Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program 2 to be released in 2022 [Discussion Thread]


Arco123
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, SciMan said:

@TheOrbitalMechanic

I understand your concerns regarding not wanting to have to micro-manage your satellites to make sure they're doing stationkeeping as you want them to do.
I fully agree with this, the player should not be required to actively visit each of their (likely many) satellites in their orbits simply to make needed adjustments to their orbits.

However, KSP 2 is already including a feature that I think may solve the problem without requiring N-Body physics to be abandoned entirely (except for Rask and Rusk).
The "automated supply run" feature, if it works more like a "vessels can be smart enough to correct their trajectories to arrive at their destination even if the maneuver burns weren't perfect" type of thing and not a "non-physical ships being simulated as just a flow of resources" thing instead, well there's your solution to station-keeping. Simply set the "departure" and "arrival" orbits to be identical and the automated supply run feature would probably interpret that as a "keep this thing in this orbit" instruction, in other words it would allow you to automate station keeping.

Additionally, if you can set conditions for other actions to happen besides just keeping a course, you could set it up so that satellites that are almost out of propellant would execute a pre-planned de-orbit burn or send themselves to a "graveyard orbit" with new satellites being automatically launched to replace them, or alternatively they could signal to send for a vessel to refuel the existing satellite (assuming you put a compatible docking port on it when you built the thing).

This would replicate quite well the #1 reason old satellites are decomissioned IRL (lack of fuel) without bothering the player beyond setting it up (unless they want to get involved in it manually, of course).
The #1 reason IRL satellites are decomissioned or go adrift is that they simply run out of propellant to be able to keep their "orbital slot" in geostationary orbit (like most geostationary communications satellites), or lose the ability to maintain orbital altitude if in LEO (like Starlink satellites are designed to gracefully deorbit themselves if they malfunction, since that large solar panel creates quite a lot of atmospheric drag (which is a thing at those low orbital altitudes)).

So while your concerns are valid, I think the solution is already in existence (tho it might need some minor modifications).

EDIT: And yes, of course, they would have to increase the orbit radius of most/all of the moons of Jool (and any other gas giant with similarly close-orbiting high mass moons).
However as far as I'm concerned that doesn't constitute a "change" to the KSP 1 solar system so much as it constitutes a change to make the physics make sense (because for a game that has a lot of realism in its orbital mechanics, the orbital configuration of Jool and its moons is not long-term stable AT ALL).

EDIT 2:
This is probably the SINGLE concession to realism that I think should be made in KSP 2, because it is the one that is most impactful to the "fly" aspect of orbital mechanics. Not life support, not random (or not so random) part failures, not "removing metallic hydrogen from the game because that doesn't work like that", none of that matters as much as N-Body physics (and along with that having the solar system have a configuration that is compatible with N-Body physics).

But then again, Orbiter ALSO solved the orbital drift problem. You see, it had another option for the physics, "orbit stabilization", which does pretty much what my "automated station keeping" idea does, but it does it fully automatically. I'm not sure how it works, maybe it just nulls out the influences of the gravity of the other celestial bodies when in a low orbit around a planet or moon (that's my best guess), but it sure did work to keep the ISS where it belongs around Earth without me having to do anything to it (back when I played Orbiter that is).

So maybe the best approach to N-Body for KSP is for it to only have an effect when it really makes a difference, which for my purposes would be "twice the orbital radius of geostationary orbit on a non-tidally locked planet or moon".

Because being able to park a satellite or an orbital VAB at someplace nice and stable like L4/L5 (or in an orbit around another lagrangian point, such as L1/L2) is just such a nice thing. Yeah the lagrangian points tend to be quite distant from a given planet, but there's just so many interesting things you can do with them, like the mentioned satellite or station (or colony) parking spots, or using them to create a "grand tour" trajectory that use a tiny amount of propellant because the assists all basically pass thru lagrangian points of various planetary bodies and moons (there's plenty more you can do with them, I'm just scratching the surface).

I just don't want a player to find a neat trick that NASA used with regards to orbital mechanics, and be unable to replicate it (or disincentivized from replicating it) because of KSP 2's simplified orbital physics modelling.

EDIT 3!, Give it up for Edit 3!:
You know, additionally, without non-spherical gravity sources, you can't even get a proper Sun-Synchronous Orbit (which is the ideal orbit for practically any kind of mapping satellite). Instead, you're forced to wait for the planet to turn under you, which if it's tidally locked will be a very long time indeed.
Now that might only matter if we get ScanSat-like functionality in KSP 2, but I see no reason we shouldn't get something like that. Using a satellite to map a planet is a thing that takes some amount of time significantly longer than a player would be likely to just wait for, instead they'd be doing something else in the background, it really shouldn't work like the ISRU orbital resource scanner (the one you put in a polar orbit) works at all, that thing's far too quick.

Let me counter with this. "Full system n-body gravity is, of course, not planned for KSP2, as it would be overly compute intensive and also require complex station keeping on all vessels in orbit that, we feel, distracts from the fun of the game. However, we look forward to how players will deal with, or take advantage of, some of the interesting properties of the special cases where physics gets far more interesting than we’ve grown accustomed to in the original Kerbal Space Program." From 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know the developers said that, but believe it or not, they're not always right, or they're not fully explaining themselves, or they're perhaps not giving us the real reason, instead giving us "a reason they know we'll accept" rather than the full honest truth, because they want their game to sell well or don't want to receive negative press or who knows what real reason they might do it.

It's like I said. The developers could be (and I have already proven are) wrong.

They may have said "full system n-body gravity is ... overly compute intensive".
But have I not proven exactly the opposite of that, with my stated experience with Orbiter Space Flight Simulator, a game that came out LONG before KSP was even a glimmer in someone's eye?

If you don't trust me, you can still go play Orbiter you know. There is a version that released in 2016. Still plays just like the same old game it always was, just looks a lot prettier.

The "game engine" it uses is still the same as it was in 2004 (like I said, it got UPDATED in 2006). No, it's not Unity. I'm not sure what exactly it is, it might just be a fully custom thing, since it is from a university professor after all (and IIRC the whole thing is mostly a one-man show aside from the mod authors).

But that's besides the point. The point is, if Orbiter could do it on a crappy school laptop that wasn't even state-of-the-art 16 years ago, then SO CAN KSP 2, with the gigantic advantage of massively more capable CPU's that even the least capable computer (that wouldn't even meet the minimum spec for KSP 1, let alone KSP 2) today has.

My whole point is that the developers, in that moment, with that specific statement, stated something false.

It is (once again) not hardware limitations that dictate that KSP 2 not have N-body physics. As I have proven (twice now) with my statements about what was possible with Orbiter Space Flight Simulator (back in 2006, on what was even then considered a "potato laptop").

Maybe it is stationkeeping. But like I said, the "routine supply run automation" could be adapted to provide automated stationkeeping, with a small amount of setup.
So that's probably out too.

It is my opinion that the main reason they aren't introducing N-Body into KSP 2 is because they simply don't want to, for whatever inscrutable reasons they may have in their own minds that they don't wish to share.

But the reasons they stated, can be easily either disproven by knowledge of the performance of other games, or worked around trivially using mechanics that are already stated to be implemented into KSP 2.
I don't see how they hold any weight, you'll have to come up with something better or I'm settling on "because I said so".
And I might not have mentioned it, but "Because I said so" is a reason that I hate. I don't hate many things, but I hate the ease with which someone is able to terminate an argument by saying "because I said so" from a position of authority.

Think about it, how often did your parents use that exact reason (implied, paraphrased, or stated exactly) to end an argument that you were very much not done with, for reasons beyond "I (the child) am angry at my parents and don't like the decision they made"?

EDIT: I suppose the main reason I hate "because I said so" as a reason to terminate an argument is that it unequivocally demonstrates that they're done thinking about the subject, and don't care about your feelings regarding it or them. Which to me seems quite cruel, doubly so when it's your parent doing it to you.

 

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SciMan why can’t you just accept what the devs said as truth? Personally, I feel that N-Body physics would take away from the fun of the game, even if they did have a station upkeep function that was automatic. 

MY REASONS ARE:

- Interstellar travel. With N-Body physics enabled, interstellar travel would become tedious, and require much more calculation than normal, because all of the other star systems are slowly pulling in on the rocket in a long voyage.

- Trouble for beginners. Beginners to the game might get confused why they are getting pulled into pol while orbiting vall. (Just an example)

- Overcomplicated. It would add a lot of trouble to the people that do everything in the game by hand (calculations)

While I respect your opinion, I think you are trying to find hidden meanings/ secrets where there are none. The devs could have misspoke, but everyone makes mistakes. Even the developers that we here on the forums treat like gods and goddesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@SciMan As a community, we don't know much about the background systems that KSP2 is using. There's a ton of stuff that people are taking as fact but really is either reasonable speculation or Nate alluding that someone is barking up the right tree, without actually confirming it. All we can rely on is what is actually written or said by the devs. The devs have said multiple times that "fun" is more important than realism. So them not wanting to add the tedious little tasks that is required in RL is (in my opinion) understandable.

The background systems can be more complicated than we are expecting. The level of detail is greater than we're anticipating or optimizations may not adequate enough to allow N-Body. We just don't know.

The N-Body argument has already been ruled out for the majority of the game. But remember, you do have to read between the lines sometimes and for the case of N-Body, it may show up elsewhere in the game. They only confirmed Rask & Rusk, but it can show up elsewhere, in a different form other than a binary system.

Edited by shdwlrd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zozaf Kerman said:

@SciMan why can’t you just accept what the devs said as truth? Personally, I feel that N-Body physics would take away from the fun of the game, even if they did have a station upkeep function that was automatic. 

MY REASONS ARE:

- Interstellar travel. With N-Body physics enabled, interstellar travel would become tedious, and require much more calculation than normal, because all of the other star systems are slowly pulling in on the rocket in a long voyage.

- Trouble for beginners. Beginners to the game might get confused why they are getting pulled into pol while orbiting vall. (Just an example)

- Overcomplicated. It would add a lot of trouble to the people that do everything in the game by hand (calculations)

While I respect your opinion, I think you are trying to find hidden meanings/ secrets where there are none. The devs could have misspoke, but everyone makes mistakes. Even the developers that we here on the forums treat like gods and goddesses.

I agree with the first few reasons, but the calculation aspect isn’t necessarily true. You could still get where you need to go by fiddling with the maneuver nodes (and hopefully they make that much less annoying) but there will be a lot more seemingly random disturbance which will increase the fiddling drastically. I already am not too interested in the amount of time I spend trying to get a good encounter or trajectory with the jank SOI system, adding N-body might make things make more sense but would also exponentially increase the time to set up a good trajectory. I personally would like to play with n-body, but it don’t think it would be a good idea for the base game. And plus, what does it matter if the devs didn’t feel like implementing n-body? The current system does allow for a pretty reasonable approximation for a lot of common orbital paths, so I think it is fair to leave n-body to a toggle for a future update or mod. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the toggle, SciMan. That would be a cool feature I would use for challenges/showing off. I just personally think N-Body should not be forced, but as an optional feature. When I said calculations, I meant people that do the math before making the maneuver node. (If there are any of these people)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, N-body or not, I'm probably going to be happy with what we get out of KSP 2.
And to be quite honest (as well as bringing this whole subject back into the thread's main point of "when does KSP 2 release"), having to re-implement the whole orbital dynamics solver (which would be needed if switching from patched conics to N-body) would likely cause a not small amount of delay, if they're not doing that for Rask and Rusk.
IIRC they haven't said what exactly they ARE using in that planetary system, just that it's not patched conics as we know it. Could be "modified/adjusted patched conics" of some flavor for all I know (if that's even a thing).

Anyways, my point is that if they're sticking with patched conics because it already exists and that means they can release the game sooner, that's fine by me. While I'm more than happy to wait until the game is truly complete for it to release, I am also not against taking every advantage that exists in order to make the game release sooner. Even cutting multiplayer would be fine by me, as I have no friends and no desire to make any friends, I like playing games alone because it seems every time I try to play a co-op game with so-called friends, I just can't get anything done because they're too busy messing with me or actively trying to prevent forward progress and I just end up kicking them and continuing as single-player anyways, so I've given up trying to make that work. But that's my personal social issues probably, or maybe I'm just expecting too much from the typical "gamer" these days. I would hope that 2nd one isn't the case, but it might be for all I know.

I'm just personally convinced that the main reason they're not using N-Body isn't because the CPU can't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Let me counter with this. "Full system n-body gravity is, of course, not planned for KSP2, as it would be overly compute intensive and also require complex station keeping on all vessels in orbit

Didn't they just debunk that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Didn't they just debunk that?

If they did, it's not on this forum. I searched for the combination of station keeping and n-body and this is the only official statement by staff that showed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

If they did, it's not on this forum. I searched for the combination of station keeping and n-body and this is the only official statement by staff that showed up.

I believe what was being said was that you responded to the post debunking an argument by replying with the argument that had just been debunked. Sure, it is a developer position that there will be no general n-body, but the reasons that they used, and that you cited, were debunked in the post you quoted. Once again to clear up confusion, the consensus is that the devs are not including n-body by default on release. The question that was brought up is why this decision was taken, and it is not because of processing power or station keeping. To me, it doesn’t matter much why the devs did this not what reasons they cite, but I just wanted to clear stuff up to avoid confusion as to what is being discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@t_v has the right of it, there seems to have been a de-synchronization in the argument.

Very confusing to see the same argument I just debunked used as an argument against the reasoning I used to debunk the argument in the first place :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2022 at 4:56 PM, SciMan said:

But that's besides the point. The point is, if Orbiter could do it on a crappy school laptop that wasn't even state-of-the-art 16 years ago, then SO CAN KSP 2,

Well that is just plain wrong lol. 
How about not ignoring things like Orbiter using a pre-calculated existing model for the solar system orbits and the game only doing n-body on one or two vessel for starters?

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ferio said:

Leaks says 1st half of 2023 as release date

Welcome to the forums, and i'm not sure i believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ferio said:

Leaks says 1st half of 2023 as release date

If this is true then it will add weight to my "pitch drop" interval + KSP 1 release from beta date theory.  I have other theories if that one ends up wrong.  Always hedge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MechBFP said:

How about not ignoring things like Orbiter using a pre-calculated existing model for the solar system orbits and the game only doing n-body on one or two vessel for starters?

KSP 2 will also do the planets on-rails and most vessels will only be 2-body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 will also do the planets on-rails and most vessels will only be 2-body.

 Correct. The difference being of course that the KSP devs don’t have the benefit of an already accurate calculated look up tables for their solar systems for however many thousands of the years that will be needed as a result of interplanetary travel to cover any potential timeframe a player might exist in. 

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TLTay said:

In 4 days, we'll find out if KSP2 is as well.

Maybe.  Earnings reports aren't the best for granularity, but at this point anything that helps resolve the speculation will be appreciated 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So those who don't know they just recently updated the KSP website:

https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2

There is some interesting stuff in the source code. Unfortunately nothing too revealing from what I have seen so far.
The release date of 4099791600000 is just Dec 01 2099 in Unix, so unfortunately no luck there. ;)

Does look like there will be a countdown however.

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

So those who don't know they just recently updated the KSP website:

https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2

Looks fancy. Hopefully means something's coming soon!

(Also, one of the pictures on the site now is from KSP 1 lol)

Has anyone considered the chances of something happening tomorrow? It is a Friday, after all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TheOrbitalMechanic said:

Has anyone considered the chances of something happening tomorrow? It is a Friday, after all...

Friday, you say? I hadn't noticed. No siree, not me. I certainly haven't been checking my watch every minute on the minute counting down the seconds, hoping for a morsel, a crumb, a few electronvolts's worth of KSP 2 news, nuh uh, definitely not I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...