Sign in to follow this  
0something0

A More Realistic Far Future

Recommended Posts

I've played around with Deep Space Exploration Vessels and KSP Interstellar, along with several other mods that add futuristic super engines (e.g. Mk2/Mk3 Expansion) but both of them are rather too arcady to me, with minimal design constraints that these high-energy reactors pose other than heat. Far Future Technologies seem to be having some major restructuring away from what I am looking for. Is there a more realism-focused alternative to these mods, or perhaps something like Kerbalism compatibility?

Edited by 0something0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the question to ask- even RO leaves little green men and ignores stuff that it wouldn't be practical to model - for instance materials science and nuclear physics (which is what I assume those problems with reactors you refer to are). KSP will never model those. It is quite possibly one of the most realistic games out there except for Kerbal biology and a tiny solar system, but there is only so much that can be coded/calculated by an average computer.

KSPI and @FreeThinker try be as realistic as possible within bounds of enjoyability and possibility. Unfortunatly, it's not quite as good as @Nertea's stuff in terms of visuals and gameplay, but those aren't QUITE as realistic. On the other end of the spectrum in @Angel-125's DSEV, optimized for gameplay. It's really your choice, but there's nothing perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option is to find the mods with parts that you find appealing, and then write and/or rewrite the config files to your exact liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: oh wow totally missed the Interstellar Extended entry on kerbalism mod compat page.

Late response because I've been busy and wanted to poke around in Kerbalism and its compatibility with Nertea mods before I reply. However, most of what I write will apply to KSP-I (@FreeThinker) since that is what I am most familiar with. I probably should have posted this in the OP. Anyways: 

On 9/15/2020 at 3:51 PM, Nertea said:

What does realism mean to you?

On 9/15/2020 at 5:28 PM, Clamp-o-Tron said:

and ignores stuff that it wouldn't be practical to model - for instance materials science and nuclear physics (which is what I assume those problems with reactors you refer to are)

Well, I'm wanting a bit more realism-focused design constraints. I've never really been comfortable with how you could get away with arbitrary placement of high-energy parts (reactors, engines) as long as basic thermal, kinematic, and aerodynamic constraints are met, and you have the components need to start up your say, fusion reactor (e.g. with a starter fission reactor). This means you have fusion reactors as compact as the ones that Lockheed Martin/Skunk Works advertised that they were making a few years back, right next to your crew compartments, powering your hypersonic SSTOs that could be launched off a carrier. Specific changes that I would want are:

  • Scaling up fusion reactors and beyond to be in line with realistic (Kerbal) scaling
  • Making them pose radiation hazards beyond making EVA kerbals go poof when near certain KSPI drives, probably through Kerbalism
  • Directional radiation, so shadow shields are a thing, and the player has to make decisions on where and how the shielding is applied (this might be getting into raytracing territory)
  • Different types of radiation (Beta, neutron, gamma, etc)

The first two, I can do the dirty work myself through roleplaying and Kerbalism configs, respectively (and I should actually do it instead of complaining). The last two are most likely something to discuss with the Kerbalism dev and not here. I have only played around with the default configs but I'm assuming they aren't modelled in Realism Overhaul configs either. 

 

Edited by 0something0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 0something0 said:

 

Late response because I've been busy and wanted to poke around in Kerbalism and its compatibility with Nertea mods before I reply. However, most of what I write will apply to KSP-I (@FreeThinker) since that is what I am most familiar with. I probably should have posted this in the OP. Anyways: 

Well, I'm wanting a bit more realism-focused design constraints. I've never really been comfortable with how you could get away with arbitrary placement of high-energy parts (reactors, engines) as long as basic thermal, kinematic, and aerodynamic constraints are met, and you have the components need to start up your say, fusion reactor (e.g. with a starter fission reactor). This means you have fusion reactors as compact as the ones that Lockheed Martin/Skunk Works advertised that they were making a few years back, right next to your crew compartments, powering your hypersonic SSTOs that could be launched off a carrier. Specific changes that I would want are:

  • Scaling up fusion reactors and beyond to be in line with realistic (Kerbal) scaling
  • Making them pose radiation hazards beyond making EVA kerbals go poof when near certain KSPI drives, probably through Kerbalism
  • Directional radiation, so shadow shields are a thing, and the player has to make decisions on where and how the shielding is applied (this might be getting into raytracing territory)
  • Different types of radiation (Beta, neutron, gamma, etc)

The first two, I can do the dirty work myself through roleplaying and Kerbalism configs, respectively (and I should actually do it instead of complaining). The last two are most likely something to discuss with the Kerbalism dev and not here. I have only played around with the default configs but I'm assuming they aren't modelled in Realism Overhaul configs either. 

 

I believe atmospheric heating already uses something like that, where your vessel shadows itself from the heat, so it seems at least feasible to have a radiation shadow shield system like you're proposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Sign in to follow this