GluttonyReaper
-
Posts
525 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by GluttonyReaper
-
-
A picture would help here - orbits can bounce around a bit depending on craft design (e.g. minor flexing between parts can throw off the calculations a little), but it usually evens out when you let things rest. Does the orbit stabilize when you timewarp?
-
I actually had the opposite issue on my last machine - no matter what resolution I set it to (usually 720p as I was trying to boost performance), it would inevitably reset to my native screen resolution (3000x2000). It never switched from fullscreen to windowed though, that's a new one...
-
For reference, this would put Mars viewed from Deimos at about 33 times wider than the Moon on our sky. For Phobos, it's almost 80 times wider.
The other thing that occurs is that even during the 'night' on either moon, if you were on the side facing Mars you'd have this pretty large thing in the sky reflecting a fair amount of light. So weirdly enough, presumably the darkest time would actually be in the middle of the 'day' during your monthly eclipse.
-
Let the man rest.......
-
On 1/5/2024 at 1:12 PM, PDCWolf said:
The aggregate review flow shows a smidge of an uptick in purchasers, meaning 0.2 FS! actually got a couple people to buy the game, and some people to come back and play it again, but they still haven't broken half a million steam sales, 10% of the original. However that same data shows that, even for an update that gates progress behind long-term gameplay, retention is also very low. The current statistics show that ~50% of the people that came back are already out after 2 weeks. For what's supposed to be a long term mechanic, a mainline feature in the roadmap, that's really bad.
The reasons should be obvious, as KSP2 still fails to offer anything but a barebones remix of the KSP1 experience under a, very hard to defend as "better", coat of paint.
Obviously I can't comment on the quality of Science, but this is pretty the much main thing that's keeping me from picking up KSP2 - sure it looks like it's technically a better game than KSP1, but there's yet to be anything that really sticks out a "standout" feature that actually pushes me over the line. Streamlined systems and quality-of-life stuff like procedural wings and thrust-on-rails (while presumably a lot of work, and I'm happy they exist!) are obviously improvements, but they're not exactly enough to convince me spend £45 on the game when I already own KSP1. The only thing which really sticks out is the (vastly) improved graphics which, while essential for a game like this, can't really carry the whole thing.
(I should also clarify that buying KSP2 would involve buying a new machine that can actually run it... so I may be a little biased in that regard)
In general it feels like what we've seen so far isn't anything that couldn't have been implemented in KSP1 if it had continued development (game design wise at least), and any of the interesting features like colonies, resources, interstellar, etc. are so abstractly described that it's difficult to get excited for them. I had really hoped that a fresh start with a more professional team would have lead to all the stuff great about KSP1 being distilled down, and everything else being replaced entirely with something more game-like. Instead it feels like there's been a lot of time spent faithfully recreating KSP1, warts and all... just to continue where the first game left off, running into a lot of similar issues unsurprisingly.
That said, I would also note that there doesn't seem to be much pressure from the KSP2 team to actually sell the game at this point. Other than the initial EA push (which seemed to be a bit of mess), hype and marketing still seems to be contained to existing community rather than trying to bring loads of new players in. Perhaps they're aware of how bare-bones things are at the moment, and are waiting until there's more to show closer to a 1.0 release before really pushing it out there.
-
22 hours ago, RayneCloud said:
Nasa estimates there's something like 290 celestials around most major planets and dwarf planets in our solar system,
- 95 around Jupiter
- 146 at Saturn
- 27 at Uranus
- 14 at Neptune
- 5 orbitals around dwarf planet pluto
Somewhat tangential to the topic of extra planets (although personally my stance is that I'd rather have outer planets instead of interstellar travel...) but I'd quite like to see the asteroid system expanded to include a lot of these minor bodies, seeing as many of them are usually on the order of only a few kilometres in size. It'd be pretty neat to have to find and track the minor moons in the same way as we do with asteroids in KSP1, and that only leaves a handful of hand-made bodies to make for each planet, which lets you keep them nice and diverse.
-
2 minutes ago, HephaistosFnord said:
- "maneuvering engine" should definitely be a whole category, which includes all current RCS modules + the Puff + most of the radial methalox engines. All of them should get the full RCS advanced controls; other engines shouldnt.
They probably should, yeah - but I still feel like the convenience of them is enough to make them worthwhile without hobbling other engines, in a way that makes the game a fair bit more complex. I disagree on the RCS front... I'm a big fan of the game letting you make your own mistakes. Mainsails are obviously a terrible choice for RCS control, but that's something the player should find out themselves in a fun way, rather than the game arbitrarily deciding which engines "count". Plus, there's no actual reason that someone couldn't use Terrier engines as RCS thrusters on a really large craft, and that's definitely not something I want the game to stop people from doing.
-
Having messed with mods in the past that add similar mechanics... I'm kinda split on this. I like that it makes big lifter engines feel a lot more powerful when you have to let them spool up to full throttle before launching, but it does get a bit old after a while if you're launching a bunch of rockets, and I'm not really sure it fits the stock "vibe".
15 minutes ago, HephaistosFnord said:I can already anticipate most of the objections, but ultimately we need a reason for lower-performance engines to continue to exist, and the higher-performing engines already typically get used at mostly full throttle in most applications.
Sure, but arguably KSP1 managed to let most engines exist pretty comfortably in their niches without this quite successfully - I'm not really sure it's worth restricting them even further just to justify the existence of manoeuvring engines. In general, I think that KSP should err on the side of generosity rather than tight restrictions, and this definitely feels it would start to walk down the path of "There is one objectively correct way to build you spacecraft, and any deviation will be heavily penalised". That said, I wouldn't be opposed to there being a minimum thrust limit on some engines at least... it was always a bit odd to me that KSP1's infinite thrust limiting meant you could theoretically use your lifting Mainsail for docking.
37 minutes ago, HephaistosFnord said:Any engines that are sufficiently "instantaneous" (so all the monoprop some of the smaller methalox) should have the RCS "advanced controls" button so they can be tied to yaw/pitch/roll, lateral/dorsal/fore/aft, and forward throttle controls.
No opposition to this, though, if anything the game should let you tie any engine you want to RCS. The opposite would be great too, for smaller craft there's no real reason you couldn't tie your RCS engines to your main throttle instead of having any liquid fuel.
-
2 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:
Well... You can't exactly expect to travel to a place like Debdeb with, say, an RS-25. So you will be forced to use the tech if you want to travel to the other systems.
Right, but that's not arbitrary. That's physics.
-
14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
...and?
Let the player do what they want, the entire point of KSP 2 is giving players access to powerful engines. Yes, there will be mid-tier torch drives made specifically for smaller in-system vessels, but why would an advanced civilization prevent themselves from using massive interstellar engines for in-system travel should they come up with a use for that? Furthermore, why should the developers come up with an answer for that last question if one of the reasons for creating KSP 2 was to have stock torch drives?
And even better - if you're like me, and not really a fan of far-future interstellar tech in KSP, you can just... not use it. The devs so far seem pretty committed to creating a game where the player isn't forced to do anything arbitrarily.
-
5 hours ago, Periple said:
I expect that interstellar engines will have ridiculously high Isp but very low thrust. They would also be very, very big and very, very expensive (in resource cost).
So I imagine that you totally could use them in-system, but I'm not sure you'd want to, any more than you'd want to take a nuclear aircraft carrier to go bass fishing!
Right, at the very least, you presumably don't want to use up your rare precious resource when collecting more of that resource...
-
11 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:
Yes, there are no more dinosaurs or big insects, but there are space stations and MRIs. Maybe the next species will solve the problems of conflict and societal malaise.
Again, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here and saying life will go on, just not in the form it takes now.
Oh sure, mass extinction events could act as a "genetic reroll", giving a chance for creatures to evolve that never would otherwise... but there's no guarantee that they'll be better (or worse) in terms of, intelligence for example, than their predecessors. As always, it's difficult to gauge whether it ends up being a net positive versus letting life evolve through the slow route, because our sample size for development of intelligent life is still just 1 (for a particular definition of intelligence)
-
4 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:
Part of the issue with anthropogenic climate change is that it's happening much faster than "natural" causes, and evolution and migration in many cases can't keep up.
Right, it's closer to dousing your Petri dish in antibiotics than most natural causes. It's likely to be more of a man-made mass extinction event than anything else.
13 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:Global warming is also incredibly good for life as a whole. It would allow greater evolution if the environment was trashed and species were moved out of their comfort zone and forced to survive or die.
I say this as a counter to people who think global warming threatens “life” as a whole. It certainly threatens species that exist now, but life will go on even with worst case scenario ecological collapse.
Depends what you mean by "greater"
Arguably, the surviving species would simply be differently adapted rather than better in an absolute sense - they might be better at surviving in a more variable climate, but at what genetic cost? In general, I assume the massive drop in biodiversity would outweigh any gains made by individual remaining species - e.g. previous mass extinction events mean we don't have any giant lizards or insects running around anymore (although that might have been inevitable anyway).
-
What we really need is an Austin-Powers-esque cutscene that plays every time a Kerbal dies, in which a space program ambassador has to explain to their spouse and children how they were killed because someone forgot a parachute again... /j
-
I doubt it's the only mod that adds this, but Restock replaces the light models and lets you pivot them (the lights aren't listed on the forum post, but they are on the wiki page). I'm tempted to say that's the mod you have installed there given you have the variant colours from Restock too (and they look restock-ish)... but I'm not sure why you've got two versions of each? My install is only showing one of each model.
-
As always, the questions are: If you can't know one way or the other, does it matter? Even if we could know, would it matter? Part of the problem is we don't really have a concrete idea of what is 'real' in any meaningful sense - what makes my chair any more real than, say, a collection of particles whizzing around in a simulation running on my computer?
On 12/8/2023 at 5:03 AM, Superfluous J said:There is one logical (not scientific of course, just logical) argument that I find fairly compelling.
Either a simulation with the level of detail required to make our universe is possible, or it is not.
If it is possible, and 1 has been created, then we have a 50/50 chance of being in that simulation.
When have you known people to - once they can create something - create only one of that thing? If there are billions of these simulations running, we have a billions-to-one chance of being in the "real world" vs a simulation.
(I'm sure the original poster of this theory explained it better)
This feels like some kind of logical fallacy, or an abuse of statistics... but I can't quite work out why. I think the issue is that we just don't have enough information about the conditions - it'd kinda be like a student coming out of an exam, and saying that they have a 50/50 chance of passing, because there's only two possible outcomes: either they pass, or they don't. Obviously that isn't true - the actual outcome is the result of a mixture of complex outcomes, which is clear if you know what an exam is and how they work. But if we had no idea what an exam was, and only that there were two potential outcomes... I still don't think it'd be reasonable to assume a 50/50 split. This applies to everything: a coin flip isn't 50/50 because there's only two options, it's 50/50 because there's two specifically equally likely outcomes.
At this point, we know so little about how such a simulation would even work - let alone what a host universe capable of running one would look like - that it's pretty much pointless to try and assign a probability to the possibility. 'Why are we in this universe and not another one' isn't a question we can answer with numbers alone.
-
Yeah, I think the first and third specials both felt really rushed to me? Like I feel like they both could have used an extra 10-15 minutes to explore some of the more unique concepts that they brought up. The third special in particular feels like the actual conclusion to the story got pushed aside to accommodate... well, that. I dunno, it feels like an older RTD episode would have come up with a more clever and satisfying wrap-up to the whole Toymaker thing.
No complaints about the second special though, loved it. Gave me shades of 'Midnight', which is still one of my favourite episodes.
Spoilers ahead:
SpoilerI actually quite liked that they briefely acknowledged all the big canon-changing stuff from Jodi's era, if only because they genuinely managed to squeeze in more of an emotional payoff to all of it than they managed in 13's entire last season and associated specials. A nice little pat on the head for all of us who for reason decided to sit through all that, to make it feel like it wasn't totally wasted time.
The bi-generation was definitely... something that happened. I'm still holding out hope that we'll get a proper explanation for that in the series proper, and again I can't help but compare it to another previous odd regeneration - the Metacrisis. That was properly set up over a two hour special, with a convincing reason given as to why, and the consequences made really clear, which... which this just wasn't. It's a shame because there's a throwaway line or two in the episode which suggests there might be a reasonable mechanic behind it, but there just didn't seem time to properly explore it at all.
That said... I do like the idea that Tennant's Doctor is just permanently associated with really weird regenerations. Poor guy's had three of them now.
-
4 hours ago, ctbram said:
of course, it is not I am still killing relative velocity. When the relative velocity is 0.0 I press x to kill all thrust. But then the ship accelerates with NO THRUST 0.0 0.1 0.2... Then I have to reorient target retrogade and burn to reduce relative velocity to zero again and hit X to cut the throttle and once again the ships accelerate towards each other with the throttle cut.
As has been mentioned in the posts above yours, it seems that the issue is that the ship is thrusting for whatever reason even after you've cut engines, with your delta-v going down while your relative velocity is rising, and your TWR sitting at 0.02, which suggests it's not 'phantom forces' per se, but the engines not zeroing out when they should - you can see this in the video, the acceleration is always in the direction you'd expect the engines to be pushing you. This might be due to some weird control setup (flight sticks can act a bit strange with deadzones and all that) or some other control-related issue (does trimming thrust work? I actually don't know...), but it doesn't look like a physics bug.
4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:Yeah, cause two objects don't qualify as being in the same orbit just because they're within a distance of each other.
I don't think this is the issue in the second clip shown - the change is way too fast, and not really in the right direction.
-
6 hours ago, DennisB said:
How do you control your throttle?
Watch carefully your throttle indicator. After you made some short burns, the thrust doesn't went back to 0. If you look at the orbital parameters, they change at the same time. Stop the video at 0:34, watch the throttle and jump back to 0:14. You will see the difference. At 0:40 you can see how the thrust go back to 0, the orbital parameters and the relative speed are constant from that point. If you look carefully, you can see the exhaust gases too.
You can see this more clearly in the KER windows up above - over the same time period, the TWR is registering as 0.02 rather than 0.00, and the total delta-V drops from 2319m/s to 2317m/s, which suggests fuel is actually being used up.
-
Just now, Bej Kerman said:
ctbram was describing the vessels drifting apart slowly as opposed to a massive acceleration, so it's definitely not a bug.
Now that I think about it, there's an easy way to check - if there is any anomalous acceleration, you would be able to see the orbit changing on the map screen. If it's just natural drift, it'll still happen even when everything's on rails.
-
8 hours ago, ctbram said:
Furthermore, once you have achieved 0.0 relative velocity even taking into account the gravitational effects of the ship's masses and they - "not" being in the "perfectly same orbit" ships do not rapidly accelerate towards each other and apart accelerating infinitely.
As others have explained, this can appear to happen if the two ships have orbits with slightly different altitudes. Consider: you have two ships (Ship 1 & Ship 2) right next to each other, with Ship 1 in a perfectly circular orbit, and Ship 2 just slightly lower, but with the same relative velocity. Lower orbits need a higher velocity to be circular (gravity and all that). Ship 2 has the same velocity as Ship 1, but is in a lower orbit... so it doesn't have enough velocity to stay circular. Instead, Ship 2 has to lose altitude to convert some of that gravitational energy into extra velocity, effectively accelerating from the perspective of Ship 1, both radially and prograde. And because the entire orbit of Ship 2 is within the orbit of Ship 1, it's going to have a shorter orbital period, and the two ships will very quickly fall out of phase, so that effect doesn't just cancel out unfortunately.
This absolutely does happen in real life (IIRC, NASA effectively uses this effect in reverse to slowly approach the ISS), but the effects are hugely amplified in KSP because Kerbin is so small, so orbits are shorter and the curvature more extreme.
9 hours ago, ctbram said:And can you explain why one time I can hold at a stable distance at 0.0 relative velocity and then in the very same save get to roughly the same point get to 0.0 relative velocity and then just accelerate past the ship infinitely with zero external force being applied and never be able to achieve station keeping?
That said, if it's behaving inconsistently, then there might be something buggy going on. It's hard to say without video of what's happening.
-
On 11/29/2023 at 5:12 PM, king of nowhere said:
if you try to make realistic looking stuff, everything in ksp is overpowered.
actually it's not that the parts are overpowered - they significantly underperform compared to their real life counterparts. but the reduced size means that to orbit earth you need 10 km/s, to orbit kerbin you need a third of that
Tangentially related, but this is the same reason that Apollo-style Mun landings aren't necessarily efficient in KSP - with the fairly low dV cost, the mass of the extra capsule + landing engine + docking equipment can outweigh the benefit of not lugging your return fuel up and down in a lot of cases.
-
This is also a lot easier if your target is in an equatorial orbit. Once you start having to worry about inclinations... things get a fair bit trickier.
-
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:
I don't recall NASA having a limit on hair length so as long as they bring clips they're probably fine.
Genuinely I'd rather the choices be wilder than they are now - I want to see Kerbals with afros and mohawks, practicality be hecked.
Arguably, the surviving species would simply be differently adapted rather than better in an absolute sense - they might be better at surviving in a more variable climate, but at what genetic cost? In general, I assume the massive drop in biodiversity would outweigh any gains made by individual remaining species - e.g. previous mass extinction events mean we don't have any giant lizards or insects running around anymore (although that might have been inevitable anyway).
Overview of all AI, not just LLMs
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by GluttonyReaper
Right, this is pretty much the sticking point when it comes to all forms of machine intelligence - even in scientific fields, with purpose-built deep learning models for particular data sets, it seems that it's pretty tricky to cross that hurdle into finding new correlations that the average (or even expert) human wouldn't be able to find. It's great at reproducing some of the more nebulous correlations that humans can pick out, but catching the golden goose seems to require something different...
...which is currently the issue with AI-generated art. Theoretically it's only able to work within the parameter space given by its training set, and in practice it seems to only be able to work within a narrower 'average' portion of that parameter space where there's sufficient data to work with. I assume that's why it tends to produce either very 'safe' results that are arguably lacking that cohesive spark, or just weird nonsense that may as well be random, no matter what medium its working in.
I had a friend actually who trained an older LLM (GPT-2?) on some old chat messages for fun before things really blew up... and results were a bit mixed. Whenever it was stuck with a small sample, it would either just regurgitate a message from the training data verbitim (or close enough) or spit out gibberish words that were only sometimes pronounceable. I was told at the time that this was probably due to a combination of the model actually generating character by character rather than word by word, and the fact that some of the words in the training data actually were made-up nonsense, because that's how people speak online sometimes.