Deepest Depth in Kerbin Oceans?

[Kerbalwerks]

[bewing]

You're at least 100 meters short. The bottoms of the oceans don't go up and down much -- but you can definitely find spots that are over 1050.

 

[Geschosskopf]

Back when Kerbal Maps worked, it used to show you to deepest point.  IIRC, it was about 1500m.  I believe the deepest ocean in the game is on Laythe, where it was about 1900m.

[OhioBob]

Kerbin's ocean bottom is really just a flat plain with a noise function.  It's therefore sprinkled with a bunch of high and low points, with all the highs being about the same, and all the lows being about the same.  However, there's enough variability that some spots are lower than others.  I extracted a heightmap and used Photoshop to located three candidate spots (represented by the black pixels in the heightmap).  I then used a SCANsat altimetry map to zoom in on those three locations and scan for the lowest elevation.  I think I found it at -1393.5 meters, 27.07^o S latitude, and 79.00^o W longitude.

[Kerbalwerks]

Guess I was hoping for something like the Mariana Trench  or similar.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Kerbalwerks
spelling

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, Kerbalwerks said:

Guess I was hoping for something like the Mariana Trench  or similar.

I don't know why, but most of the planets I've looked at (including stock and several mods) have shallow oceans with flat bottoms (with maybe just a noise function).  I'm closing in on the release of a new planet pack in which my ocean world has nearly as much variation to the terrain beneath the waterline as above it.  My deepest point is nearly 6000 meters.

[ARS]

Would be interesting if the part pressure limit feature in difficulty option also affect the crushing depth beneath KSP oceans so it makes a more exciting submarine design

[Spricigo]

19 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I don't know why, but most of the planets I've looked at (including stock and several mods) have shallow oceans with flat bottoms (with maybe just a noise function).

I guess the limitations of submarine travel may have something to do with this. Somewhat of a vicious cycle, given the perceived lack of reason to explore the bottom of the oceans.

[Geschosskopf]

3 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I guess the limitations of submarine travel may have something to do with this. Somewhat of a vicious cycle, given the perceived lack of reason to explore the bottom of the oceans.

It's not a perception, it's a fact that there's no reason :).  The main problem is that the liquid and the bottom both are the same biome throughout.  If the ocean was divided up into different depth regimes, and the liquid and the dirt at those depths also separate biomes, then there'd be a reason to go down.  But right now, you can get all the available science from the ocean by sitting on the surface.

[Spricigo]

16 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

It's not a perception, it's a fact that there's no reason :). 

 

The game don't really give any, but some people still find their own reason to go there anyway.

Science (and contracts) can be used to provide some incentive . But I think most people will just take paths of less resistence (like ->minmus surface->top the tech tree -> ????).

[Geschosskopf]

4 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Science (and contracts) can be used to provide some incentive . But I think most people will just take paths of less resistence (like ->minmus surface->top the tech tree -> ????).

Well, ignoring the oceans is realistic in a way.  After all, we always hear that we know more about Mars than the bottom of our own oceans, that more people have been to the Moon than the bottom of the ocean, etc.  Apparently rocket science isn't as hard as submarine science  .

So, folks have been wondering what else could come out in DLC or KSP 2.  How about more development of the oeans?  Reefs, fish, sharks, krakens even.  And lots of biomes.  And stock submarine parts, and parts for underwater bases.  And the ability for EVA Kerbals to control their depth, to walk on the bottom, etc.  I'd buy that.