Black Holes and Neutron stars. Evidence found?

[mcwaffles2003]

On 9/15/2020 at 2:41 PM, JMBuilder said:

Time dilation.

The closer you get to a black hole, the more everything but your vessel time warps.

Alternatively, if your focus is on a separate craft from the one inside of the black hole's influence, you see the other craft move slower relative to distance.

Probably a nightmare to program...

Here is a game engine developed at MIT that is open source. It features the functions of special relativity, doesn't seem too taxing computationally

Spoiler

 

 

[Guest]

Realistically I think if they add black holes they will add a barrier of how close you can get and if you get closer the craft explodes and the screen says some excuse kind of like the -250 on Kerbol or Jool.

[SOXBLOX]

I already brought up the idea of adding relativity to Kerbal 2 in another thread, but it was not received warmly.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

I already brought up the idea of adding relativity to Kerbal 2 in another thread, but it was not received warmly.

I think the odds of seeing a black hole if the evidence I suggested was not a black hole would then be slim.

Neutron Star is a whole lot more easier to make I guess.

[SOXBLOX]

Pretty sure that image is just a regular old space-themed screensaver; not KSP-related.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Pretty sure that image is just a regular old space-themed screensaver; not KSP-related.

Could be.. it's all speculation after all.

[mcwaffles2003]

@The Doodling Astronaut& @SOXBLOX

I dont see why we need relativity to include black holes in the game when we've been achieving orbit without N-body dynamics this whole time...

[Incarnation of Chaos]

35 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@The Doodling Astronaut& @SOXBLOX

I dont see why we need relativity to include black holes in the game when we've been achieving orbit without N-body dynamics this whole time...

You don't need it, but without it then Black Holes become nothing more than a visual spectacle without anything unique to differentiate them. This is distinct from the difference between Patched Conics and N-body, since while the latter is more realistic you don't need N-body to get unique and different experiences in KSP as it stands. Nor would you in KSP2, though i suspect they have some form of it or Rask and Rusk. But that's somewhat unconfirmed (They're shy about details :P).

N-body would add more unique elements (Lagrange points, Decay, "Lumpy Gravity" etc.), but it's not required for the base experience. Black Holes without relativity are just a super dense, compact planet with a pretty texture and a kill sphere; which since i don't actually want Relativity in KSP2 i think Neutron Stars would be a better choice as discussed earlier.

[mcwaffles2003]

20 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

You don't need it, but without it then Black Holes become nothing more than a visual spectacle without anything unique to differentiate them. This is distinct from the difference between Patched Conics and N-body, since while the latter is more realistic you don't need N-body to get unique and different experiences in KSP as it stands. Nor would you in KSP2, though i suspect they have some form of it or Rask and Rusk. But that's somewhat unconfirmed (They're shy about details :P).

N-body would add more unique elements (Lagrange points, Decay, "Lumpy Gravity" etc.), but it's not required for the base experience. Black Holes without relativity are just a super dense, compact planet with a pretty texture and a kill sphere; which since i don't actually want Relativity in KSP2 i think Neutron Stars would be a better choice as discussed earlier.

The gravity well would sure be unique at the least and it could be added with an accretion disk giving it some spectacle. If we're only differentiating things by their unique elements then all KSP would need is 1 star, a planet without an atmosphere, and a planet with an atmosphere. But the variety of them we do have despite having the same elements still gives us a better experience. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

The gravity well would sure be unique at the least and it could be added with an accretion disk giving it some spectacle. If we're only differentiating things by their unique elements then all KSP would need is 1 star, a planet without an atmosphere, and a planet with an atmosphere. But the variety of them we do have despite having the same elements still gives us a better experience. 

Eve's atmosphere is certainly pretty distinct, especially when combined with it's gravity. Duna also is, and Ike is legendarily notorious for being the monster of a vacuum cleaner that it is. Sure; they all use the same basic components. But by combining them in different proportions you get very unique outcomes, and that was my point with a Black hole without Relativity. You can accomplish the exact same thing by just making it a neutron star, with far less work.

Which then makes it pretty hard to justify in my mind.

[Kerminator K-100]

The big problem with N-body physics (other than the CPU usage) is the station keeping. Every time you time warp you will need to go and fix your orbits that got messed up. People have suggested putting the orbits on rails during time warp, but what about no time warp? If you play in normal speed for a few orbital periods then the orbit will be messed up and you will need to do maintenance. And maintenance is not fun.