Jump to content

Omni122

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    70

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Omni122

    Release Date Update from the KSP2 Team

    in 2022

    Posted · Edited by Omni122
    Added content

    4 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

    No complaining.

    No negativity.

    Just solid facts.

    People who insist that they always “give the facts” and are “brutally honest” are quite frankly insufferable. Facts can be negative.

    If I state that people die every day, sure it’s just a fact, but it’s still negative.

    Please stop commenting here if you don’t have anything of substance to add.

    Edit: Also how is “I think the game is cancelled” (it isn’t) a fact and not an opinion?

    Are Rask and Rusk planets

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    14 hours ago, K^2 said:

    So Earth doesn't orbit the Sun? Seeing how it's center is deflected from orbit by nearly 5,000km by the Moon's gravity. And neither do any of the other planets. Not a single one of them is in perfectly elliptical orbit, after all. Some perturbations always exist, even for Venus who does not have a moon. And then there was even that big shebang about Mercury's orbit precessing, which was eventually shown to be in part due to General Relativity preventing nice elliptical orbits in the first place.

    Seems like a crap definition, if you ask me, if it doesn't apply to a single body in all of Solar System. Nothing's orbiting anything else. That doesn't seem great.

    The center of mass in the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun. The Earth is by an extremely wide margin the dominant body. I guess both orbit a barycenter which goes around the Sun, but then that means every single satellite in the solar system is a planet by your definition.

    Are Rask and Rusk planets

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    On 1/29/2022 at 1:48 AM, intelliCom said:

    A ratio? What's the ratio?
    Who gets to decide what the ratio is?
    Is it specific, is it a range?
    If it's specific, what happens if we find a planet that perfectly sits on that exact ratio?
    Why does the presense of debris decide a planet's status? If we found a planet the size of Earth, but it's 'neighbourhood' resulted in a dwarf planet's ratio, is it a dwarf planet- not because it's undersized- but because it's "not big enough"?

    While no specific ratio is defined, the ratio between the 8 planets and the objects that share their orbits is orders of magnitude larger than all other objects that orbit the sun.

    We wouldn't find a planet the size of Earth that's neighborhood had not been cleared unless the debris had been generated very recently. If an object is not a dwarf planet, it will clear it's neighborhood in time.

    On 1/30/2022 at 3:08 AM, K^2 said:

    In what possible world is the Moon not orbiting the Sun? It's trajectory around the Sun is almost a perfect circle. 

    If something's path around another object is not perfectly elliptical, circular, parabolic, or hyperbolic, it doesn't orbit the object. Full stop, end of story.

    Are Rask and Rusk planets

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Omni122

    On 1/20/2022 at 4:31 PM, intelliCom said:

    There's a new definition for planet being proposed, which would essentially consider moons to also be planets of their own, ignoring the "clearing of the neighbourhood".

    Also, as an important note: If a planet could only be a planet if it's cleared its neighbourhood, would this make Saturn a dwarf planet?

    Clearing it's neighborhood has nothing to do with whether or not their are objects in something's orbital path, it is the ratio of an object to the mass of all other objects in it's orbit combined. Saturn is not a dwarf planet by the current  definition. 

     

    This thread is ridiculous, some people are actually arguing that the Moon orbits the sun. Oh my god

    On 1/20/2022 at 9:35 PM, K^2 said:

    I'm absolutely in favor of classifying the Moon as a planet. While Earth is massive enough of the two that the Earth-Moon barycenter is entirely within Earth's surface, Earth's gravity is still weaker than the Sun's as far as effects on the Moon. That is, Moon primarily orbits the Sun, not the Earth, and merely co-orbits the Earth. Another way to look at it is that Moon's trajectory around the Sun is everywhere convex - it is always accelerating towards the Sun. This isn't true for any other moon in the Solar System. All of the other moons are pulled by their primary with enough force that sometimes they are pulled away from the Sun. That really shows that the moons are bound to their planet. Since this is not the case for the Moon, it really doesn't make sense to say that it orbits the Earth as its primary.

    I would also argue that barycenter situation is temporary, as the Moon is receding, and this will eventually resolve itself. Yes, it's billions of years in the future, but I think it's a good enough example to use the tug-of-war definition instead of the barycenter one.

    There might be some naming confusion. But if it gets too confusing, we can start referring to the Moon as Luna, clearly distinguishing it from various moons of the solar System. But that's optional. Proper classification is the important bit here.

    Even if the Moon did orbit the sun (it doesn't), the moon still wouldn't have cleared it's orbit and would be a dwarf planet.

    Are Rask and Rusk planets

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Maria Sirona said:

    Oh now i understand.

    Anyway to my point! 

    The third criteria of the IAU planet definition is dumb because Jupiter would then technically not be a planet because of the trojans. 

    Discarding it, i see no reason to not consider the two of Rask ans Rusk planets.

    Actually, Jupiter would still be a planet. Jupiter is the most massive object in it’s orbit by a long shot. Pluto isn’t the most massive object in it’s orbit. Clearing its orbit means that an object makes up the vast majority of the mass inside its orbit.

    Tech Tree Progression

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    On 4/13/2021 at 7:53 AM, pandaman said:

    But that should be a player's choice IMO.

    If it becomes an enforced 'programmed in'  gameplay rule, like - Unlock crewed capsule parts once orbit achieved - then it just limits a player's options and creativity for no real gain.

    Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.

     

    If it matters that much, just play sandbox.

    Anyone else worried that KSP 2 will be bad?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Omni122

    6 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

    You're implying that even though the devs are avid KSP fans, they shouldn't make a sequel to KSP. You're implying than someone who has no or limited knowledge of KSP make KSP2. That is surely a good way to destroy the KSP franchise.  

    If you're worried about what the corporate side of things. That's not your concern nor do you have control over that. It's not something you have to stress about. Guarded optimism is the best approach in this case

    How on Earth am I implying that someone who doesn't know KSP should make the game? I'm implying quite the opposite.

    As a player, it is my concern. If they prioritize sales over quality that is absolutely our concern.

     

    Anyone else worried that KSP 2 will be bad?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    Wowzer, did not expect so many replies. Let's look at some interesting things you guys have said.

    22 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

    The devs have spent many hours playing KSP. Nate Simpson claims to have at least 2000 hrs put into KSP. They do know the original. They will get it right.

    Knowing the original isn't enough, if they even do. At the end of the day they're a business and will probably do what makes money.

    20 hours ago, Wubslin said:

    This thread is crazy. The devs have made every indication that the game is about building rockets, flying rockets around in semi-realistic spaceflight, and exploring planets. That's exactly what KSP 1 was about. And KSP 1 did in fact have "dumbed down, made for kids" mechanics like has been described in this thread to appeal to a large audience interested in spaceflight. There's no orbital pertubations, spheres of influence are huge. There's no ullage, distances are tiny and reentry a joke. It is impossible to kill kerbals via starvation or acceleration, and there are no radiological concerns. You guys need to take a step back and look at the game that Intercept is following up on. I have over 1,000 hours in KSP 1 and I can assure you that there isn't a whole lot of depth to the stock gameplay. In fact where I run into limitations is not from my own piloting skills but by a lack of navigation tools in vanilla. Multi-planet gravity assist daisy chains are nigh impossible in stock KSP because the game lacks the guidance information that has been promised to us for KSP 2. Everything we've seen indicates that the basic elements of the game are going to get more nuanced than before instead of simpler. I mean, KSP 1 doesn't even have a delta-v map! I had to print one of those out and tape it to my wall.

    "Making the game more accessible" from what marketing material we've seen most likely refers to a more comprehensive and easily digested passive tutorial system that can be disabled if so desired. Of course enabling sandbox mode and immediately reaching for the stupid powerful propulsion systems like the nuclear salt water rockets are going to lower the practical skill floor of the game, but that doesn't mean the skill ceiling isn't also being massively increased. Do you know how to fly an interstellar craft, mid timewarp, experiencing a constant 1 mG acceleration and whose attitude control authority has been necked down to 1°/day? Probably not without tons of accidental gravity losses at first. Or how about navigating in a restricted three body setting without the comfort of patched conics, unsure of whether you'll end up in a collision in your current reference frame?

    It is clear there are now going to be more complicated spaceflight challenges in the sequel, but we'll be given more powerful navigational tools and more performant engines to deal with them. Even if the early areas of the game get easier, I can almost guarantee there will be systems far out there that, if they can be reached, will challenge veteran stock KSP 1 players.

    You have to forgive them, it was made in 2011. It's one of the most advanced and accurate simulator games I've ever seen, jokes about the Kraken aside.  

    17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    I'd really like to believe KSP 2 will come out good, but I don't feel comfortable about how tight-lipped the devs are. Couldn't hurt to share things like the map view and a player assembling a rocket.

    This, exactly. The game has been in the works for almost four years, it was slated to release last year. After all that development time they should have something more than animations and a handful of screenshots to show for it.

     

×
×
  • Create New...