Jump to content

K^2

Members
  • Content Count

    4,569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by K^2

  1. Mostly, you just need to pick a target with reasonably calm and predictable atmosphere. Something like Venus makes a good target, because at altitudes you'd want to place colonies, there is not that much turbulence and shear. Keeping a structure like that "anchored" is a fool's task, but if it gets carried around the planet at a consistent latitude not too far from equator, that's good enough. There's going to be a size limit, but we have skyscrapers nearly a kilometer tall that withstand much greater wind shears than you'd expect over similar distance in Venusian atmosphere at 50+ km. So a co
  2. That's why you need good insulation. A good dewar can slow the heat getting in from environment to the trickle, so you only have to worry about the opening where you let the light through. There are aerogel structures that are very translucent in thermal IR and are as good at insulation as space shuttle tiles. If you want, you can also add a thin metal layer deposit on top to reflect visible light while letting IR through. Something like that ought to work outside, sitting on the sand during the day. That's a neat trick, right? But we're talking space-age technologies at that point. What I don
  3. Oh yeah. The drag model might be primitive, but at least it makes some consideration for occlusion now.
  4. Swept wing only makes an impact if the airflow gets close to speed of sound. Since KSP doesn't simulate anything relating to speed of sound, swept wings make no difference. Making a simulation that faithfully simulates impact of swept wings is actually pretty hard, as it has to simulate the way air flows around the wing, but like most things, so long as you don't need it to be precise enough for engineering work, it can be faked rather convincingly. But it is a packaged deal. If you want swept wings to be meaningful at transonic speeds, you'll have to deal with a whole host of problems if
  5. Nah, the principles are solid, but I've never seen it work as described. The correct setup involves some tricky materials that provide good insulation while being perfectly clear in thermal IR. These materials exist, but that makes the contraption a lot more complicated than simply a box with a hole and some mirrors. Nonetheless, on a clear night, you have fairly low amount of IR coming in from above - a lot less than you can radiate out even at sub-zero temperatures. So if you have good insulation, you get sub-zero temperatures with fairly warm ambient.
  6. It's not an either-or, regardless. It takes very different people to work on these tasks. It looks like Intercept got a good amount of art and tech art people from Star Theory, so they're running with what they have. I can't quite tell what the situation was at Star Theory, but as of formation of Intercept, they needed a physics engineer, and it took them a while to find one. And it's still not clear if they got somebody senior enough to make anything like the LoD system they've talked about. Naturally, it's all limitation of budget. You can sink enough money into the search to guarantee
  7. A lot of the work that HarvesteR did would fall under the responsibilities of physics programmer, so I would argue that Squad did, in fact, have these kind of resources. Availability of said resources to focus on physics tasks is a separate matter, however. KSP physics performance was abysmal. Part of it was certainly due to Squad having to work with limited resources, and part due to just the state of physics on Unity being in a really bad place, especially, at the time. KSP2 is in a better starting place just from having a more up-to-date version of Unity. So we should have better physi
  8. Yeah, especially, if you have some striping across disks to increase read speeds, I don't think it'll make that much difference until we do start getting the same kind of in-line decompression and DMA that we see on PS5/XBSX. So a few years, at least, and even longer until enough games really make use of it. Even then, it'll probably only make sense for games. Personally, I use a SATA SSD for OS, because it's not that much space and it does improve boot times, an M.2 for the Steam library to get the games spinning up fast, and everything else goes on conventional mechanical disks. At work
  9. Sorry, I'm replying out of order here a bit, but the optimization is read-speed vs processing speed, generally. For example, it makes sense to leave more resources uncompressed if you are going to be reading them from SSD rather than HDD. At a slower read speed of HDD, you often get an asset in memory faster if you are reading a compressed stream and decoding it as blocks are read. On the other hand, with NVMe M.2 SSD, it can take longer to decode compressed data than to read uncompressed data in directly if the CPU is busy doing other loading tasks at the same time. Of course, this also impac
  10. The difference between a flat plane and cambered wing is primarily the critical AoA and sharpness of stall onset. In that aspect, the KSP wings are already simulated as cambered, albeit, as if the camber is symmetric. The asymmetric camber is almost entirely equivalent to increasing effective AoA while keeping the same chord and aircraft pitch. You can get that in KSP by simply angling the wings. It looks a little ugly, and getting parts that have built-in asymmetric camber for a bit of extra lift at zero AoA would be great, but it's honestly a component/design fix, rather than any change
  11. Fast SSD is a big feature of next gen consoles. I suspect, a lot of optimization will go into loading speed both on the Unity end and at intercept. I don't know if that will make a huge impact on NVMe speeds, but it should help.
  12. Well, nobody actually really does physics on GPU anyways. Yes, I know that was supposed to be one of the big selling points of PhysX, but nobody wants to use GPU resources for it, and most of the stuff you'd want to do massively in parallel for physics, GPUs weren't terribly good at. With RTX, that can actually change quite a bit, because BVH accelerators for RT can be used for collision checks as well. But if your options are to have ray tracing or GPU physics, which one are you going to chose? Pretty much every game out there goes with more graphics and does all the physics on CPU as that's
  13. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Something that fits KSP2 and is written especially for it. Kevin Macleod works in a huge variety of musical styles and I have no doubt he can write something that would fit. You do know that the works in the free library are quickly slapped together just to have a good variety of tracks, right? Have you heard any of his more serious works? He is a very capable composer.
  14. I'm going to be really upset if they don't hire Kevin Macleod to write at least one track exclusively for KSP2. I don't care if it's a small Easter egg track somewhere, just something.
  15. CPU PhysX only, but we might get some of the multithreading optimizations from recent Unity versions. Havok's unlikely, as that requires ECS/DOTS setup, and it sounds like Intercept is building KSP2 on GameObjects, same as original KSP. It would be amazing for both stability and performance, but seems unlikely.
  16. Haven't we already had confirmed planets in the Alpha Centauri system? Which is technically a ternary with Proxima being loosely bound to the AB binary.
  17. I mean, it's cultural, but it is an almost inescapable consequence of its properties. Because gold was used in jewelry-making, it had some intrinsic value. It's also very easy to split and relatively easy to combine. More importantly, it will never spoil. So you have something that you know will always have some value, even as just a piece of shiny, and it will never, ever lose that value so long as there are people in the world. That in itself has a lot of additional value. Add to that the fact that it's hard to find, so nobody's going to devalue gold by just coming up with an enormous quanti
  18. This is a slight tangent, but I've stumbled on this comparison. The author admits that because it's a conversion from GameObjects to ECS that it's not exactly the cleanest of tests, but I think that actually makes it apply even more to KSP2 discussion, since if, in theory, KSP2 was to go with ECS/DOTS, they'd probably take a similar route. The performance losses in pretty much the best case scenario you can have are way worse than I expected. And it looks like multi-core utilization is still quite poor. @runner78 You seem to have some experience with Unity perf analysis, so if you ha
  19. Warp requires negative energy. In fact, it requires enough negative energy to make the total mass of the ship + warp bubble to be exactly zero. I can talk at length about why, but it comes down to conservation laws. A warp bubble doesn't magically let you violate conservation of momentum - it ensures that the momentum of the ship + bubble is zero, allowing it to move at arbitrary velocity without violating any conservation laws. At the same time, space within bubble moves along with the bubble, so you don't violate principles of locality either. There are also long discussions that can be
  20. A good example would be weather forecasting for planets that might be tricky to land on during inclement weather. There was a bit of a discussion in another thread on pros and cons, but I still think that it'd be a good addition to gameplay if it's a factor on at least a couple of worlds. The way to tie this into science is that you can't really get a good forecast without a lot of data. So you'd want to drop probes in multiple points on the planet to get temperature, pressure, and maybe humidity readings, on top of setting up some monitoring satellites in orbit. Once you are getting enough da
  21. It would be, if we had no other sources of current. ∇.B = 0, and ∇xB is proportional to current density. Fixing magnetic field at any 3D surface fixes it for the entire space if we don't have other significant sources of current. But yes. Strictly speaking, we aren't talking about the same surface. Mars is smaller, and at any rate, the configuration of the field is going to be different. However, for space weather, if we get the same B field at poles, we should be in a good place. Yes, it's a ballpark estimate. If you need something more precise, you'll have to do simulations of the entire mag
  22. First of all, Mars being smaller would give you the same field at lower magnetic moment. p = BV/μ0, so if your goal is to maintain the same B at the surface, the current in the coil scales with radius, and so is going to be a little over half this value. Second, like Earth, Mars has a metallic core, so relative permeability is going to be very different from 1, which gives you better magnetization at the same current in the coil. For pure iron core, it'd be around 5,000. For an iron-nickel core that's about half of the diameter of the planet it's going to be in high hundreds. All in all,
  23. Tornados are caused by unstable atmosphere. You get a powerful enough convective flow, and it will make a vortex. A nuke only makes this worse. Sure, it might disrupt the existing tornado, but conditions will be ripe for a new one to form from the mushroom pretty much immediately, and this time you'll have a radioactive tornado.
  24. I haven't lived in Russia for a very long time, so my perception is definitely colored more by attitude towards vaccines in general in the west. And because it's usually a bunch of moronic antivaxer conspiracy theorists that keep parroting the same absurd claims for decades, resulting in nothing but harm to society, I might be a little biased here and less willing to be sympathetic or seek compromise than I would otherwise. Back when I went to school in Russia, we all got vaccines as a class. I don't remember anyone making a fuss of it, other than maybe some kids being afraid of needles.
×
×
  • Create New...