Jump to content

New Planets?


Willoizcitron
 Share

Recommended Posts

As a more general answer: They've said that the Kerbol system will stay the same (minus some graphical/engine lifts), but that there will be multiple new star systems with planets.  We've seen I believe a gas giant, Rask/Rusk (the world pair), and whatever it was they landed on at the end of the trailer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's that ringed one that looks like a mini-Saturn with an ice/watery (assuming it's water, it could be antifreeze for all I know) moon.
It won't be part of the starting star system, so I figure we'll have to interstellar our way to it...  Until some modder makes it part of the stock system beyond Jool or something.

The original system will be untouched...  too bad as I chalk this one up as a missed opportunity to finish the solar system analogue by adding the missing 4 celestial bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Previews have shown a a pair of worlds very close to each other, orbiting around a common barycenter. That ought to be interesting to fly through...

having two planets of similar mass means two body approximation isn't really good anymore. Since we'll be using two body approximation anyways, you'll be able to get massive inclination changes which normally shouldn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, paul23 said:

having two planets of similar mass means two body approximation isn't really good anymore. Since we'll be using two body approximation anyways, you'll be able to get massive inclination changes which normally shouldn't happen.

They've said they have some custom solution for that system.  What it is has currently not been disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Francois424 said:

There's that ringed one that looks like a mini-Saturn with an ice/watery (assuming it's water, it could be antifreeze for all I know) moon

I had always thought that was Laythe, with Jool getting rings & a facelift.  Just seemed odd to me to have 2 inner moons around a gas giant having an atmosphere & substantial liquid oceans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2019 at 5:02 PM, GoldForest said:

Rask and Rusk - Binary planets

Glumo and Merble(Merbal) - Saturn like planet and her ice moon

 

That's all we know right now.

 

On 10/16/2019 at 3:24 AM, Willoizcitron said:
 
 

I want to know , What is the planet in Ksp 2 ?

I made a post not too long ago: https://kerbalanders.wordpress.com/2019/08/24/new-confirmed-ksp-2-planets/ (Mercury like planet is called Char)

Some of these planets in this post have been debunked but still some that are likely new planets: https://kerbalanders.wordpress.com/2019/08/31/new-jool-like-planet-theory-after-relooking-at-new-footage-thumbnail-not-new-image/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 3:30 PM, Cavscout74 said:

 Just seemed odd to me to have 2 inner moons around a gas giant having an atmosphere & substantial liquid oceans.

It's a lot like Titan actually... But with a more "earthly" look.


The Kerbol system is actually far more interesting than RSS in the sense that destinations feel more interesting IMHO (Especially Eve and Laythe, Duna too to some degree).  RSS has Venus and Titan, but Venus crushes your crafts so you can't do much over there. 
I feel KSP2 is going for those interesting destinations as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2019 at 8:10 PM, DStaal said:

They've said they have some custom solution for that system.  What it is has currently not been disclosed.

It *cannot* be solved. That's the thing about chaotic movement: you cannot solve it other than numerically; and solving it numerically would mean it doesn't scale.

 

So I'm just afraid the planets are on rails , however we'll still have normal ship movement, even around the barycenter. (Around barycenter the movement would be really chaotic, where a minor change in velocity, or even turning a craft put your craft in a vastly different orbit). The only thing that can be calculated are specific "places", where you can ignore a lot of terms. (IE: far away it looks like a single point mass at the barycenter, or around lagrange L4 and L5 points we can solve the 3 body problem and they result in stable orbits).

 

But those are special cases, not the generic case.

 

The closest thing I found is: https://arxiv.org/ftp/math-ph/papers/0402/0402016.pdf

 

Which seems to solve it for the special case where the two larger bodies have circular orbit.

Edited by paul23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paul23 said:

It *cannot* be solved. That's the thing about chaotic movement: you cannot solve it other than numerically; and solving it numerically would mean it doesn't scale.

You're talking about mathematically - that the equations do not have a finite solution.  That doesn't mean programmatically they can't have something in place.  (Even the fact that it doesn't scale isn't really an issue: It's just the two planets and your ship, it doesn't *need* to scale beyond that.)  Several options of what that could be have been theorized on this board: They could be doing full N-Body inside that SOI, they could have mini-SOI's for each planet within an SOI for the binary pair, they could have the planets on rails and do 3-body gravity for any ship in that SOI, etc.  Lots of ways to approach it depending on what you want, the level of performance, and the design decisions.  I don't know the math well enough - there may be some distance/mass ratio between the planets which makes a particular set of equations a reasonable solution (for that small set) and they can tune the system to just those ratios.  You do not need a generic case - just a case in this situation.

Until they release more details, we can't say what they've done, because there *are* multiple ways to approach the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean with "doesn't scale" is that the calculation isn't closed form. So you need to numerically approach it, which means that the more you satellites you have the more calculations need to be done (instead of just a simple single calculation). Furthermore you cannot just "time skip", you need to simulate everything in between, which means it can't work with fast forward, or well, fast forwarding is then similar to physics time warp. (inaccurate and can't be put really high numbers lest you lose even the little accuracy).

 

The result of where a craft is might then even depend on how much you fast forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the Rask/Rusk discussion again... the binary planets have been discussed in most threads that involve physics or planets for KSP2. 

In my opinion it's a dead issue until star theory releases more info on how they solved it. (If they actually solve it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

In my opinion it's a dead issue until star theory releases more info on how they solved it. (If they actually solve it.)

I'm sure they've solved it to their satisfaction.  But I agree it's a dead issue until then - the possible issues with various approaches have been talked to death.  Every approach has issues, the question will be what issues Star Theory thought needed to be avoided and what they could live with.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...