So if anything, I'd expect the max achievable speed to be lower than .1c, not higher.

     

    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. 18 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

    I think the reason people might be getting confused that you're talking about special relativity, not general relativity. Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant and nothing can go faster than it. General relativity says gravity isn't a force but rather the bending of spacetime.

    As far as implementing SR goes, relativistic effects only really start becoming noticeable at above .5c IIRC. So I don't think adding relativistic effects is necessary, but I also wouldn't complain if they do decide to add them.

    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.

    23 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

    By General relativity, do you mean N-body physics?

     

    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. 3 minutes ago, LegendaryAce said:

    I am rather upset that us console players have in the span of three years received a broken game, and a re-release with 3 updates that still haven't helped the performance of the game. 

    So I apologize if I'm a little skeptical about this new game, given the less than stellar track record for consoles. Plus it's another $60 on top of the previous $50 I spent in which I still don't have a fully working game. 

    Let's just hope this new release for consoles actually gets the attention it needs and doesn't stagnate. 

    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.


  16. I'm just here for the hype.

    Does anyone have a box of tissues they can spare? I just destroyed one box weeping over how glorious the new game looks like it'll be.

    KSP 1 rekindled the love for space that I had as a child, and I am looking forward to falling in love all over again.

    OMG, I think I'm going to start crying again.


  17. A cautionary tale about not calling up that which you can not put down. Oh, and fun with ejection seats in the latest version of Kerbal Space Program!

    If you like this or other videos of mine, please consider subscribing
     

    I originally planned to do this video when KSP 1.7.3 dropped, but then I came up with a video idea for #Apollo50 that I just had to do first.

    And yes, all my videos for new versions of KSP will feature improvements that nobody else cares about. Better silly and willy-nilly than shrilly. Really.

    In loving memory of the Rotary Rocket Roton SSTO.

    Oh, and Nagun Kerman, she'll be missed, too, I suppose.

    #OfficiallyHorriblePerson


    Kerbal Space Program 1.7.3 with Making History and Breaking Ground DLCs
    Additional parts and retextures are from Restock/Restock+:
    https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/182679-17x-restock-revamping-ksps-art-may-10-ksp-17-fixes/
    Extra KSC buildings are from KSC Extended:
    https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/181556-145-170-ksc-extended-v11-expanding-your-ksc-in-style/


    What is a Kraken? https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Deep_Space_Kraken
     

    More fun with glitches:

    I Accidentally The Entire Planet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSDPRsxSmEQ
    Munslide! Friction glitch in KSP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLLHfb1HWPA
    The Infiniglider In Its Natural Habitat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU4hlgm0wyo
     

    Music from https://filmmusic.io
    "Sweeter Vermouth", "Le Grand Chase", "Darkness Speaks", "Piano Cue One", "Epic Unease", "Flutey Sting", "Seventh Seal", "Music to Delight", "Der Kleber Sting"
    by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com)
    License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

    Sound effects from https://freesound.org
    License: Creative Commons 0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)


  18. 14 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

    We have different definitions of "realistic" :)

    I have to agree. If this were realistic, you'd have a really bad ground-based telescope that Kerbals would sit at, night after night, until those tiny little moving dots are identified as planets orbiting some central point, followed by a bloody argument over whether Kerbin is the center or not. Eventually the game would announce a theory of gravity, which would sit unused for rocket flight until yet another bloody argument using rockets to blow up the other side of the argument, finally followed by someone asking, "What if we used a rocket to, you know, send something up and not immediately blow up when it comes down? And can we send something up and *keep it up*?

    Someone, get to work on a mod for this. No KSP game will be realistic without hundreds of years of progress before you can use the map view or unlock the very first tech node.

    (I might be a bit cheeky.)


  19. Cuzican Aerospace celebrates the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 with a tastefully artistic photoshoot on the Mun. Note: It's really hard to get Kerbals to stay still for a photo. They'll see anything shiny and BOOM they're gone.

    SPOILERS: Easter egg.


    Main mods:

    ReStock/ReStock+: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/182679-17x-restock-revamping-ksps-art-may-10-ksp-17-fixes/&tab=comments#comment-3552725

    Near Future Technologies: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155465-17x-near-future-technologies-nf-electrical-upgrades-july-9th/

    Rocket Emporium: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/174748-161-rocket-emporium-184-2019-03-02/&tab=comments#comment-3373987
     

    Music: 

    "Heroic Age" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
    Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


  20. 53 minutes ago, jrodriguez said:

    Ok, so it looks pretty bad and I don't think I will be able to fix it easily. The reason is because there is not exceptions and the standard KSP API is returning unexpected values when the vessel has a robotic arm.

     

    That's a shame. I noticed it recently and was very confused why my craft were being launched, not just into orbit, but in one case into an absurd escape velocity out of the entire Kerbol system. LIGHTSPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDohwait.


  21. 3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

    What a great idea!

    what about providing custom indexing through module manager?

    [basename]&# where # indicates a schema listed in an MM config file, so you specify “dutch=een,twee,drie” and “german=ein,zwei,drei” or whatever names one wants to choose.

    That way, one could name [USS]&navy and get “USS Enterprise” “USS Constellation”, “USS Nimitz” etc.

    This might be a decent way to take care of a problem I mentioned earlier with non-Latin enumeration, say, for Cyrillic. I don't know how easy it would be to implement or if @Beale would be interested in adding it, though.

    23 hours ago, Beale said:

    Well now I have more than considered it :wink:

    Version 2.2

    GitHub

    • You can now add a tilde ~ to the end of the project tag for ABC naming.

    YAY! I HAD AN I D E A!!!

    Sincerely, though, thank you, I can't wait to try it out!