Red Iron Crown

Members
  • Content Count

    15,104
  • Joined

Community Reputation

12,446 Excellent

About Red Iron Crown

  • Rank
    Common Denominator

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

25,445 profile views
  1. #2 is already implemented, pressing the / key cancels time warp.
  2. To include L3, L4 and L5 would require an SoI much larger than the diameter of the child body's orbital diameter... that would require including the parent body in the SoI. At that point it stops being an SoI and starts being something else. So how do you determine the radii of these not-SoIs? What happens at the transition from one to another? Why are we reinventing the wheel when a wealth of existing knowledge about solving n-body problems already exists? What new problems are being created by using this half implemented model? It's not rude or unfair to point out that other games have solved this problem, or not to accept "math is hard" as an excuse for not implementing it. If it's a design decision to stick with Keplerian then that's the dev's prerogative (a decision I agreed with for KSP1), but to say "we want a more accurate model but can't be bothered to do n-body" is a cop out, IMO.
  3. SoI sizes aren't arbitrary. They're where the gravity of one body starts to dominate that from the other. Even if they were, an SoI would have to be stupidly large to include points other than L1 and L2. My opinion on this is to do it correctly or not at all. I've had quite my fill of half-baked implementations in this game. There has long been a working n-body implementation for KSP in the Principia mod as well as n-body physics in other space games, so we don't need to pretend that it's some sort of intractable problem for a video game.
  4. None of the Lagrange points would be inside the SoI of the smaller body though. This suggestion is unworkable on its face. I'd say either do full on n-body or stick with the Keplerian model already in use. Unpopular opinion: LaGrange points aren't that useful. They're a novelty at first and then almost entirely ignored after.
  5. Nope. @Dman979, he seems to be the latest reply on 50% of the forum games.
  6. Make it cartoony, so it's funny when they run out of life support and their heads swell up like balloons and pop. It's like anything else in the game, you get burned a few times and learn from it. I don't think dumbing down is the answer.
  7. I really hope life support is implemented. It's an embarrassingly large omission for a space game that purports to have any degree of realism; it was silly to leave it out of the first game and would be just as silly to leave it out of the second. It's one of the core challenges of crewed spaceflight, and would serve to make uncrewed missions more worthwhile. It would make high energy transfers useful for emergency resupply or just to reduce life support requirements. Doesn't need to be complicated. One supply resource, one waste resource, with high mass recyclers to make bases and stations self sufficient if that's your thing. And yes, kerbals should die if they run out of life support. I don't get why we're suddenly squeamish about dying kerbals after all the explosive dismemberment we've all done.
  8. Looks like you don't have the slightest understanding of what fraud is. KSP1 and the DLCs are sold as is with no guarantee of future support or development, this is stated explicitly and has been since the very first for-pay version was released. Nothing has been taken from anyone by the announcement of KSP2. You still have exactly the same things you paid for the day before the announcement was made. Using revenue from an existing product to fund development of a new product is business as usual. How did you think such things worked?
  9. Have you worked with chained constrained rigidbodies? Multithreaded physics works really well when you have large numbers of independent single collider objects, especially if they're primitives. Link a bunch of colliders together and put limits on the joints and suddenly most of your calcs are dependent on the results of others and the thread management overhead kills performance. Not all physics are created equal.
  10. If they're still using chained constrained rigidbodies to model craft I would not be optimistic about multithreading the physics calcs for a single vessel. Some problems thread well, others don't. It's not just a matter of flicking the multithreaded switch when compiling.
  11. I don't understand why people would think this.
  12. Wonderful news, I fully expected a sequel once T2 bought the IP. Trailer looks amazing. I like the colonization stuff, am leery of interstellar, and don't care about multiplayer beyond curiosity about which compromise is used for timewarp. Mixed feelings about Squad being shown the door, but then there's not a lot of old school Squad people left. I almost always wait for sales for my games but I'm pretty sure this will be a near day zero buy for me. Also nice to see @AmpsterMan in a thread, hi stranger!