Planet editor and loader in ksp2.

[catloaf]

Since they are adding interstellar systems, now is a better time than ever to add an easy way to make custom celestials. Basically, in the main menu there is an option titled edit universes (can't call it solar system anymore!) Clicking this button would take you to a screen where you could choose a universe (for lack of a better word, maybe star cluster instead, just all the celestials in the game) and edit individual celestials. You can also clone a universe of create a new one, place a celestial, edit orbit and celestial parameters, all the stuff you would expect. But it would also have other things, such as auto calculating radius based on density and mass, and creating realistic orbits just like it would for a ship. As well as tools to edit a surface, such as being able to overlay the color map over the height map and edit each side by side. What this would mean is that people with good ideas but no coding knowledge could realize there ideas. And more interesting ideas could come out as a consequence, plus new categories, such as sillier planet mods could be created.

[AlamoVampire]

@catloaf i suspect they wont do that. It eliminates uniformity between players which complicates support issues.

 

201408072020

[catloaf]

1 hour ago, AlamoVampire said:

@catloaf i suspect they wont do that. It eliminates uniformity between players which complicates support issues.

 

201408072020

In a game where 90% of people use mods, I don't see it as being an issue. They just need to treat custom systems separately from stock, or as mods.

[Superfluous J]

They've said that editing planets would be easier. I don't know about "drop-down-menu" easier but who knows.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, catloaf said:

In a game where 90% of people use mods, I don't see it as being an issue. They just need to treat custom systems separately from stock, or as mods.

From everything they've already said; it's going to be far easier to mod planets into KSP2 than KSP. And Kopernicus isn't too hard to work with if you want a basic planet, so i don't really see the value here tbh.

[AlamoVampire]

1 hour ago, catloaf said:

In a game where 90% of people use mods, I don't see it as being an issue. They just need to treat custom systems separately from stock, or as mods.

Its a problem because it removes uniformity. Mods are maintained by their makers or current caretakers but still adhere to the uniformity of the basic game. If i have an issue locating the monolith just outside of the KSC then you can load your copy of ksp and see if i am a derp or if something bugged the code. However, if I can adjust the planets or add them how will you help me fix my problem? What if my tweaking Duna or adding GP2 somehow triggers Moho and Eeloo to swap positions? Or fill the mohole in? It simply is not worth the headache or trouble, it just isnt.

 

231508072020

[catloaf]

48 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Its a problem because it removes uniformity. Mods are maintained by their makers or current caretakers but still adhere to the uniformity of the basic game. If i have an issue locating the monolith just outside of the KSC then you can load your copy of ksp and see if i am a derp or if something bugged the code. However, if I can adjust the planets or add them how will you help me fix my problem? What if my tweaking Duna or adding GP2 somehow triggers Moho and Eeloo to swap positions? Or fill the mohole in? It simply is not worth the headache or trouble, it just isnt.

 

231508072020

With proper testing, that wouldn't happen. I don't see any difference between this and mods. Usually adding planets with Kopernicus won't effect other planets. We must remember that because the game won't be a mess of spaghetti code problems are less likely to happen because of seemingly unrelated changes. Plus, what may be simple for some is complex and confusing for others, so features to help them are not worthless. Or maybe they could do it, but don't have the time. A good compromise would be stock Kopernicus, with an official planet building tool app or website (probably less work than a built in tool,and better from a performance standpoint, plus it doesn't have to be added on release.) All they have to do is add support for custom systems, which should be easy if they've supposedly made the game more moddable. Also, if people want support they would need to provide the system there using, which would be easy to find in the files. And of course loading multiple systems mean they could just switch to the stock one and see if the issue persists. Asking people for the system they use and asking for a log isn't very different.

[R-T-B]

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

They've said that editing planets would be easier. I don't know about "drop-down-menu" easier but who knows.

Personally, if I just don't have to recode Kopernicus for it, I'll take it as a win.

[mcwaffles2003]

Honestly, many games have level editors, I don't see why this would be different. Making a streamlined system to produce planets in a characteristic manner (What type of planet is this?: Terrestrial, Gas, Ice Giant, Star.... Radius: [slider/type a number].... Atmosphere height:[slider/type a number]) doesn't sound unrealistic. Then once the main things are finished introduce a terrain editor which would be simple surface map edits.

 

Might take a while to build but would be a nifty update. Could see some procedural planets mods come out of something like this or greater ease in trading user built solar systems. Collectively we could all build a small galaxy presumably.

 

Edit: But dear god those load times

Edited August 8, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[The Aziz]

15 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Atmosphere height:[slider/type a number])

As far as I know, atmospheres are a bit more complicated than that, when you take something more than just height into account: 

Nothing is linear here, that's why just a simple planet editor won't be enough if someone wanted to make an interesting planet.

[pandaman]

I think it is very easy to underestimate how much work would be involved in creating an interesting planet, no matter how easy the editor is to use.

Simple 'randomisers' for basic terrain etc would work well enough to get the basics, but what about the little details that make it truly 'unique' and 'interesting'?

A pencil and paper, are all the tools you need to make a work of art, but to actually create one takes imagination, skill and time.

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

8 hours ago, catloaf said:

In a game where 90% of people use mods, I don't see it as being an issue. They just need to treat custom systems separately from stock, or as mods.

Its a problem because it removes uniformity. Mods are maintained by their makers or current caretakers but still adhere to the uniformity of the basic game. If i have an issue locating the monolith just outside of the KSC then you can load your copy of ksp and see if i am a derp or if something bugged the code. However, if I can adjust the planets or add them how will you help me fix my problem? What if my tweaking Duna or adding GP2 somehow triggers Moho and Eeloo to swap positions? Or fill the mohole in? It simply is not worth the headache or trouble, it just isnt.

 

231508072020

What's stopping mods from doing all of that chaos?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's stopping mods from doing all of that chaos?

I think they were trying to say that bugs caused with a mod are reproducible by others with the same mod, while this proposed planet editor wouldn't have the same level of error reproducibility. So nothing stops a mod from introducing a bug; it's just far, far easier to troubleshoot when it does.

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

16 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's stopping mods from doing all of that chaos?

I think they were trying to say that bugs caused with a mod are reproducible by others with the same mod, while this proposed planet editor wouldn't have the same level of error reproducibility. So nothing stops a mod from introducing a bug; it's just far, far easier to troubleshoot when it does.

Then share the planetary system and the other mods, because fundamentally, what's the difference?

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Atmosphere height:[slider/type a number])

As far as I know, atmospheres are a bit more complicated than that, when you take something more than just height into account: 

Nothing is linear here, that's why just a simple planet editor won't be enough if someone wanted to make an interesting planet.

Can the pressure difference surface-vacuum not be automatically generated?

[catloaf]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

 

Can the pressure difference surface-vacuum not be automatically generated?

Or use a formula, determined by atm composition, mass, and surface gravity.

 

4 hours ago, pandaman said:

I think it is very easy to underestimate how much work would be involved in creating an interesting planet, no matter how easy the editor is to use.

Simple 'randomisers' for basic terrain etc would work well enough to get the basics, but what about the little details that make it truly 'unique' and 'interesting'?

A pencil and paper, are all the tools you need to make a work of art, but to actually create one takes imagination, skill and time.

And that won't change, the very skilled/invested people can keep using blender and Photoshop just like they always have. Remember, the idea has changed from an internal interface to a separate app or website to create mods that use in game tools. It's sort of like the new custom dimension in Minecraft, the developers build functionality into the game that must be enabled by modders, just like how Kopernicus does nothing without textures and configs. Also these tools wouldn't just be ramdomizers, you could edit everything, including the heightmap and colormap. However a new thing would be being able to edit these on a 3d sphere, rather than a 2d sheet. This is actually why the stock libnoise planets have perfect North and South poles, while many custom systems whose planets were made in Photoshop have weird ridges at the poles. Also, terrain scatters would have a simple interface, but people who are really into it can use more professional tools. Of course people could go crazy with these tools, but they would have limits. However pretty good planet packs are still pretty good even if they aren't amazing.

[Catto]

Just like Kopernicus, but easier.

[DunaManiac]

I could see something like KittopiaTech in the game happening, but not a full blown graphical interface where all you do is modify a value and your planet suddenly has mountains.

[catloaf]

3 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

I could see something like KittopiaTech in the game happening, but not a full blown graphical interface where all you do is modify a value and your planet suddenly has mountains.

The interface would be outside the game.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 8/8/2020 at 4:55 AM, The Aziz said:

As far as I know, atmospheres are a bit more complicated than that, when you take something more than just height into account: 

Nothing is linear here, that's why just a simple planet editor won't be enough if someone wanted to make an interesting planet.

Just because it isn't linear doesn't mean it doesn't rigidly follow a mathematical equation. Both density and pressure are simple exponential functions. Temperature maps could most likely be made from a small selection of profiles based on body types and stretched accordingly.

 

 

[mcwaffles2003]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:51 AM, pandaman said:

I think it is very easy to underestimate how much work would be involved in creating an interesting planet, no matter how easy the editor is to use.

Simple 'randomisers' for basic terrain etc would work well enough to get the basics, but what about the little details that make it truly 'unique' and 'interesting'?

A pencil and paper, are all the tools you need to make a work of art, but to actually create one takes imagination, skill and time.

No need for "randomizers", include a terrain deformation feature as is the case in most map builders included in some games. I don;t know if you have experience with these titles in particular but both Far Cry Insticts: Evolution and Pariah (circa mid 2000's) included map editors with terrain deformation so players could build their own multiplayer maps. Just includes several functions for editing height maps of the ground and size of the affected area can be scaled. They then also include a library of objects that can be placed to build out the level. 

I don't see why this couldn't be translated  to planet building. Small scale could make hills/ponds, medium could be used for mountains/lakes, and large scale would help for oceans and continents. Then include a terrain painter of sorts to paint out grasslands, deserts, etc... Scatter is already randomly generated based on biomes so thats already set. In my opinion it would be a nice relaxing addition to the game at some point... Going from building rockets and exploring space to building the planets your rockets will launch off of. I would LOVE to see the mass of user content generated out of something like this.

Edited August 9, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Just because it isn't linear doesn't mean it doesn't rigidly follow a mathematical equation. Both density and pressure are simple exponential functions. Temperature maps could most likely be made from a small selection of profiles based on body types and stretched accordingly.

Simple in principle, but i would caution you on overestimating how many have actually seen something in the form e^x+1 or etc. Now you're correct that this could be abstracted away from the player entirely, but then you run into a problem.

How do you deal with the people who aren't seeing what they're expecting? Especially when they might not know the math under the hood and it's implications? I just feel like there's an incredible potential here for confusion leading to feature creep and bespoke bugs. And no matter how "Powerful" you make this editor; it's always going to pail in comparison to just using Kopernicus configs or whatever KSP2's built in equivalent is. Why not just start them with the best solution first, document it well, and make the learning curve easy. Then things like this don't matter because they just become part of the process of learning, instead of a frustration that you have to stomp onto the forums and figure out why it isn't working correctly.

KSP2 has been about this from the beginning, providing more and improved tutorials and on-boarding instead of dumbing down for the sake of accessibility, so this "Planet editor" is a massive step backwards from that if implemented.

[mcwaffles2003]

17 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Simple in principle, but i would caution you on overestimating how many have actually seen something in the form e^x+1 or etc. Now you're correct that this could be abstracted away from the player entirely, but then you run into a problem.

How do you deal with the people who aren't seeing what they're expecting? Especially when they might not know the math under the hood and it's implications? I just feel like there's an incredible potential here for confusion leading to feature creep and bespoke bugs. And no matter how "Powerful" you make this editor; it's always going to pail in comparison to just using Kopernicus configs or whatever KSP2's built in equivalent is. Why not just start them with the best solution first, document it well, and make the learning curve easy. Then things like this don't matter because they just become part of the process of learning, instead of a frustration that you have to stomp onto the forums and figure out why it isn't working correctly.

KSP2 has been about this from the beginning, providing more and improved tutorials and on-boarding instead of dumbing down for the sake of accessibility, so this "Planet editor" is a massive step backwards from that if implemented.

You wouldn't want to include the math at the users end from the start anyway. An atmospheres denisty/pressure profile is based on its gravity/contents/and sheer mass of atmosphere. This could be abstracted to asking max height of the atmosphere and what the density is at that height. With just those 2 numbers the rest can be automatically be filled in according to a single equation. 

Also, thats IF you want to give the ability to make the space-atmosphere transition a sudden burst of pressure... Honestly, if you just ask "at what pressure does air resistance become negligible enough to disregard it and just consider it space?" you will have a constant for "what the density is at that height " (lets say .01 Pascals like in all the pressure maps) and reduce the entire thing down to "asking max height of the atmosphere".

In short, I argue a simple slider for max height of atmosphere is all that would be required

Edited August 9, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

5 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You wouldn't want to include the math at the users end from the start anyway. An atmospheres denisty/pressure profile is based on its gravity/contents/and sheer mass of atmosphere. This could be abstracted to asking max height of the atmosphere and what the density is at that height. With just those 2 numbers the rest can be automatically be filled in according to a single equation. 

Also, thats IF you want to give the ability to make the space-atmosphere transition a sudden burst of pressure... Honestly, if you just ask "at what pressure does air resistance become negligible enough to disregard it and just consider it space?" you will have a constant for "what the density is at that height " (lets say .01 Pascals like in all the pressure maps) and reduce the entire thing down to "asking max height of the atmosphere".

In short, I argue a simple slider for max height of atmosphere is all that would be required

Can you tell i don't like sliders by now? Someone is going to want to do something weird, now they have to learn the actual math and config system anyway.

This is basically my entire argument, just start them at the basics and build them up. Introduce things like atmosphere, equations later after cutting their teeth on airless example planets etc. Like I'm not entirely opposed to an editor; especially if it has hooks into whatever planetary config system KSP2 has. That would allow you to basically rapidly prototype planets and systems, then more advanced users could define their own custom atmospheres and equations.

But i just can't see in what situation it would be anything but a supplement to already knowing the configs, and that's my primary issue. It's something that while is nice to have; isn't strictly needed and honestly would likely be better done by the community anyway.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Can you tell i don't like sliders by now? Someone is going to want to do something weird, now they have to learn the actual math and config system anyway.

This is basically my entire argument, just start them at the basics and build them up. Introduce things like atmosphere, equations later after cutting their teeth on airless example planets etc. Like I'm not entirely opposed to an editor; especially if it has hooks into whatever planetary config system KSP2 has. That would allow you to basically rapidly prototype planets and systems, then more advanced users could define their own custom atmospheres and equations.

But i just can't see in what situation it would be anything but a supplement to already knowing the configs, and that's my primary issue. It's something that while is nice to have; isn't strictly needed and honestly would likely be better done by the community anyway.

Ok, well why can't mods do that? Also the only thing doing that allows is making physically impossible atmospheres. It's not like somewhere in the universe theres a planet where atmospheric pressure starts rising with altitude. In fact, the only place to my knowledge where pressure so much as pauses with increasing altitude is in the degenerate zones of some stars.

All atmospheres everywhere in the universe obey the same principle and make a line when displayed logarithmically. The equation cant be tweaked to our liking, its just how the universe is, no reason it shouldn't also be that way here.

Also it doesn't have to just be a slider, it could have a box to manually print the number.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/7/2020 at 11:06 PM, catloaf said:

In a game where 90% of people use mods, I don't see it as being an issue. They just need to treat custom systems separately from stock, or as mods.

Where do you get the 90% number from?  Based on downloads, i think it is a lot less