Jump to content

StarSlay3r
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good God, I know gravitational compaction is a thing, but this planet must be over twice as dense as kerbin to have 4G surface gravity....

Seems like this planet is about 10 kerbin masses. It should be a Neptune like world with a massive atmosphere around it, unless it's super close to the sun.

This is what I feared with OP tech like mmH engines... to keep things interesting, they just throw in ridiculous stats on planets to make things a challenge again with the OP engines.

Just like a RPG where the enemies level up at the same rate you do, and combat remains pretty much the same.

Edited by KerikBalm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, klesh said:

If you look at this video at 34 seconds, the shadow seems to come from a different light source (to the left, not in the picture) than the star seen on the right.

I assume this is more because of composition. Having a star shine through a ring's shadow does look quite nice, but it's an impossible occurrence.

Edited by Delay
I always get "occurrence" wrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this horrible drawing will illustrate my point better?

 

The shadow we see on the rings seems to be coming from the blue star I've drawn in, you can see how it would cast a shadow on the rings from this direction.  You can see the planet illuminated from the left side as well.

The red arrow is a terrible approximation of  the direction the light from the star that is shown would be traveling (looks drawn right to left, but should appear as if its coming toward the viewer, my 3D arrow drawing skills with a mouse are nonexistent), and the red lines outline the area a shadow would be cast over if light was coming from that star as a source.

 

dXqH5nX.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that KSP 2 is the only game in which developers can post a teaser with low jumping fps, and fans will be looking forward to the game. To be honest, I can’t even remember games in which game objects with low fps would be demonstrated, even KSP 1!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, klesh said:

Perhaps this horrible drawing will illustrate my point better?

 

The shadow we see on the rings seems to be coming from the blue star I've drawn in, you can see how it would cast a shadow on the rings from this direction.  You can see the planet illuminated from the left side as well.

The red arrow is a terrible approximation of  the direction the light from the star that is shown would be traveling (looks drawn right to left, but should appear as if its coming toward the viewer, my 3D arrow drawing skills with a mouse are nonexistent), and the red lines outline the area a shadow would be cast over if light was coming from that star as a source.

 

dXqH5nX.png

I noticed that too. I'm guessing this is outside the game engine since it's for asset review purposes. Also, I noticed the rings glitch out when they are viewed directly from the side. I think the star and rings are added in just for looks, with the light source not coming from the star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

The overall look of this planet is fine, but I am not fine with a terrestrial planet with 10 kerbin masses.

A world of that mass should be like Neptune

There can be rocky planets with that sort of mass. Kepler-10c has 17 earth masses, and it's supposedly rocky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 4:59 PM, t_v said:

Wait, did those rings move across the surface?

What are you talking about?

On 10/15/2021 at 4:59 PM, t_v said:

That’s a cool small feature that rings will stay in their inclination even throughout the seasons and are not necessarily tied to axial tilt

Rings are tied to the axial tilt and won't budge due to the relativistic effects that keep them around the rotational equator. Seasons are caused by the orbit of the planet moving the Sun from out beneath a planet's axial pole, and not the axis spinning away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a small detail. First, I am aware of how seasons work, thank you for the explanation, although I’m not sure where you got the idea of an axis of rotation spinning to create seasons. Each to their own I guess. The remark I made about the rings is that it is cool that they are not tied to the axial tilt. It would be really easy for the devs to simply map the rings to the equator, but here you can see that their orbital inclination is not the same as the direction that the planet is rotating in. This look cool from the ground because the rings would be in a different location each day, sort of like the ISS passes over different longitudes, and it generates some interesting dynamics that would be missing if the rings were on the equator. Thanks for asking, happy to clarify. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t_v said:

It’s a small detail. First, I am aware of how seasons work, thank you for the explanation, although I’m not sure where you got the idea of an axis of rotation spinning to create seasons. Each to their own I guess. The remark I made about the rings is that it is cool that they are not tied to the axial tilt. It would be really easy for the devs to simply map the rings to the equator, but here you can see that their orbital inclination is not the same as the direction that the planet is rotating in. This look cool from the ground because the rings would be in a different location each day, sort of like the ISS passes over different longitudes, and it generates some interesting dynamics that would be missing if the rings were on the equator. Thanks for asking, happy to clarify. 

Rings do form around the equator because gravity is a mess, but the axis of rotation (which is perpendicular to the equator for obvious reasons) does not itself have to be perpendicular to the orbital plane. Even Uranus' ring system is around its equator, and that thing is tilted by over 90°.

So, based on Ovin's rings and the "real", visible star, Ovin has a rather Earth-like axial tilt and the video shows the northern hemisphere's summer, assuming that north is up.

As for the rotation seen in the video, that is just the camera orbiting the planet. Look at Ovin's ground features, they're not moving one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Delay said:

Rings do form around the equator because gravity is a mess

Right. As I understand it, the rotation of the planet creates a difference in gravity akin to the difference that you can measure between standing on one pole or standing at the equator, which has the tendency to pull an object or in this case the rings into an equitorial orbit. I apologize for the imprecise vocabulary in the previous post, I was talking about the inclination of the rings’ orbits as opposed to the planet’s. I merely wanted to commend the developers for having an option to have rings not be over the equator, as that allows for interesting scenarios, such as a moon that had an inclination dissolving into rings or other stuff like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

There can be rocky planets with that sort of mass. Kepler-10c has 17 earth masses, and it's supposedly rocky.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-10c

"initial observations showed that it has a radius more than double that of earth, and suggested a higher density, suggesting a mainly rocky composition with around 5–20% ices by mass.[5][2][7] for comparison, the earth's oceans represent only 0.02% of our planet's mass,[8] with an additional amount potentially a few times this stored in the mantle.[9] however, in 2017, more careful analysis using both harps and hires data revealed that kepler-10c is not a large terrestrial planet, but instead a typical volatile-rich planet of about seven earth masses."

7 masses, not 17, and an ice giant, not terrestrial.

Even the initial estimate would have orders of magnitude more volatiles (proportionately) than Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, klesh said:

Perhaps this horrible drawing will illustrate my point better?

 

The shadow we see on the rings seems to be coming from the blue star I've drawn in, you can see how it would cast a shadow on the rings from this direction.  You can see the planet illuminated from the left side as well.

The red arrow is a terrible approximation of  the direction the light from the star that is shown would be traveling (looks drawn right to left, but should appear as if its coming toward the viewer, my 3D arrow drawing skills with a mouse are nonexistent), and the red lines outline the area a shadow would be cast over if light was coming from that star as a source.

 

dXqH5nX.png

It is not very accurate because we're talking about an object, light source REALLY, REALLY far away. Your drawing, sorry to say, without any frame of reference, pictures like if the star was tiny and very close to the observer. But that happens if you try to apply 3D depth to 2D image. Not your fault. But while I agree that the position isn't quite right no matter how you look at it, the devs are known to show footage from development in incredibly high FOV (just look at any previous videos). That can distort the view. And then again, it's a picture from the development process, so the star and light source may not be the same for the sake of the whole show n tell thing.

16 hours ago, Alexoff said:

It seems to me that KSP 2 is the only game in which developers can post a teaser with low jumping fps, and fans will be looking forward to the game. To be honest, I can’t even remember games in which game objects with low fps would be demonstrated, even KSP 1!

I've said that a dozen of times already elsewhere, but you should probably know that recording a test scene directly from unity editor (and it most likely is that) won't give you a great performance in terms of framerate, even on beefy pc. I know because I've tried. Hell, even if it was straight from the test build, there's still plenty of debugging tools and other stuff running underneath.

 

With all that being said though... The game is set to release (somewhere) in 2022, and we're getting old planets being redone, assuming this is from this week's meeting. I'm getting slightly worried that we're still a full year from release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

assuming this is from this week's meeting

Which is already a wild assumption, the only reliable info in the post is the asset itself, for what we know it could have been in the "filler for the show and tell posts" folder for 6 months or even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

7 masses, not 17, and an ice giant, not terrestrial.

Luckily there is this thing called "Artistic license". Yes, KSP and KSP 2 take science and scientific accuracy more seriously than most other games, space flight or not, but it's still supposed to be a fun, challenging game. Not a 100% accurate simulator.

Heck, we're dealing with planets with ridiculously high densities, anyways. The planets were by far not the most realistic aspect of KSP to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Delay said:

Luckily there is this thing called "Artistic license" [...] it's still supposed to be a fun, challenging game

Yea, and a planet like that wouldn't be fun in KSP.

But KSP2 has mmH engines.

This is indicating to me that we are seeing severe "power creep", which is generally regarded as bad game design.

This is likely the case of one unrealistic thing begetting another.

MmH engine makes getting to orbit too easy? Throw in a ridiculous planet that's really hard to get to orbit!!!

I'd be fine with a super kerbin of 3-5 kerbin masses.... But 10? Come on, that's ice giant territory, and the best explanation I can imagine for this is that they have some really OP engines and still want a challenge with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Yea, and a planet like that wouldn't be fun in KSP.

But KSP2 has mmH engines.

This is indicating to me that we are seeing severe "power creep", which is generally regarded as bad game design.

This is likely the case of one unrealistic thing begetting another.

MmH engine makes getting to orbit too easy? Throw in a ridiculous planet that's really hard to get to orbit!!!

I'd be fine with a super kerbin of 3-5 kerbin masses.... But 10? Come on, that's ice giant territory, and the best explanation I can imagine for this is that they have some really OP engines and still want a challenge with them.

Well okay, that is a valid concern. But I see that as a concern regarding gameplay more than scientific accuracy, which this seemed to be about before. Seems like I misunderstood, sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of gameplay, I think that having challenging planets for overpowered engines is acceptable in this scenario. The engine technologies being added in this game are mostly based on real-life science, which means that some of them will be, understandably, overpowered. In return, there are a lot of scenarios in out universe that are challenging, such as ice giants like Kepler-10c which would still have a surface to land on, even if it was ice instead of rock. So what the devs are doing here is that they are taking the overpowered engines that scientists have conceptualized and putting them in a system where there are more challenging locations to balance things out. There is massive power scaling, yes, but that scale is defined by what we can realistically achieve in our own universe. As our own civilization progresses and we develop these technologies, we will find a lot of space travel very easy to do, and it is only when we land on more challenging planets that we can find new problems to overcome. So I'm glad that these planets are hard, because otherwise the end game technology would simply be too overpowered compared to the challenges of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Doodling Astronaut
21 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

side by side comparison of last year's Ovin to this years:

Image

Based on the other information that means this has a radius of 960 kilometers. Not as big as I thought it would be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the real challenge would be 'starting' your space Program on Ovin (just send a miniscule colony) in order to simulate the progression of an intelligent species on a world with super high gravity.  Imagine what the aeroplanes will look like.. Let alone the rockets. I wonder how high we'll be able to construct buildings too.

I'm also quite worried about the graphical 'cutting' on the terrain, we've seen this on previous world teasers and it looks to be getting worse if anything. I hope I'm misguided and this is just caused by the footage being sourced from a test scene, and not real gameplay.

Edited by Nirgal
Added sentence about building construction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...