sh1pman

Kerbal Space Program 2: Master Post

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kerballing (Got Dunked On) said:

*like*

is it not possible to like posts anymore btw? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

is it not possible to like posts anymore btw? 

They're temporarily turned off because of a technical problem.  Hopefully back soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Vexillar said:

They're temporarily turned off because of a technical problem.  Hopefully back soon.

Keep them off permanently please. It will only improve the forums!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone notice that at the end of the trailer the kerbal's fingertips where exposed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

did anyone notice that at the end of the trailer the kerbal's fingertips where exposed? 

It does kind of look like that.

Edited by MechBFP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do none of them talk about the parts count limits from cpus. That is one of the biggest problems. Can they not slim down the code or somethig to give more room(low level code?). Or find other solutions to help split a ship body to multiple cores or something?! Or run it from GPU if it's possible. Isn't there a way to improve parts count. (I don't care if these are viable solutions specifically. That is not the point. I just want it improved. And by a lot. 2x or more minimum.)

Edited by Arugela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Arugela said:

Why do none of them talk about the parts count limits from cpus. That is one of the biggest problems. Can they not slim down the code or somethig to give more room(low level code?). Or find other solutions to help split a ship body to multiple cores or something?! Or run it from GPU if it's possible. Isn't there a way to improve parts count. (I don't care if these are viable solutions specifically. That is not the point. I just want it improved. And by a lot. 2x or more minimum.)

They have said on multiple occasions that they intend for any computer that meets the minimum specs to be able to build any vessel seen in the trailers(including the one where the ship leaves the space-dock) without any lag.

That looks like hundreds of parts to me, so hopefully that will be enough for players with lower-end computers.

Edited by Terwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me is not so much the performance with large vessels, but how the game and those big vessels will perform when it's taken into account that I would likely use a lot of mods too. Clearly since they aren't going to include stuff like n-body physics into the base game, somebody else will have to. And even though I don't know much at all about modding, I doubt it's not without at least some overhead and that it's always even possible to access as low of a level optimizations as if a feature were built into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why everybody is so set on n-body physics when simply going from 2 body to 3 body would do SO much of what the players want... namely La Grange points.

You don't need n-body physics to do that... you just need 3-body physics. Keep the SOIs, but now if another body is within another's SOI, (just as the Mun's SOI is wholly within Kerbin's SOI) it's modeled correctly and its gravity AND that of its parent body affect objects within the smaller body's SOI. If two moons orbit a planet so closely that their SOIs overlap, then the parent body's gravity get ignored and those two are the only factors.

It's a hierarchy where smaller bodies take priority over larger ones. You're always in Kerbol's SOI, (at least until you go interstellar) and when you're in low orbit around Kerbin (and thus in the SOI of both Kerbin and Kerbol) both bodies would affect your orbit. If you move into the Mun's SOI, (which would extend a good distance toward Kerbin) Kerbol's influence is discarded (as it's nearly imperceptible anyway) and only the Mun and Kerbin's gravity affect you. Like that.

So if you have two moons in a Trojan orbit around each other orbiting a planet, since you'd be in the SOI of both moons, only THEIR gravity would affect you and the planet's gravity (and the star's) would be insignificant and could thus be discarded.

Yes, it would be harder to set up geostationary orbits that occasionally passed through a moon's SOI... but that's what people say they want... REALISTIC! (well, as realistic as you can get with a game about little green men)

Just thinking out loud...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobertaME said:

namely La Grange points.

But only 3 out of 5, apparently. The Principia documentation goes into more, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Delay said:

But only 3 out of 5, apparently. The Principia documentation goes into more, though.

It all depends on how big you make the SOIs. If the Mun SOI goes all the way to Kerbin, then that gets four-out-of-five because you get 1 , (between the two bodies) 2, (opposite the two bodies) 4, & 5, (60° ahead of and behind the second body) but not 3. (opposite the second body)

Make it smaller and all you get is 1 & 2... make it bigger and you get all five. (but it starts causing problems when you take into account multiple satellites) But that's just a playtest variable that you tweak until you get it to work right. Since SOI is body specific anyway, you can tweak each one to suit the circumstance.

Is it more complex than "on rails"? Sure, but it's WAY simpler than n-body and less prone to "unintentional star-system disassembly", which is their main argument against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RobertaME said:

It all depends on how big you make the SOIs. If the Mun SOI goes all the way to Kerbin, then that gets four-out-of-five because you get 1 , (between the two bodies) 2, (opposite the two bodies) 4, & 5, (60° ahead of and behind the second body) but not 3. (opposite the second body)

Make it smaller and all you get is 1 & 2... make it bigger and you get all five. (but it starts causing problems when you take into account multiple satellites) But that's just a playtest variable that you tweak until you get it to work right. Since SOI is body specific anyway, you can tweak each one to suit the circumstance.

Is it more complex than "on rails"? Sure, but it's WAY simpler than n-body and less prone to "unintentional star-system disassembly", which is their main argument against it.

But you now can't put inactive vessels on rails.  So what will happen if a player does a duna mission, and leaves the Kerbin return vessel in orbit whilst they switch to another vessel whilst waiting for the Kerbin return transfer window?  Ike will tug on that orbit every orbit, and sooner or later it is likely to distort the orbit enough that the return craft either enters Duna's atmosphere or Ike's SOI.   Not fun if you want players to have multiple missions/space stations in play at a time (except perhaps for the really hardcore players, who will happily use mods if the mod gives them something they want that vanilla doesn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 7:34 PM, strider3 said:

Customizable burn rates on SRBs, please.

The+Solid+Propellant+Rocket.jpg

Y e s

 

I would love to have customizable burn rates, (and grain geometries) to become a part of the game. Also, hybrid rocket motors would be awesome to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 4:34 PM, strider3 said:

Customizable burn rates on SRBs, please

KSP1 supports the behavior of a variable burn-rate as an SRB burns through its fuel, 
so if that detail carries over in the re-implementation for KSP2, that increases the chances of getting what you want.

Even now, it is possible that someone has made a KSP1 mod that lets you select variant SRB profiles,
and some players write config files to customize the stock SRBs to their liking:
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/142626-srb-thrust-curves/
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/138654-how-to-do-thrust-curves-in-stock-ksp/

Edited by OHara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will their be an option to use more than 1 decoupler pr part? to in crease stability without struts!

Will their be an option to set 2 targets on the same vessel using 2 docking ports? to create more complex vessels in orbit!

Will their be an option to control 2 (or more) vessels in the atmosphere. so Ex. 2 escape pods enter the atmosphere at the same time. you will be able save them both? as it is now. the 1 (or more) uncontrolled will crash. even though it's parachute are set to deploy automatic.

And a nice to have suggestion. Add a small timer that can be set as global hud. So you can do other things while taking on a spaceflight. and then have that set timer. to know when to go back and take control of the flight. :)

 

Just started playing ksp a week ago.. and think it 1 of the best games ever.! So have high hopes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oqt1 said:

will their be an option to use more than 1 decoupler pr part? to in crease stability without struts!

No, at least not without hiding a(n auto)strut inside that 2nd decoupler. KSP2 ships were reported to use the same tree structure as KSP1 ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

No, at least not without hiding a(n auto)strut inside that 2nd decoupler. KSP2 ships were reported to use the same tree structure as KSP1 ships.

major bummer!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

No, at least not without hiding a(n auto)strut inside that 2nd decoupler. KSP2 ships were reported to use the same tree structure as KSP1 ships.

They reported they WONT be using the same tree structure due to know problems. 

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

They reported they WONT be using the same tree structure due to know problems. 

Source?

I haven't heard anything about what data structure will be used in KSP2.

But if it's a more general graph type than the tree used in KSP1, that can make traversing it more computing and memory intensive.  So it may be different that the KSP1 tree, but I don't think it'll be radically different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 3:15 PM, RobertaME said:

It's a hierarchy where smaller bodies take priority over larger ones. You're always in Kerbol's SOI, (at least until you go interstellar) and when you're in low orbit around Kerbin (and thus in the SOI of both Kerbin and Kerbol) both bodies would affect your orbit. If you move into the Mun's SOI, (which would extend a good distance toward Kerbin) Kerbol's influence is discarded (as it's nearly imperceptible anyway) and only the Mun and Kerbin's gravity affect you. Like that.

None of the Lagrange points would be inside the SoI of the smaller body though. This suggestion is unworkable on its face. 

I'd say either do full on n-body or stick with the Keplerian model already in use. 

Unpopular opinion: LaGrange points aren't that useful. They're a novelty at first and then almost entirely ignored after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 3:18 PM, StupidAndy said:

 

wheres the nearest boarding station for the hype train?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

None of the Lagrange points would be inside the SoI of the smaller body though. This suggestion is unworkable on its face. 

I'd say either do full on n-body or stick with the Keplerian model already in use. 

Unpopular opinion: LaGrange points aren't that useful. They're a novelty at first and then almost entirely ignored after. 

You're assuming SOI's the same size as current ones. There's no game mechanic reason they can't be larger so long as the two most influencing  ones are both effective at the same time. It's just a value set in the game.

I.E. When you're in Munnar orbit, you're in the SoI of the Mun, Kerbin, and Kerbol. So long as the gravity of both the Mun and Kerbin are being taken into account, and your trajectory, instead of a perfect conical section, is a prediction line, then how big the Mun's SOI is would be irrelevant. It could stretch halfway to Minmus and encompass four of the five LG points and still work.

And we have plans to use the L4 & L5 LG points IRL because they're self-stabilizing. as well as several spacecraft that have orbited (and many are still orbiting) the L1 and L2 points with enough fuel to last decades... so they aren't just curiosities. (not to mention the opportunity to teach a few million people how they really work and that only L4 & 5 are permanently stable and why)

But my entire point is that the desire for n-body physics is reaching for the Mun (pardon the pun) when 3 or 4-body physics is entirely doable without the problems of n-body physics.

It also occurred to me the other day that the whole excuse behind the Devs not implementing n-body physics, that it make the Kerbolar system self-destruct, is a straw-man argument. The vast majority of people asking for n-body physics aren't asking for it to model the system, they're asking for it to model their stuff. (i.e. probes, satellites, craft, etc.) They could put everything larger than an asteroid on rails and still have n-body physics. (or just 3-4 body physics... or even make it a difficulty slider) So the only reason the Devs aren't implementing greater than 2-body physics is because they don't want the headache of modeling it. (and I can't fault them for that... it's hard stuff to wrap your head around unless your an autistic geekette like me who taught herself differential calculus and Analytic Geometry in the 7th grade because she needed to figure out how to do Fourier Transforms for fun... what can I say... I'm special!)

Edited by RobertaME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobertaME said:

You're assuming SOI's the same size as current ones. There's no game mechanic reason they can't be larger so long as the two most influencing  ones are both effective at the same time. It's just a value set in the game.

SoI sizes aren't arbitrary. They're where the gravity of one body starts to dominate that from the other. 

Even if they were, an SoI would have to be stupidly large to include points other than L1 and L2. 

My opinion on this is to do it correctly or not at all. I've had quite my fill of half-baked implementations in this game. There has long been a working n-body implementation for KSP in the Principia mod as well as n-body physics in other space games, so we don't need to pretend that it's some sort of intractable problem for a video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.