Less realistic parts

[shdwlrd]

30 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

You can do whatever you want in your game, and no one is saying folks cannot make mods. But for me, personally, I'd rather the company spend company resources developing content consistent with a plausible future scenario.   There are great games like Space Engineers that already fill that niche.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/244850/Space_Engineers/

But the question is "Under what circumstances are seemingly fictional technologies ok?", not "Should fictional technology be available by Star Theory?"

My answer was DLC only. I don't believe star theory should change their vision for KSP2. Nor do I believe the DLC star theory releases should deviate much from their vision for KSP2.

So in short, a never vote means that mods (mods are technically DLC) that add sci-fi tech should never be made, period. Neither star theory or a modder should make mods using magic tech.

That's my point of view.

Also, I do have space engineer. I don't like it.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

But the question is "Under what circumstances are seemingly fictional technologies ok?", not "Should fictional technology be available by Star Theory?"

My answer was DLC only. I don't believe star theory should change their vision for KSP2. Nor do I believe the DLC star theory releases should deviate much from their vision for KSP2.

So in short, a never vote means that mods (mods are technically DLC) that add sci-fi tech should never be made, period. Neither star theory or a modder should make mods using magic tech.

That's my point of view.

Also, I do have space engineer. I don't like it.

While DLC are technically mods; DLC also imply the involvement of Star Theory and their crew. Since DLC would only ever be released under the "DLC" banner by official content; not by the modding community who are happy to call their content "Mods" because most are fine with the distinction.

So i don't think most people actually think a never vote means "Nobody on the planet can make content with fictional tech"; they think it means "Star Theory should not release content or paid expansions with fictional tech"

[DStaal]

36 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

My answer was DLC only. I don't believe star theory should change their vision for KSP2. Nor do I believe the DLC star theory releases should deviate much from their vision for KSP2.

So in short, a never vote means that mods (mods are technically DLC) that add sci-fi tech should never be made, period. Neither star theory or a modder should make mods using magic tech.

DLC are mods, but mods are not necessarily DLC - at least by the common use of the terms.

[dave1904]

1 hour ago, Klapaucius said:

I have to disagree. I am certain we are not alone: the universe is just too insanely stupidly huge for us to be an anomaly.  Even if there was only one civilization in every one million galaxies, that would mean 100,000 civilizations out there in the known universe.  Considering there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy alone, I think the odds we are even alone in our own galaxy are low.  But whether we will ever be able to meet another species---I would say the odds are against that, and if we did, it might just be too alien for us to have any meaningful exchange.  

Also, it is entirely plausible to be sending probes interstellar, but it would be laser-propelled nanoprobes. 

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/100-million-for-probes-to-alpha-centauri-yes-really/

In fact, it would make sense in KSP2 from a realism standpoint to have interstellar travel begin as nanoprobes using that very laser idea. It would be a really cool game addition.

Technically we already have 3 or more probes going interstellar. There are plenty of ways to colonize the galaxy in a surprisingly short amount of time with non ftl travel but it is pointless. Without FTL there would be no point other than human survival in the galaxy. Our existence is irrelevant. Everyone on earth will be left to die anyway so they will not care about it. Maybe I am selfish but I do not care if a few frozen human eggs go anywhere beyond SOL. 

One of the reasons I have my doubts about civilizations is that considering its relatively "simple" to colonize the galaxy with enough willpower we have the fermi paradox. Sure intergalactic travel is something on a totally different scale but I am still unconvinced.  The numbers you point out are sadly not that impressive if you take everything into account for complex life to exist. We can argue about this all day since all the evidence we have is based on assumptions anyway. After all the numbers I choose to believe are obviously not my own. Its the same for you I guess. For most people. We all choose to believe what we want to believe. I like the idea of dead space so I will always be biased towards rare earth arguments. Something about dead space sounds so calm and non chaotic. What does it matter anyway. Both of us were born far to early to know the truth  but born just on time for KSP  

Anyway when it comes to interstellar in KSP I say let them do it. As long as there is some scientific idea behind it that is not absolute garbage its ok. It all depends on where we draw the line on what nonsense is. For some the kerbal system is just as much nonsense as a wormhole and I know its for scaling but my point that everyone has there own idea of what ideal is. I do not care that much because of what this community is capable of with mods. 

 

 

[JadeOfMaar]

On 12/10/2019 at 4:26 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Would warp drives/FTL tech/wormholes be ok if it was made as a DLC?

On 12/10/2019 at 7:09 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

You'd be throwing the entire concept of realism out your transfer window by letting it anywhere near the game, letting it slip in as any kind of official content in any form would make my skin crawl. Want to mod your game and turn a simulator into a nonsensical playground full of magic? Go ahead and mod that in, I sure won't be getting in your way - but don't you dare make me lose every microgram of respect for the devs for all eternity by having them defile their own creation right out of the virtual box, DLC included.

Those won't happen. Star Theory doesn't like the idea of handwavium tech (FTL) or celestials (portals) and made that clear early on. They also made it quite clear that Metallic Hydrogen and amazing fusion drives will be present. I'm pretty confident that that respect will indeed last a few decades as to make such a DLC after saying they don't like implausible stuff would be quite a shot to their own foot.

On 12/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, shdwlrd said:

Hand wavium technologies are good for mods or dlc. Some people will hate it, some will love it, but true realism gets boring.

Star Theory fully respects the modder community and will leave it to the modders to add those things. Galileo and LinuxGuruGamer, to name a few (prominent mod makers) were invited to be on-site at the game studio to give their insight into what to build into KSP2. Granted I think none of the invited crew were part makers who make interstellar stuff.

On 12/10/2019 at 5:04 PM, RealKerbal3x said:

The developers have actually said that they’re adding a ‘Krepstein drive’ in the base game, which is pretty cool (Can’t exactly remember where I heard/read it...probably in one of the interview videos released soon after the announcement).

KSP2 effectively has KSP Interstellar baked in. Look at any of the gameplay trailers. There are many instances of fusion drives. Epstein is likely the main engine on the ship approaching the binary worlds (or the ringed giant's ice moon). It would be utterly silly to provide only contemporary rocket engines that can only comfortably lift things up to LKO. To do so is like KSP1 only having SRBs for everything.

On 12/10/2019 at 7:09 PM, Rejected Spawn said:

Regarding intergalactic travel I'd say the probability of that is impossible to calculate until we know more about what's going on with the engine, if you can specify an objects position down to a Kerbals neck hair you end up with pretty huge coordinate numbers to specify the objects position in relation to even a single solar system. Sure there could be some trickery involved across interstellar distances that gets around the problem but I don't think "intergalactic" will be doable because there is no need to develop such a thing. Galaxies are pretty big you know, not sure why you'd even want to go see another one when yours already has a hundred billion stars to investigate...

I'd really hope that Star Theory utilizes uses double-precision floats instead of single-precision floats (basically, 64-bit number strings with a shifting decimal point vs 32-bit). This issue alone is the root of many problems when using planet packs that install distant star systems. The rise or primary symptom of the problem, in a nutshell is: There are only so many digits in a float, and when something needs to be both very far and very precise, crap happens (like flickering, flailing orbit lines).

 

To answer the question in the poll: "Under what circumstances are seemingly fictional technologies ok?"

I say: KSP and KSP2 are made to be modded. And to mod a game is to make it your own. If you're into implausible tech or you don't like the waiting game that Harsh Reality(tm) forces you into (actual play time is that much more valuable for us with day jobs, you know ), create the mod(s) for it yourself or wait for someone capable to do so.

Edited December 13, 2019 by JadeOfMaar

[Lisias]

13 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

.

I'd really hope that Star Theory utilizies uses double-precision floats instead of single-precision floats (basically, 64-bit number strings with a shifting decimal point vs 32-bit). 

The problema I see on it is performance in HW accelerators.

See the RX580 specs as an example: FP64 is 16 times slower than FP32 (~389 GFlops versus 6.175 TFlops).

As the GPU gets cheaper, this became worser and worser. I think this is the reason Unity focus to FP32.

Of course you can use both, reserving FP64 only where it's needed - but how many games need this? Almost none, so I don't expect Unity to support this, and so it's way harder for a Game Developer to do it.

[DStaal]

It wouldn't need it everywhere.  Put the solar systems in a 64-bit universe, and make each of them be a separate 32-bit space, and then you have the 32-bit local environment.  The only place you'd really notice is when trying to dock ships in interstellar space.

 

But I think we're getting off-topic here...  I wouldn't mind a warp-drive or jump-gate as part of a themed DLC.  I also wouldn't mind if it was left for modders entirely.

[mattinoz]

On 12/12/2019 at 8:17 AM, dave1904 said:

You could use that argument for every nonsensical scientific proposal. 

Edit: I shouldn't say nonsensical because wormholes are not nonsensical. I was just talking about the argument  

Not sure it can be nonsensical and scientific at the same time. I mean if it's followed a scientific method and come up with a fantastic answer there is some sense to it. Maybe sense that is based on bad data bad assumptions but still sensiblity of some sort.

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

The problema I see on it is performance in HW accelerators.

See the RX580 specs as an example: FP64 is 16 times slower than FP32 (~389 GFlops versus 6.175 TFlops).

As the GPU gets cheaper, this became worser and worser. I think this is the reason Unity focus to FP32.

Of course you can use both, reserving FP64 only where it's needed - but how many games need this? Almost none, so I don't expect Unity to support this, and so it's way harder for a Game Developer to do it.

All physics is hitting the CPU; not GPU. So this isn't a limitation for KSP in particular.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

All physics is hitting the CPU; not GPU. So this isn't a limitation for KSP in particular.

For now. In every single game engine forum I had read (and, ok, it's not that much), the most wanted feature is GPU support. OpenCL and CUDA, to be more specific.

The performance improvement on scientific applications and on applications as graphics processing (and Neural Networks) is absurd!

— POST EDIT --

For comparision: the Intel Core i7 8700K gets 61.41 GFLOPS on single precision (half of that on FP64).

Edited December 13, 2019 by Lisias
Post edit

[shdwlrd]

4 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I say: KSP and KSP2 are made to be modded. And to mod a game is to make it your own. If you're into implausible tech or you don't like the waiting game that Harsh Reality(tm) forces you into (actual play time is that much more valuable for us with day jobs, you know ), create the mod(s) for it yourself or wait for someone capable to do so.

Yep, so very true. (Especially the limited time factor to play games with a day job and the realities of life.)

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

For now. In every single game engine forum I had read (and, ok, it's not that much), the most wanted feature is GPU support. OpenCL and CUDA, to be more specific.

The performance improvement on scientific applications and on applications as graphics processing (and Neural Networks) is absurd!

— POST EDIT --

For comparision: the Intel Core i7 8700K gets 61.41 GFLOPS on single precision (half of that on FP64).

But even if the engine supports it; that doesn't mean developers will code for it. And in the case of KSP they can't code for it using the current physics model. So even IF unity supported CUDA/Open CL, and IF Star Theory were to update to the supported engine version that still means they would have to rip out the entire way they handle physics and replace it with something they can actually parallize.

 

[Klapaucius]

7 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

(mods are technically DLC)

I think we just defined it differently. Mods to me are free content created by players (eg. Galileo's Planet Pack), DLC I think of as paid-for additional content created by the developer (Breaking Ground).  So when I vote no sci-fi DLC, I am specifically thinking of where Star Theory spends its time and resources.  I have a feeling we actually agree on this.

Re Space Engineers: I looked at it, but it did not seem like my cup of tea.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Klapaucius

[mcwaffles2003]

23 hours ago, Master39 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the metallic hydrogen engines comparable in performance to some designs of NERVAs?

If that's the case then it's just a matter of game design, it's confirmed you have to make your advanced fuels through colony advancements probably Metallic Hydrogen is better for the gameplay context.

The same can't be said about the Warp Drive that has performances like nothing else currently theorized or planned.

 

NERVa has a real world ISP of 841. and a paper I looked up say metallic hydrogen would theoretically have 1700s. Seeing as chem rockets have ISPs of 350 going from NERVa to metallic hydrogen would be about the same step up as chem rockets were to  NERVa as they both just over 2x their predecessor

13 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

So in short, a never vote means that mods (mods are technically DLC) that add sci-fi tech should never be made, period. Neither star theory or a modder should make mods using magic tech.

That's my point of view.

Also, I do have space engineer. I don't like it.

Thats a bit tyrannical to suggest not even modders should make magic tech just because it doesnt fit the narrative you see fit. Modders could turn the game into a tower wars game if they want, just dont use the mod....

Edit: misunderstood, thought your opinion was modders shouldnt be allowed to make magic tech mods. After re-reading I understand that is not your position, my apologies

14 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

The reason i did is because the term itself is vague; and includes everything from plausable technologies to literally impossible ones.

Well I didnt want to make the question overly convoluted to my impression of plausible as that would just turn the thread into fighting over what sci-fi tech each person thinks is reasonably plausible. This is why I asked:

On 12/10/2019 at 3:26 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Where should the line be drawn and why?

 

Overall I just want a larger range of features to expand on the universe of KSP, which in turn should open up the possibilities to modders. If the size of the universe is constrained in a way that systems can only be build out to a certain distance that means even a modder would not be capable of implementing a galaxy into the game if they had hoped (assuming the case where the base universe spans out only like 50 ly from the origin at maximum). I'm concerned about the new version for something akin to the current axial tilt problem as well as current mods with other star systems being restricted to those stars really just being distant planets orbiting Kerbol. The more outlandish of features supported, in my mind, means more territory for modders to expand upon. As far as realism goes I believe there will be plenty of well supported mods that could restrict technologies to those proven and in existence as opposed to the current paradigm where they mostly expand past the stern realism in KSP 1. Taking things away should be much easier than adding new things, so to those neigh saying to any futuristic tech I simply say dont use it then, but why stop everyone else from having it? So long as the physics in the world remain rigid and consistent as opposed to the no mans sky "ok take me to space now" button. Cause, to me thats what made kerbal different from the other games, you had to get to space instead of telling the game to just take you there.

Edited December 13, 2019 by mcwaffles2003

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But even if the engine supports it; that doesn't mean developers will code for it. And in the case of KSP they can't code for it using the current physics model. 

Until the engine supports it, the developers will not code for it for sure. Developers develops using existing technologies - that usually shapes the solution implemented. Give the guys the technologies, and they will do it - otherwise someone else will.

I don't expect it to be easy (no one pays us money for doing easy things - these one, they can do it by themselves, no need to pay money to someone else!). But yet, it's something needed - there're tons of computing power waiting to be used.

 

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thats a bit tyrannical to suggest not even modders should make magic tech just because it doesnt fit the narrative you see fit. Modders could turn the game into a tower wars game if they want, just dont use the mod....

Going back to topic, it's my understanding that the Poll was meaning the "Star Theory", not the community in general.

I understood it as "Should Star Theory implement unrealistic technologies on the game, on a DLC or not doing it at all"

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Lisias
Brute force post merge.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Going back to topic, it's my understanding that the Poll was meaning the "Star Theory", not the community in general.

I understood it as "Should Star Theory implement unrealistic technologies on the game, on a DLC or not doing it at all"

 

that was the intended meaning to that answer, thanks for pointing out the confusion

[KerikBalm]

15 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Really can't believe that people are voting never for sci-fi techs and parts. 

Mods are DLC too, so you're saying I can't have sci-fi tech in my game because you don't believe in it.

#1) See my post, there needs to be a better definition of the term. There's a big different between a fictional liquid core NTR (real science behind it, working design with all the little details worked outis the fiction), and a "9th ray drive" from the John Carter Barsoom series (completely fictional science behind it). I'm personally fine with fictional designs based on real science, but not fictional science.

#2) They are saying they don't want it in their game, not yours.

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

NERVa has a real world ISP of 841. and a paper I looked up say metallic hydrogen would theoretically have 1700s. Seeing as chem rockets have ISPs of 350 going from NERVa to metallic hydrogen would be about the same step up as chem rockets were to  NERVa as they both just over 2x their predecessor

If you go to atomic rockets (and you should), you'll see that liquid core NTRs can get an Isp similar to that. You'll also note that it mentions that to get a 1700s Isp, it will melt any engine its in. If you inject plain liquid hydrogen so that you can have a solid engine, then its Isp drops to that of about the upper limit of a solid core NTR, which maxes out at around 1200 s, because in both cases, you are limited by the melting point (or melting point of some parts, and the boiling point the liquid core). So if metallic hydrogen were metastable, you'd be able to make an engine like the most ambitious solid and liquid core NTR designs, without the radiation issues (but you would have the "its much more explosive" issue).

13 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Those won't happen. Star Theory doesn't like the idea of handwavium tech (FTL) or celestials (portals) and made that clear early on. They also made it quite clear that Metallic Hydrogen and amazing fusion drives will be present.

but.... Metastable Metallic hydrogen is handwavium, and the drive doesn't work if its not metastable. "cesium doped metallic hydrogen" for a vacuum engine with a magnetic nozzle is technobabble handwavium.

"amazing" fusion drives: depends how amazing they are. A drive like the epstein drive is handwavium. A drive like a significantly toned down epstein drive (but still compared to it, and called a krepstein drive), is fine with me though.

[magnemoe]

On 12/10/2019 at 10:00 PM, Kerbart said:

I’d love to see some magical device, that would allow you to “grab” another vessel and then magically transfer electricity, propellant, yes even Kerbals through it. A “Collision Lateral Attachment Worktool,” so to say.

LOL. has transferred lots of kerbals trough KAS pipes. 
However this is gameplay mechanics. Two docked crafts are one craft while an real life docking port has to be designed to transfer resources or passage. Think only the Russian resupply crafts can refuel ISS as an example. 

As I understand an lander next to an base can transfer resources and modules to the base in KSP2. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by magnemoe

[OOM]

At this stage of technology development, it’s very stupid to refute as well as confirm the possibility of giving the Warp Engine. I vote for the DLC as a "possible future" based on theories.

The DLC should include:
- Quantum Singularity Reactor
- Alcubierre drive
- Krepstein drive

At the same time, it makes no sense to introduce the "Warp Engine" from "Star Wars" into the game. Because based on real theories, "Alcubierre Drive" gives the same results.

I think this can be finished.

Edited December 25, 2019 by OOM

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

Don’t be mad at me, but I hate dlcs. Ksp2 is already sorta expensive, and the dlcs give parts usually already given in mods.

[mrclucks]

This question seems to be a bit loaded.  It all depends on your definitional of fictional technology.  Sure FTl, wormholes, and teleporters are basically fictional (unless a great discovery is made) but what about an antimatter engine? An engine that has significant thrust yet is so efficient it makes ion engines look like aerospikes in terms of ISP?(like the Epstein drive in The Expanse)  A nuclear reactor miniaturized to the point that we could wear them like watches, not need maintenance on, and are extremely safe?

 

I believe that technologies that we have now or can reasonably predict in the next couple hundred years should be available in KSP given that we are in a fictional universe where we explore space like no one's business.  

[mcwaffles2003]

8 hours ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

Don’t be mad at me, but I hate dlcs. Ksp2 is already sorta expensive, and the dlcs give parts usually already given in mods.

How else is a game studio supposed to fund continued development over 5 - 10 years of a game without subscriptions, pay to skin, or some other way of continuing to bring in revenue though?

8 minutes ago, mrclucks said:

This question seems to be a bit loaded.  It all depends on your definitional of fictional technology. 

Thats why I said "Where should the line be drawn and why?" 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, mrclucks said:

This question seems to be a bit loaded.  It all depends on your definitional of fictional technology.  Sure FTl, wormholes, and teleporters are basically fictional (unless a great discovery is made) but what about an antimatter engine? An engine that has significant thrust yet is so efficient it makes ion engines look like aerospikes in terms of ISP?(like the Epstein drive in The Expanse)  A nuclear reactor miniaturized to the point that we could wear them like watches, not need maintenance on, and are extremely safe?

 

I believe that technologies that we have now or can reasonably predict in the next couple hundred years should be available in KSP given that we are in a fictional universe where we explore space like no one's business.  

It's not really that hard; "Fictional" is to me just anything that doesn't align with current physics. So since General Relativity predicts Wormholes, and we have actually created Antimatter none of those are actually fictional to me. Even something like the Alcubierre drive isn't in direct violation of physics, and is perfectly fine. The primary issue for me is how these interact with the KSP universe more than how dubious each one is; the distances and scales in the game make these technologies essentially gamebreaking. But if you had mods that implemented a more realistic galaxy; with more realistic sizes and distances they'd be almost required to reach most of the other stars.

This is why for me there isn't just one line; it's a superposition of multiple lines that all exist at the same time. Which one you're on depends on how you play KSP and what mods you have; or if you're stock.

But i'd say they come down to two primary lines; Stock and Modded. In Stock it's likely that all star systems will be easily reachable by Orion; with things like fusion drives and the like mainly just decreasing transit times instead of actually opening up more systems. While with mods it can range from all star systems are essentially unreachable until you get fusion tech; to everything between.

Now the thing is Star Theory can't really anticipate what mods will do, so they can't balance around them. They can anticipate what things like warp drives, wormholes and etc. would do to their game, and decide that they're not needed. This is why i don't think we're going to have anything past Fusion ICF drives in stock KSP2; because they completely destroy any idea of balance and ruin progression. But when mods start adding larger distances, systems and more; then these will become nearly mandatory.

[Kerbinchaser]

Considering we are playing with a planet that is smaller than Earth and launching little green people into space, I'm not sure what you're getting at by "realism." 

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

How else is a game studio supposed to fund continued development over 5 - 10 years of a game without subscriptions, pay to skin, or some other way of continuing to bring in revenue though?

Fair point