Jump to content

KSP 1 exploits (useful bugs) that you do OR don't want to be in KSP 2


Vl3d
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Nothing here said you'll need to worry about vessels colliding during timewarp - only that you'll have to worry about the vessel you are controlling right now colliding with another vessel in orbit while you're busy using it.

You can thrust while in time warp, focused or not. There will still be rotation while in time warp, focused or not. So would it be much of a stretch to have active collision scans while in time warp? If you can thrust and rotate your craft while in time warp, focused or not, it just makes sense that the collision scans would continue. You don't want your craft phasing through a planet on your way to your destination now, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well leaving a vessel on a crash course into a planet is one thing which could even generate an automatic alarm, but I would deliberately avoid the possibility of vessels colliding with each other while out of focus. It would just be crazy frustrating to come back to a station after time-warping a few weeks and find a debris cloud and not even know how it happened. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Well leaving a vessel on a crash course into a planet is one thing which could even generate an automatic alarm, but I would deliberately avoid the possibility of vessels colliding with each other while out of focus. It would just be crazy frustrating to come back to a station after time-warping a few weeks and find a debris cloud and not even know how it happened. 

An collision alarm is a very sensible idea. Dropping time warp and highlighting the craft(s) with enough time to maneuver to avoid a collision (even just narrowly) would be a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

You can thrust while in time warp, focused or not. There will still be rotation while in time warp, focused or not. So would it be much of a stretch to have active collision scans while in time warp?

It's not like this would mean anything besides more busy work for the one unlucky player who happens to have two vessels approaching each other.

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

You don't want your craft phasing through a planet on your way to your destination now, do you?

KSP 1 lets vessels phase through each other but still checks for collisions with planets. Why are you making the assertion that if KSP 2 lets vessels phase through each other (so you aren't having to micromanage orbits around small bodies), then that'll mean phasing through entire planets?

24 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

An collision alarm is a very sensible idea. Dropping time warp and highlighting the craft(s) with enough time to maneuver to avoid a collision (even just narrowly) would be a good thing. 

if that alarm bugs out, as games are known to do, then you'll come back to a cloud of debris. Maybe the alarm works, but puts you too close to the collision and you barely have enough time to engage thrusters... Maybe just don't simulate collisions between unloaded vessels. That's another thing - the game has to load these vessels momentarily to generate accurate results for the collision. Again, just more detriment for the one player on Earth who ends up with two colliding vessels.

Edited by Bej Kerman
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally to what @Bej Kerman has said in the post above mine, what would be the advantage to having collision checks between vessels while not focused on them?

I can't see any benefits, if I'm being honest. Just a lot more headaches for the player, in trade for "more realism that doesn't add any fun".

We gotta remember at all times that this is intended to be a GAME with realistic physics, not an "accurate SIMULATOR" with game elements.

It's basically "Rocket Lego", not "NASA orbit-planning simulator", you know?

I mean I already ensure that none of my vessels can ever even potentially collide with any others in KSP 1 aside from the ONE vessel that I might have on a rendezvous course to a station or something I'm constructing in orbit, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to do that or is even aware of the potential for disaster in that case, and IMO it's something that takes far too much to implement for a feature that I can only see becoming something that would punish the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SciMan said:

We gotta remember at all times that this is intended to be a GAME with realistic physics, not an "accurate SIMULATOR" with game elements.

It's basically "Rocket Lego", not "NASA orbit-planning simulator", you know?

Worth calling back to the fact KSP 1 has already traded realism for the sake of fun in the past. The planets are at 1/10th scale, atmospheres stop abruptly and Kerbals can stay in space indefinitely. Pointless collision checks are no exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 2:16 PM, Bej Kerman said:

It's not like this would mean anything besides more busy work for the one unlucky player who happens to have two vessels approaching each other.

KSP 1 lets vessels phase through each other but still checks for collisions with planets. Why are you making the assertion that if KSP 2 lets vessels phase through each other (so you aren't having to micromanage orbits around small bodies), then that'll mean phasing through entire planets?

if that alarm bugs out, as games are known to do, then you'll come back to a cloud of debris. Maybe the alarm works, but puts you too close to the collision and you barely have enough time to engage thrusters... Maybe just don't simulate collisions between unloaded vessels. That's another thing - the game has to load these vessels momentarily to generate accurate results for the collision. Again, just more detriment for the one player on Earth who ends up with two colliding vessels.

10 hours ago, SciMan said:

Additionally to what @Bej Kerman has said in the post above mine, what would be the advantage to having collision checks between vessels while not focused on them?

I can't see any benefits, if I'm being honest. Just a lot more headaches for the player, in trade for "more realism that doesn't add any fun".

"A lot" is a strange word for how often you win a lottery. I don't believe I've ever had vessels unintentionally come within a mile of each other none the less be capable of  hitting each other. If anything  I would be excited to know I got the chance to intervene in the vessels demise. I just doubt I'll ever get the chance to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

"A lot" is a strange word for how often you win a lottery. I don't believe I've ever had vessels unintentionally come within a mile of each other none the less be capable of  hitting each other. If anything  I would be excited to know I got the chance to intervene in the vessels demise. I just doubt I'll ever get the chance to do so.

I've had an ......  docking with emphasis event once while attempting to launch to rendezvous.    Plus another orbital close call.   Of course, the plural of anecdote isn't data.  If collisions are possible, having some sort of automated alarm wouldn't be a bad idea, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

"A lot" is a strange word for how often you win a lottery. I don't believe I've ever had vessels unintentionally come within a mile of each other none the less be capable of  hitting each other. If anything  I would be excited to know I got the chance to intervene in the vessels demise. I just doubt I'll ever get the chance to do so.

These pointless collision checks do nothing but add busywork for the one player out of a million that ends up unlucky enough to have a collision. Again, massively pointless. There is literally no point in this. Cannot put enough emphasis on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

These pointless collision checks do nothing but add busywork for the one player out of a million that ends up unlucky enough to have a collision. Again, massively pointless. There is literally no point in this. Cannot put enough emphasis on that.

These pointless collision checks will teach and force the player to keep distance between crafts. 

An example that actually happened to me. I put a mapping satellite into a 250-251km polar orbit. Several weeks later, (real time) I assembled a station into a 249-251km equatorial orbit. A couple weeks later I was approaching the station and saw a flash of a targeting reticle in the middle of my station. After a couple minutes of confusion, I checked the map screen. It was my mapping satellite that phased through my station. I learned my lesson from that and moved my stations orbit.

Luckily objects that are approaching each other at high velocities won't collide in KSP1, so no damage done. But in KSP2, it becomes a worry and something you will have to account for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shdwlrd said:

Luckily objects that are approaching each other at high velocities won't collide in KSP1, so no damage done. But in KSP2, it becomes a worry and something you will have to account for.

Fortunately the devs don't actually appear to be doing this for unfocused vessels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gargamel said:

I've had an ......  docking with emphasis event once while attempting to launch to rendezvous.    Plus another orbital close call.   Of course, the plural of anecdote isn't data.  If collisions are possible, having some sort of automated alarm wouldn't be a bad idea, though. 

Oh, my remark wasn't to say there is no need for an alarm. If an out of focus collision system exists an alarm would be crucial. I was simply stating that to call this a new constant stream of busy work is a bit of an exaggeration when the events in question are notably extremely rare. Personally, I could care less if it is implemented or not. If it is, I might get a chance to "save" a satellite once or twice while playing, if not, then I will play as I would anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the low chance of it even becoming an issue worthy of being considered (because it's like being struck by lightning as far as the odds go) in fact makes it even MORE pointless to put in the system to calculate the collision and alert the player to it's possibility, not less pointless, so I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore since it seems that we've all come to an agreement that such a system would be "interesting" and that's about it (not practical, not worth the CPU cycles spent on doing the math for it, not worth writing the code for in the first place, etc, if it DOES happen it distracts the player from what they would otherwise be doing, etc.).

 

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bej Kermanthe point is, there should have been a collision. All three craft were in physics range of each other. The distance between my target and the satellite was less than 5m. The satellite should have hit that docking arm and destroyed it along with the satellite itself. (My target was at 550m prograde to my craft, the satellite passed at 555m in front of me when I noticed it a few degrees above it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

@Bej Kermanthe point is, there should have been a collision. All three craft were in physics range of each other. The distance between my target and the satellite was less than 5m. The satellite should have hit that docking arm and destroyed it along with the satellite itself. (My target was at 550m prograde to my craft, the satellite passed at 555m in front of me when I noticed it a few degrees above it.)

Sure, but this does not need to apply to unfocused vessels. I've made the point before that KSP 2 is a game with sim elements and not vice versa, and I'm happy to bring that up again; anything more than flying your vessel between planets while building colonies would be detracting from what makes KSP fun - not tediously avoiding collisions between two vessels millions of kilometers away, while you're right in the middle of doing something a million times more fun. We haven't mentioned how annoying it would be for KSP 2 to momentarily lag out massively just to calculate a collision and its debris for two old satellites you don't care about anymore that are several light years away, while in the middle of a delicate landing.

Edited by Bej Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2022 at 5:02 PM, Vl3d said:

I've been thinking about some bugs that are actually useful for players building exotics. The thing is.. I really don't like this type of exploit-based way of playing the game. I feel like the game should aim for rather grounded engineering principles and physics that (if possible) are closer to the realistic baseline (while keeping the fun in the game). Of course, some people love them and want them in the game. I will focus on the negatives while keeping a positive attitude first. :rolleyes:

I have a few examples we can discuss - things that are in KSP 1 - but that I wish were not or will not be present in KSP 2:

  • Part clipping that does not realistically calculate combined walls mass / area or combined internal volume. I hate parts clipping one inside another but keeping the functionality of both. I feel like this is not possible in real life - we can only clip by cutting / combining walls to make a bigger container with a certain internal volume, but we cannot duplicate that volume.
  • So this means I don't like vessels that look small but have N fuel tanks or batteries or wings or solid rocket boosters inside.
  • I don't like how we can move parts away from the root so they look like they're floating in the air. There should be visible struts / supports for any floating part.
  • I don't like the high lift - low drag exploit using the heat shields. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlMlRf9qvo
  • I don't like the decouplers exploit and other kraken drives that unrealistically allow for compounding force.
  • Parts clipping in the ground when vessels reload.
  • Being able to visibly pull apart parts (like docking ports) that are actually still stuck together.
  • Unrealistically limp rubber rockets or extra flexible joints and the connected Ant engines rope exploit (wobbly should have its limits).
  • Floppy robotic parts if we don't lock the joints every time (I made some bay doors that were flopping all over the place).
  • Spinning ladders bug.
  • Parts supporting incredible weight just because they are 200+ meters away and the physics does not load for them.

And other stuff we can find on the amazing channels of

Yeah, it's fun to see one time - like a SpeedRun, but in the end these are bugs. Mr. Tom Vinita said the team will defeat the Kraken. I feel like all this stuff should be removed especially if there's going to be multiplayer. It would be fair that we should all be able to build incredible things through hard work and smart engineering, not using game bugs and exploits.

Physics vessel range can be more than 200m, just install PhysicsRangeExtender (PRE)

On 6/2/2022 at 5:45 PM, Pthigrivi said:

For the most part Im fine with losing unrealistic physics and kracken drives, but Id be a little annoyed if they eliminated part clipping. I do it for aesthetic reasons and I think players can draw their own fuzzy line over whats realistic. There are a lot of times when you’re clipping into something that’s obviously a bulkhead or space between truss elements, or just pushing a light in a bit so it looks married to the surface. I also sometimes float parts, usually temporarily while Im working but occasionally floated off one part for node/alignment reasons but visibly touching another so it doesn’t look magic. If players feel like abusing that thats just up to them. 
 

Ditto on a few unrealistic things like infinite engine restarts, saturable reaction wheels, and  RTG decay. Its just a simplified convenience that makes the game more playable. The one classic exploit Id be fine with losing is tapping time-warp to halt rotation. Im actually pretty happy to see things continue to rotate under warp. 

How about EngineIgnitor (or EngineIgnitorReIgnited), would that satisfy what u want in things engine restarts???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 6:31 AM, kerbmario said:

Physics vessel range can be more than 200m, just install PhysicsRangeExtender (PRE)

How about EngineIgnitor (or EngineIgnitorReIgnited), would that satisfy what u want in things engine restarts???

Oh Im saying I think infinite engine restarts are fine because it makes the game more playable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Oh Im saying I think infinite engine restarts are fine because it makes the game more playable. 

oh ok

i am thinking kinda along you

i tweaked all ignition limits for engines to have 5 or 7 times more ignitions

ksp2 shouls have at least not infinite , maybe like 100 ignitions for rocket engines, infinite for jet engines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe make it a little more sophisticated than just "X restarts and then the engine never works again ever".

So for instance, if a given engine has a hypergolic ignition system, like the F-1 or Merlin 1D or RD-270, it can only restart a few times yes.
But you'd be able to service it to restore that to full again.

I wonder if someone cares to do the math out on how many times those "middle 3" or even more so just the center Merlin 1D have been ignited on that one Falcon 9 booster core that has boosted 13 payloads to 2nd stage separation and then landed again? At the least we can figure out how many times the Merlin 1D is rated to be able to be restarted before servicing. I get 4 ignitions being the max needed for a droneship landing. 1 for liftoff, 1 for targeting the droneship, 1 for SSRP, and 1 more for the hoverslam. Depending on mission profile, the other 2 Merlin 1D engines on the booster that are capable of restarting may need to help out with SSRP or Hoverslam as well, so I suppose that's a total of 3 engines that can restart 4 times each, plus 6 more engines that can only start once (of course they're probably all "capable" of starting 4 times, it's just a matter of how much TEA-TEB they put in the start tank on each engine).

But my point is that with servicing the Merlin can be restarted many, many, many times (and yes I'm aware that it's still just in the double digits for that one booster that's flow 13 times, but for a rocket engine of that size and performance the fact that those engines HAVE been ignited that many times is still impressive).

So the only reason I see to limit engine ignitions is if it's an expendable (EDIT: unmanned and not expected to be serviced) rocket, and even then hydrolox engines (and naturally, hypergolic engines) should have an easier time of it (I don't see anything that would have stopped the J-2 from being able to just restart again and again provided it was allowed to run for long enough to refill the tank it uses to spin up the turbopumps during the start sequence).

Edited by SciMan
slight conceptual correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 7:02 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Well leaving a vessel on a crash course into a planet is one thing which could even generate an automatic alarm, but I would deliberately avoid the possibility of vessels colliding with each other while out of focus. It would just be crazy frustrating to come back to a station after time-warping a few weeks and find a debris cloud and not even know how it happened. 

Doubt ship can collide with each other if out of focus. Far to much calculations for an very rare event. 

Now this could give an bug who exist in KSP 1, in that ships could intercept on load creating an explosion. 
Most common if you do stuff like jump to another craft far away while you have two ships very close, you jump back and one has drifted into the other and you get an explosion. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, kerbmario said:

oh ok

i am thinking kinda along you

i tweaked all ignition limits for engines to have 5 or 7 times more ignitions

ksp2 shouls have at least not infinite , maybe like 100 ignitions for rocket engines, infinite for jet engines

Number of restarts depend on the mission profile more than the engine I say, yes its engine specific but look at starship the other ring of the booster can not be restarted as its no need. 
If you plan on using the engine in deep space like the Apollo module you want infinite restarts while an upper stage only need a few. 

The problem here is that some might use an typical upper stage engine on an large lander, and adding it as an parameter to the engine for some extra weight and cost is just complicating stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2022 at 8:51 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

But they do

Just because proton flexed beyond the point of failure doesn't mean that it didn't bend along the way to failure.

Flexibility is part of why challenger likely exploded as well, the solid rocket motor flexed at a joint allowing internal fire that passed between a grain boundary of the propellant to infiltrate the joint and burn away the O-ring seal. (Perhaps Im remembering this incorrectly, but I'm fairly sure)

Also... literally everything bends, nothing is perfectly rigid. Anyone who has been on top of a tall tower on a breezy day would attest to this.

At least it didn't KABOOM!...

Something about bendy rockets?

Yeah, that shouldn't be allowed...

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

At least it didn't KABOOM!...

Something about bendy rockets?

Yeah, that shouldn't be allowed...

Hey now, that rocket was obviously built specifically to be bendy!! :P

That said, I agree kerbal can have exaggerated bendiness, but was simply arguing against the notion that real rockets are absolutely rigid, which they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/3/2022 at 5:52 PM, Pthigrivi said:

What I mean is if a rocket tumbles over I know I don’t have the aerodynamics right, insufficient stabilization or pushing too fast too low in the atmosphere. If it suddenly explodes on staging I know I need to adjust sepratrons or decoupling force or manage some other conflict. Wobble and bending is usually structural: the rocket is too long or there are payload problems or Im just pushing too hard at max q. I don’t personally care that the visuals are exaggerated compared to real life if its communicating important information about a flawed design. There’s a limit of course and at some point it looks ridiculous, but a subtle wobble and flex before RUD is a helpful visual cue. 

Obviously if you tumble as supersonic speed near max q the rocket break apart, same is true for planes one SR-71 broke up because one engine shut down while the other did not and soon it was flying sideways at mach 3, the surviving pilot got separated from the plane without using the ejection seat.  
Part of why asparagus was so meta in early KSP was simply that you needed to build an pyramid to build high. 3 orange tanks on top of each other with some second stage like half an orange tank would break up or telescope at any launch, yes you could strut around it but it was much easier to add side boosters and have them support the above structure, at the time the boosters was dropped you was down to 1-2 orange tanks and below .5 g in vacuum. 

Looking at the ships in KSP 2 it looks like they have solved it. But if you build to weak you will get structural fails. This is obviosly way more true for stuff like orion pulse nuclear. 
Here it might be useful to see center of mass compared to center of trust in flight to do adjustments. 
Also then coming in a bit hot 
Zmb10mAh.png
Love how the rear heat shields bends here and yes that part is very realistic. 

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...