Jump to content

FTL travel/special relativity


mcwaffles2003
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Would it be that difficult to just run lorrentz transformations? They're computed in 4x4 matrices just like graphics, maybe link them through GPUs to calculate them faster. I realize this is more difficult than I'm making it but I dont know to what scale the difficulty would be. 

Can't the developers be working on something useful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Can't the developers be working on something useful?

This

SO MUCH THIS!!!

Right now we don't even know if KSP2 is even a functioning GAME; all the demos we've seen could've been completely smoke and mirrors. They have a few more months to take it into a functioning state, with the already immense task of creating interstellar systems, colonization, maneuver nodes for brachistone trajectories, the ability of burns to occur out of focus in this time. Along with perfecting the physics LOD system and the graphics, and making a sensible economy.

And DAY ONE after it was announced; people were already asking for GPU Physics, VR, Ray-Tracing; everyone wanted KSP2 to be their own personal project.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

This

SO MUCH THIS!!!

Right now we don't even know if KSP2 is even a functioning GAME; all the demos we've seen could've been completely smoke and mirrors. They have a few more months to take it into a functioning state, with the already immense task of creating interstellar systems, colonization, maneuver nodes for brachistone trajectories, the ability of burns to occur out of focus in this time. Along with perfecting the physics LOD system and the graphics, and making a sensible economy.

And DAY ONE after it was announced; people were already asking for GPU Physics, VR, Ray-Tracing; everyone wanted KSP2 to be their own personal project.

 

Desires need to be voiced...I'm not asking day 1 here. But I just want a wide base game to build on. Though, GPU accelerated physics would have to be day one I believe and am still hoping for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Desires need to be voiced...I'm not asking day 1 here. But I just want a wide base game to build on. Though, GPU accelerated physics would have to be day one I believe and am still hoping for.

They really, honestly don't until a finished product is released; also GPU acceleration isn't happening (For physics). So prepare yourself.

Edited by Incarnation of Chaos
-Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

They really, honestly don't until a finished product is released; also GPU acceleration isn't happening. So prepare yourself.

Snark asked in an interview and the response was "dont know"

So maybe it will be and maybe it wont. But I'm pretty sure the main reason it wasn't in KSP 1 was because the version of unity then didn't support it but unity has supported it for a while now. Honestly, I felt the bigger ask (and get rejected) was asking for implementation of DOTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

Snark asked in an interview and the response was "dont know"

So maybe it will be and maybe it wont. But I'm pretty sure the main reason it wasn't in KSP 1 was because the version of unity then didn't support it but unity has supported it for a while now. Honestly, I felt the bigger ask (and get rejected) was asking for implementation of DOTS

It won't happen unless they decided to hire a team of people to write custom code normally reserved for supercomputers; they said they didn't know likely because they hadn't even investigated it as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I assume it's because he wasn't talking to the engineers. 

@Snark  Do you know what position at the company the guy you interviewed has?

Guys, this is a long and rambling conversation and people are mixing actual observations with wild unfounded speculations with hopes and "well X is what I think is common sense so therefore it must be X" and so forth, so I have no idea what you're asking here, and don't have the time right now to go through and read every single comment in the thread and try to forensically reconstruct the actual question.  I haven't had the patience to read through this thread because the title is about FTL and special relativity, and my personal guess (can go into my reasons why for the curious) is that neither one of those things is going to be present in the game at all, which means for me the whole thread is just hopes-and-wishes and not tied to what's actually (IMO) likely to be in the game, which limits the amount of time I'd invest in trying to decode all of this.  ;)

So, to be clear:

  • When I was at Star Theory, I interviewed (in the sense of "sat down for a scheduled half-hour block of time, so I could grill them by asking questions one-on-one") exactly one guy, and that was Nate Simpson, who was (and still is, after the new-studio announcement) the creative director for KSP 2.
  • I also had a chance to casually chat with quite a few people there, though not in a formal interview setting.  This included at least one engineer.

Now, what I don't know is what question you're asking me or what the topic is, here, because the thread is rambling and kinda free-ranging.  So if anyone would like more of an actual, useful answer out of me, I'd need to hear an actual question.  Can someone please pose me a specific, succinct question?  Then I'd be happy to give an answer (even if the answer is an authoritative "I don't know, I didn't ask that"), along with my reasons and/or source for that answer.  ;)

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble imho they should just set the lightspeed 1/10 of its irl value (30 000 km/s) and get relativistic with Daedalus or maybe even Orion.

Also it gives measurable signal delays.

***

Also if imagine a second Sun at 10 000 AU distance, the Earth temperature would increase by 1/sqrt(10000) * 273 ~= 3 K.
I.e. the Sun-like stars farther than ~10 000 AU do not significantly affect the Solar System climate.

10 000 * 150*106 / (30 000 * 86400)  ~= 600 days at lightspeed, i.e. several years at relativistic speed. It looks enough good for both relativism dramatism and closest stars availability without generation ships or fridges.

As in KSP the Solar System is 1/11 of real, the real AU is 11 Kerbin orbital radiuses, so the whole star cluster would be ~1 mln Kerbin orbital radiuses large.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Guys, this is a long and rambling conversation and people are mixing actual observations with wild unfounded speculations with hopes and "well X is what I think is common sense so therefore it must be X" and so forth, so I have no idea what you're asking here, and don't have the time right now to go through and read every single comment in the thread and try to forensically reconstruct the actual question.  I haven't had the patience to read through this thread because the title is about FTL and special relativity, and my personal guess (can go into my reasons why for the curious) is that neither one of those things is going to be present in the game at all, which means for me the whole thread is just hopes-and-wishes and not tied to what's actually (IMO) likely to be in the game, which limits the amount of time I'd invest in trying to decode all of this.  ;)

So, to be clear:

  • When I was at Star Theory, I interviewed (in the sense of "sat down for a scheduled half-hour block of time, so I could grill them by asking questions one-on-one") exactly one guy, and that was Nate Simpson, who was (and still is, after the new-studio announcement) the creative director for KSP 2.
  • I also had a chance to casually chat with quite a few people there, though not in a formal interview setting.  This included at least one engineer.

Now, what I don't know is what question you're asking me or what the topic is, here, because the thread is rambling and kinda free-ranging.  So if anyone would like more of an actual, useful answer out of me, I'd need to hear an actual question.  Can someone please pose me a specific, succinct question?  Then I'd be happy to give an answer (even if the answer is an authoritative "I don't know, I didn't ask that"), along with my reasons and/or source for that answer.  ;)

Thanks!

Specifically was talking about :

On 8/30/2019 at 11:38 PM, Snark said:
  • Q:  Will you include FleX support for GPGPU acceleration?
  • A:  Don't know.

I was purposing It's a possibility as the answer was an "IDK" from a non-engineer and I'm fairly sure it's a functionality of unity in the recent versions .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I was purposing It's a possibility as the answer was an "IDK" from a non-engineer and I'm fairly sure it's a functionality of unity in the recent versions .

Ah, okay.  If that's what you were asking about, then I specifically addressed this in the intro paragraph right before all the Q&A in that same post. :sticktongue:

On 8/30/2019 at 11:38 PM, Snark said:

Note:  For a few of them, the answer is listed at "don't know" or "not sure".  That has a very specific meaning in this context-- it means that Nate, himself, didn't happen to know the answer off the top of his head (for example, he's not an engineer, so technical questions about specific implementation details are often outside of his knowledge, you'd need to talk to an engineer for that.)  So when I report an answer as "don't know" or "not sure", that's what it means.  In cases where Star Theory hasn't come to closure on something, then I'll describe that as "TBD" instead.

So if that's what you were asking, then the answer is "nobody outside of the development studio can know, because it hasn't been announced and the only person I asked wasn't in a position to be able to answer the question because he's not an engineer and isn't involved in those kinds of details."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they abstracted the concepts it could still be a useful educational tool, much like the orbital mechanics in KSP1. Adding in time dilation (which is just basic math, something computers are really good at. Having standard time and mission time wouldn't be too complicated.) and a warp drive would be a fun way to sneak in some learning. Plus if LS was optional it would add a new dimension to that mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

If they abstracted the concepts it could still be a useful educational tool, much like the orbital mechanics in KSP1. Adding in time dilation (which is just basic math, something computers are really good at. Having standard time and mission time wouldn't be too complicated.) and a warp drive would be a fun way to sneak in some learning. Plus if LS was optional it would add a new dimension to that mechanic.

How I feel minus the warp drive. Warp drives, like the alcubierre drive essentially make gravity wells non existent and trivialize most of the underlying core concepts within the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2020 at 2:16 AM, Waxing_Kibbous said:

and a warp drive would be a fun way to sneak in some learning.

We going to learn how warp drive probably couldn’t exceed the speed of light because as we recently confirmed, the speed of light is also for all intents and purposes the speed of space.

Or we going to learn how KSP2 devs don’t care as long as it’s cool looking >_<?

I kinda already know dat stuff and they both make me sad inside.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2020 at 4:17 PM, kerbiloid said:

In my humble imho they should just set the lightspeed 1/10 of its irl value (30 000 km/s) and get relativistic with Daedalus or maybe even Orion.

Also it gives measurable signal delays.

Be careful of what you wish for. Signal delay would make remote direct probe control impossible. That means probes would have to be programmed. That means you would need a way to program them that's powerful enough to do cool stuff yet accessible enough that non-programmer players would be able to work with it. It would totally change how they work and be a major undertaking.

In my view there are higher priorities than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Signal delay would make remote direct probe control impossible. That means probes would have to be programmed. That means you would need a way to program them that's powerful enough to do cool stuff yet accessible enough that non-programmer players would be able to work with it.

You need a free will to initiate any arbitrary action. The only currently known source of it is a human mind.
So, you either have to send signals from the will source by radio, or physically deliver the mind canister (human head) to where it can send signals in arbitrary moments.

So, this just means that you need a crew for a starship.

For example.
You can pilot an android avatar on the Moon sitting on the Earth, but you should be at the Mars to manage it on the Mars.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kerbiloid said:

You need a free will to initiate any arbitrary action. The only currently known source of it is a human mind.
So, you either have to send signals from the will source by radio, or physically deliver the mind canister (human head) to where it can send signals in arbitrary moments.

So, this just means that you need a crew for a starship.

Philosophy aside, what you're proposing means that probes are for programmers only and crewed missions for everybody else.

I don't think that would be a good gameplay design decision. Remember that this is a game, not a hardcore space travel simulator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

what you're proposing means that probes are for programmers only and crewed missions for everybody else.

It successfully works say in KSPI-E. You need a crew or a semi-sapient command pod for a telescope at 500 AU from the Sun.

No philosophy, just pure arithmetics.

Say, in real world, how are you going to pilot a probe beyond the asteroid belt? Either crew, or a program, unless it's a simple photograph&measure fly-by.

Edited by kerbiloid
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...