Jump to content

Do you expect 1.1 physics act differently compare to 1.0.5 other then wheels?


omelaw

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Engineer of Stuff said:

Multi-core support is something that KSP really needed.

Yes, however unknown how much it will help, it will help if you have multiple large ships, probably help in the atmosphere, not so much static load, like doing long burns with huge spaceships. 
some designs like pulling the payload might work better than an well strutted tower as you could divide the tree. 
One option for bases would be to divide it in parts so don't dock the science and living module to the isru one. Perhaps KAS can come up with an connection who share resources but not link physic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope it runs better

My current computers old but I believe it serves as a good yardstick..

I get around 10 less fps with the same scenes and parts in 1.05 than I do in 1.04.. Time slowdown happens sooner and in general everything looks the same and it acts the same on lower settings

 

I blame new water physics.. While yes I can and will buy a new PC, it puts KSP on a disturbing path down a slippery slope that many such games have been down

Where we end up needing more horsepower to run the same game weve always played.. With a few new features

 

In simpson terms.. Malibou stacy with a new hat

I dearly hope they fix it with 1.1

Its sad to say so because I love water physics..boats and paddlesteamers thay could make KSP rival most ship simulators too with the right mods. 

Wheels would be nice to fix..

But maybe not if they end up needing an i7 cpu if theres more than 4 on a craft :(

Edited by Overland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to the OP, I think some things may "appear" to work differently IF you are the kind of player that is always pushing the envelope with part counts and crazy designs.  I say "appear" because with multi-core support you may see less incidents of random for-no-reason explosions as the physics will hopefully crap out or just plain give up, less.

With general performance in mind, I think we could see a lot of old issues within the game just disappear.  The big thing you have to keep in mind is that with a game engine overhaul, there will be large portions of the code that have to be gone over.  In most cases a lot of what devs are doing in these situations is quite literally just cleaning up messy bits of programming, which in turn, leads to less overhead needed from the system the program is running on in most cases.  Its one of the reasons why you often hear scientists and science geeks talking about "beautiful" equations or programmers talking about "beautiful" code work.  Getting an equation or a bit of scripting down to something that is practically perfect for the task with no extra fluff or ragged edges is quite a beautiful thing to behold, and,  just flat works better.  Especially when it comes to programming.  Having a few ragged bits of code around in something that only runs every five minutes isn't so bad.  Having a ragged code that has to also run every 60 ticks, or 60 times a second, can bring even simple games to there knees if its running on minimum spec hardware or even mid-grade stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be shocked if the physics didn't behave differently. Remember, we're going from PhysX 2.X to 3.3, I think, which is a lot more involved than simply "you can now use multiple cores, guys." A lot of the underlying code had to change to accomplish just that, plus any new features or performance tweaks they added in that time frame.

If implemented well, these kinds of changes are largely transparent, but if anything is noticeable, it's usually in edge-  or corner cases. Thing is, "edge case" pretty much describes KSP's implementation of game physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JamesL86 said:

In most cases a lot of what devs are doing in these situations is quite literally just cleaning up messy bits of programming, which in turn, leads to less overhead needed from the system the program is running on in most cases.  Its one of the reasons why you often hear scientists and science geeks talking about "beautiful" equations or programmers talking about "beautiful" code work.  Getting an equation or a bit of scripting down to something that is practically perfect for the task with no extra fluff or ragged edges is quite a beautiful thing to behold, and,  just flat works better.  Especially when it comes to programming.  Having a few ragged bits of code around in something that only runs every five minutes isn't so bad.  Having a ragged code that has to also run every 60 ticks, or 60 times a second, can bring even simple games to there knees if its running on minimum spec hardware or even mid-grade stuff. 

I would like to believe that as well, but the evidence on hand suggests otherwise.

On 1/26/2016 at 4:12 PM, SQUAD said:

A wide range of issues was fixed this week: from initialization issues that were caused by oversights from six months ago to more bizarre bugs such as the one that caused parked wheels to start drifting. We never quite discovered the root cause of the issue, but Felipe devised a plan (a very cunning plan) and simply corrected the phantom torque with an equal and opposite torque. Newton would be proud. The wheels now stay in place, which means that vehicles continue to not move as they should.

I hope it's clear that my intent here is not to hate on SQUAD, but rather to point out that their goal is simply to ship a working product by any means necessary, on the quickest timeline possible. If you think that they won't try inelegant hacks to work around problems they encounter in Unity's physics engine, see above. (I believe this specific hack was reported to have been removed in the next dev note, for what that's worth.)

Edited by HebaruSan
weird indenting miraculously fixed itself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like a lot of the simulation and interactions have been improved in PhysX 2 vs 3

There was one particular video which showed the improved simulation stability between the two by spawning in things like bridges made of linked rigid-bodies and stacks of boxes etc and now I'm trying to remember which article it was featured in

Then there's always this bad boy, I mean, dannggggggggg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2016 at 9:27 AM, nosirrbro said:

No, the only real change is allowing for multi-core processing which I wouldn't think would effect anything

At the very least I would expect it to let me keep my proof-of concept outposts closer to the space center.

Currently I deploy everything 3km+ from the space center to limit the impact on launches.  I would expect that necessity to go away with multi-core physics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanilla KSP doesn't really need an upgrade, this is more for the mods and fans than anything else.

I think of stock KSP as the EASY mode for the game, when I begin installing the mods that I really want the game becomes much more difficult and involving. I think squad sees this as well and decided to upgrade ksp to the newer unity engine because people want to add bigger and more numerous mods to the type of game they want KSP to be.

If squad FORCED us all to play stock KSP ONLY I guarantee people would have become bored of it and stopped playing it years ago. So in conclusion it is in squads best interest to keep the community happy and keep upgrading the game so that we can play the game we want with the features we demand. 

I for one am hoping for a massive performance improvement with this newer engine but am expecting nothing very noticeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2016 at 11:00 PM, NoMrBond said:

Then there's always this bad boy, I mean, dannggggggggg.

You probably shouldn´t have shown me that. Now I´m even more curious what 1.1 will bring. If it will do something like that to KSP I see dark days ahead for my social life.

It would be so awesome if we get acceptable FPS on any craft thats bigger than a few parts, and I´m not talking about +1000 part vessels here. My timer seems to flicker yellow sooner and sooner with every new patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think it'll change anything. Since I started with 0.18 and it's wonderfully unreliable wobblerockets, everything about the physics wents towards more realistic, realibly physics. Might be some minor changes in how stuff behaves, but in general everything that logically should be stable will stay that way.

Only rover physics will - should - be very different!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2016 at 0:59 PM, JamesL86 said:

In most cases a lot of what devs are doing in these situations is quite literally just cleaning up messy bits of programming, which in turn, leads to less overhead needed from the system the program is running on in most cases.  Its one of the reasons why you often hear scientists and science geeks talking about "beautiful" equations or programmers talking about "beautiful" code work.  Getting an equation or a bit of scripting down to something that is practically perfect for the task with no extra fluff or ragged edges is quite a beautiful thing to behold, and,  just flat works better.  Especially when it comes to programming.  Having a few ragged bits of code around in something that only runs every five minutes isn't so bad.  Having a ragged code that has to also run every 60 ticks, or 60 times a second, can bring even simple games to there knees if its running on minimum spec hardware or even mid-grade stuff. 

From what I have read, John Carmack is pretty damn good at writing beautiful code, which is why he has been the lead on so many ground-breaking new engines during his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been a public release that didn't involve some change in physics, be them aerodynamics, joints, heating, or thrust profiles?  I expect nothing different for this release.

 

I also have absolutely no sympathy for people complaining that new physics breaks old craft/saves.  KSP physics is nowhere near real, nor it is attempting so to be.  Squad's every-changing view of how the game should play shouldn't be hampered by such things.  They make the changes and we adapt.  If that means re-testing and re-flying ... isn't that what the game is about?

Edited by Sandworm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What most here mean is this:

Newer physics won't correct for sloppy planning/flying   :)

I'm fairly sure we'll see a 5-10% improvement all around, but your mileage may vary, everyone's system is different.

I will enjoy it no matter what the improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...