FLAT EARTH VERSION, PLEASE!

[Techclerk]

1 hour ago, L0NE_PH4NT0M said:

If you're so worried about being responsible for introducing concepts to your children, then you might as well teach them true facts, and not half-baked idiotic conspiracies. There's no place in KSP for any of that pseudoscience.

Wow. You do realize it is a fictional game about little green men. Right? Just making sure.

[RealKerbal3x]

5 minutes ago, Techclerk said:

Wow. You do realize it is a fictional game about little green men. Right? Just making sure.

It's a fictional game about little green men that teaches the basics of a lot of real advanced science. Giving KSP a flat earth mode would really go against the point of KSP, not to mention that it might be misconstrued as a fundamentally educational game promoting a crackpot conspiracy theory. No one here would want to see that.

Aside that, I'm not really sure the game engine actually supports anything other than spherical planets. I'm not sure a space program would even be possible in a universe with flat planets.

[Techclerk]

21 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

It's a fictional game about little green men that teaches the basics of a lot of real advanced science. Giving KSP a flat earth mode would really go against the point of KSP, not to mention that it might be misconstrued as a fundamentally educational game promoting a crackpot conspiracy theory. No one here would want to see that.

Aside that, I'm not really sure the game engine actually supports anything other than spherical planets. I'm not sure a space program would even be possible in a universe with flat planets.

I am not trying to kick a dead horse but it is too funny to leave it unsaid. I am just having fun.

I can see what you are saying up until I learned Mg on the periodic table of elements stands for Magnesium and it doesn't stand for Mystery Goo.

Somebody once asked what would be the point. I came up with an idea. The point could be to make a rocket that carries passengers so high that they can actually land in Heaven and see God. That's one possibility.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Techclerk
Add last point

[RealKerbal3x]

4 minutes ago, Techclerk said:

I can see what you are saying up until I learned Mg on the periodic table of elements stands for Magnesium and it doesn't stand for Mystery Goo.

The thing with KSP is that while a lot of things are abstracted or unrealistic (e.g, Mystery Goo) the idea is that it teaches a bunch of basic rocket science concepts in a fairly friendly manner - hence cute green Kerbals, and Mystery Goo. Some things are dumbed down for a more general audience but that doesn't mean it's not educational.

11 minutes ago, Techclerk said:

Somebody once asked what would be the point. I came up with an idea. The point could be to make a rocket that carries passengers so high that they can actually land in Heaven and see God. That's one possibility.

In a universe where the Earth is flat and Heaven (should there be a heaven), sure. But that's not what we observe in real life, and it's certainly not within the scope of a space flight simulator game like KSP.

Anyway, this is getting dangerously close to discussing religion and conspiracy theories, which is against the forum rules. We should probably steer clear of that

[James M]

On 8/11/2020 at 8:00 PM, Techclerk said:

A flat Kerbin version could be very funny and could also be a light version that makes it easier to learn playing.

It's funny to you because you know the world isn't flat. YOU can prove it. She isn't old enough right now to intuitively come to that conclusion on her own. Thus she doesn't know it is for sure. Thus it isn't really that funny (To her).

 

23 hours ago, Techclerk said:

I was thinking it would be good for kids because it can introduce game concepts in a way that sets them up to play after they get older.

So, let's say hypothetically a Flat World cheat was a thing. Tell me. What exactly would you be trying to teach her by using it? If it's basic rocket science there are better ways to teach Newtonian physics that are actually accurate. Otherwise, I'd say all the Flat World would do is confuse her and make her question the problem. I'm not saying questioning is bad though. It's what leads to successful science. But at the end of the day, if you're going to try and educate someone using false data, there had better be a lesson at the end of it all with the facts to prove said data false. Otherwise you've failed as a teacher.

 

22 hours ago, Xd the great said:

And the game is designed to be hard. Kids do not just learn from success. They learn from failure also.

The last point is also here. Failure can be disheartening, yes, but it can also be the very BEST teacher. To know you made a mistake. To be able to point at it and say "Right there. That's where I messed up!" And to be able to solve the problem in front of you and overcome the challenges you're faced with. That is how you grow.

[Moach]

Problem with a flat world (besides the obviously false theory that it is) - is that, you cannot get in orbit unless gravity pulls you towards the center of something....

 

A "Flat KSP" would only allow you to fly as far as an atmosphere takes you.  As long as the direction of gravity remains a fixed "Y" axis, you can never get in orbit. (not without some geometric trickery - I once made a KSP-like Flash game that did exactly this - that was a year before KSP, btw)

 

As you also mention finding and trading rare parts, and having friends online -- I'll risk tooting my own horn and say that MotorWings is far closer to the mark in its concept.  It's not as far along in its development as to have any of those features implemented yet, but they are indeed all planned. 

Also, since it's an airplane-oriented game about things that surely could not get to space, the world of MotorWings is indeed flat -- It just goes on and on, infinite in all directions.... (though if user feedback indicates enough desire for orbital flight someday in the future, I just might reuse the same trick from that Flash game to make it possible)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Moach

[James M]

11 minutes ago, Moach said:

you cannot get in orbit unless gravity pulls you towards the center of something

 

11 minutes ago, Moach said:

As long as the direction of gravity remains a fixed "Y" axis

Gravity can't be constrained to one axis. Axis' don't actually exist. They're just used for reference. I think it might be possible to orbit a "flat" object in space though as long as the center of it was more compacted and supermassive than the rest and your altitude from its' core was at a greater distance than its' radius.

Please call me out if anything I said is wrong. Thanks.    

[Moach]

8 minutes ago, James M said:

 

Gravity can't be constrained to one axis. Axis' don't actually exist. They're just used for reference. I think it might be possible to orbit a "flat" object in space though as long as the center of it was more compacted and supermassive than the rest and your altitude from its' core was at a greater distance than its' radius.

Please call me out if anything I said is wrong. Thanks.    

 

I meant it in regard to computer-driven simulations, of course. 

 

The real universe (sometimes referred to as "The Matrix") doesn't really have such arbitrary constructs as fixed reference axes.  Not unless we make them up and imagine them on top of what we see,  as we often do - Such notions are useful theoretical aids to help us measure and calculate things in space.

They aren't a built-in feature of reality though, not as far as we can tell, at least...

 

 

You can come to "orbit" over a flat plane by, as I said before, using mathematical tricks within a simulator environment. 

What I did that one time to achieve this, was to have the game track the distance you traveled and use it as a factor of an arbitrary circumference.  Then, it was simple enough to figure the angle this should represent around this imaginary "globe", and add it's sine component to your altitude as you moved parallel to the ground.  

It worked rather well, though it was only a cartoonish 2d proof-of-concept thing I made for a class assignment back in college.

 

In an abstract mathematical interpretation of things, it's indeed all relative. -- Our real universe however, is inconveniently not a mathematical construct.  

(not one that we can easily tell from inside it, at least)

Edited August 14, 2020 by Moach

[Techclerk]

This is the most idiotic and most polarizing fight I ever started. I'm way too proud of myself.

[Dman979]

Thread locked. Please remember to stay civil, everyone.