Should celestial bodies in KSP 2 have axial tilts?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I would not suggest doing that with Kerbin's moons.  It's too early. 

New player that can get to orbit likely already has some unintentional inclination from the moons' plane by the time she's circularized.  Knowing how and even why to match inclination is a bit of a brain bender.  Initially it is not at all intuitive. 

New player may not even know that her orbit is inclined relative to the target - because the video tutorial she's following has an expert player who got his efficient burn set up at the optimal altitude and with a near perfect inclination - and then goes straight into trying to set up the encounter, 'twiddles with the thingys' to get another perfect insertion... All of which is muscle memory for the experienced and unexplained black magic for the new. 

Seriously - watch almost any video where someone is fiddling with the nodes.  You will hear them talking about the gross movements: trying to get the optimal insertion altitude, mostly fiddling with prograde /retrograde - but the parts where they tweak normal/antinormal or radial or antiradial are hardly described. 

To watch those videos, you'd never know that you might need to adjust inclination prior to trying to get an encounter (the experienced just do it on the fly). 

It is orders more difficult for knuckledraggers like me to figure out how to get an encounter with one of the planets... But I think at this point we are ready to accept a bit more complexity. 

Maybe have one home planet with greater inclination than the others - and another with significant axial tilt and it's moons on a different plane from the norm.  That way we who need to walk can walk - and those who are itching to get out to the stars can have fun too

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[shdwlrd]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Seriously - watch almost any video where someone is fiddling with the nodes.  You will hear them talking about the gross movements: trying to get the optimal insertion altitude, mostly fiddling with prograde /retrograde - but the parts where they tweak normal/antinormal or radial or antiradial are hardly described. 

You hit that one right on the head. 

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Seriously - watch almost any video where someone is fiddling with the nodes.  You will hear them talking about the gross movements: trying to get the optimal insertion altitude, mostly fiddling with prograde /retrograde - but the parts where they tweak normal/antinormal or radial or antiradial are hardly described.

It's a good point--its very easy for us vets to get so used to things that we take them for granted. Intercepting something in orbit, whether its a station or a moon, is a bit like floating down a river and trying to catch a duck thats swimming across it. Swimming prograde/antigrade is kind of like swimming with the current vs treading water. You're using the current to make the duck come to you, so its almost always the most efficient thing to do. Burning normal/anti-normal or radial/anti radial is kind of like swimming sideways to the current--sometimes you have to but its almost always less efficient, so you really want to time it just right to make the most of it. You can see this by testing different maneuver nodes at different places along an elliptical orbit, seeing the result, and keeping an eye on the dV cost. 

So I hear you, if no one explains what an inclination burn is or why and when it should be done before you encounter a world with axial tilt new players would be very confused about what they were doing wrong. 


I should really start a YouTube series where I explain Kerbal using increasingly obscure analogies. 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I should really start a YouTube series where I explain Kerbal using increasingly obscure analogies

When you do - postem and I'll watchem

Edited July 9, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[KerikBalm]

On 7/8/2022 at 3:53 PM, The Aziz said:

It's still yet another chunk of knowledge new players would have to chew through as soon as they get off the ground. As if the very basics of spaceflight weren't complicated enough. You know, concepts of orbits, gravity, rocket building, engine specifications, aerodynamics, quite literally most of what you need to know to reach space (as the saying goes, once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere).

1) axial tilt has no effect "as soon as you get off the ground", it would only become a factor once trying to go to Mun, Minmus, or farther.

2) it's exactly equivalent to getting to Minmus with Minmus' orbit being out of Kerbin's rotational plane.

So essentially, you have to deal with a slight inclination difference when going to Mun, instead of a larger one when going to Minmus.

My way would have players likely notice something is going on if they don't adjust inclination, but given the low tilt, and Mun's size and proximity, you'd still easily get to Mun without adjusting inclination. Minmus on the other hand... if you don't match inclination, you will easily miss the intercept or arrive on a very inconvenient trajectory (unless you are meeting it at an An/Dn).

It wouldn't do much at all to the difficulty curve, it might even help.

3) personally speaking, getting rid of these 0,0,0 orbits (no eccentricity, axial tilt, nor orbital inclination) would help with suspension of disbelief. The parameters are defined anyway, it's not like it increases the computational load.

I don't care if it's miniscule: if it's barely noticeable, and only skilled players notice it, then that's great.

It doesn't harm/ overwhelm the new players, and it adds some depth for the experienced ones

[Bej Kerman]

49 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

It doesn't harm/ overwhelm the new players

The only way to actually know is to ask new players if they want to deal with having everything tilted somewhat.

[SciMan]

@Bej Kerman ... And then you get another dose of bias because the only responses you get will be from the ones that are sufficiently motivated to answer the question in the first place.
In other words, you'll only get responses from ones that firstly understand what the question means, and secondly have a strong enough opinion that they feel like they need to reply.
EDIT: My personal opinion on the matter is that the Kerbin/Mun/Minmus system should be kept as it is, but the other planets should introduce the concept of axial tilt.

We already have orbital inclination, and in fact the way things typically work, introducing the right kind of axial tilt would actually counter-intuitively REDUCE difficulty rather than increase it.

Think about it. Is it more difficult right now with (for example only, I don't want it actually changed) Minmus rotation not being aligned with its orbital inclination, or would it be easier to get back to Kerbin or to the Mun from Minmus if the rotation of Minmus was off-axis by 6 degrees in order to align Minmus' equator with its orbit?

I think it would be easier, because then if you want to have an equatorial orbit of Minmus from an incoming transfer trajectory you don't have to do a burn to change inclination.

Edited July 9, 2022 by SciMan

[Vl3d]

Most posts focus so much on the classic KSP1 navigation aspects that they're missing one important aspect of introducing axial tilt: planetary seasons.

[The Aziz]

No seasons on atmosphereless planets unless you count the star being higher up in the sky, and by our current knowledge only Earth has climate complex enough for significant changes in the environment around the year. Mars for example only changes with the amount of ice on the surface and dust storms. Venus is heated by its own greenhouse effect regardless of time of the year, gas giants may experience nothing more than change in wind speeds and Titan apparently only changes with size of the methane lakes.

If the devs can be bothered to work on all this.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Most posts focus so much on the classic KSP1 navigation aspects that they're missing one important aspect of introducing axial tilt: planetary seasons.

Because this is KSP - a game about navigating from the surface of a planet, to space, and back - not Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. That's why we focus on the navigation aspect and not superficial fluff like seasons

[Rutabaga22]

On 7/8/2022 at 1:32 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Seriously - watch almost any video where someone is fiddling with the nodes.  You will hear them talking about the gross movements: trying to get the optimal insertion altitude, mostly fiddling with prograde /retrograde - but the parts where they tweak normal/antinormal or radial or antiradial are hardly described. 

 

Dude, I just barely learned how to fine tune encounters, I bet that there are few good videos on fine tuning encounters.  I don't even know what radial does lmao, I just fiddle with it until I get a better intercept. I bet if axial tilts were a thing in ksp 2, tutorials would gloss over them completely. I learned how to get a mun encounter from fiddling with maneuver nodes until I saw an encounter. Then I didn't plot a maneuver retrograde to orbit, I just burned retrograde and crashed into it.

[Superfluous J]

On 7/4/2022 at 3:53 AM, Vl3d said:

I was under the impression that Duna's polar ice caps were tilted, but after doing some research it seems not.

it was probably this terrible - yet official - image from one of the early KSP2 media releases.

EDIT:

Haha I should really read the whole thread before I reply... You posted this exact image 2 posts later.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Superfluous J

[Bej Kerman]

19 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

On 7/4/2022 at 8:53 AM, Vl3d said:

I was under the impression that Duna's polar ice caps were tilted, but after doing some research it seems not.

it was probably this terrible - yet official - image from one of the early KSP2 media releases.

Terrible? How?

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Most posts focus so much on the classic KSP1 navigation aspects that they're missing one important aspect of introducing axial tilt: planetary seasons.

Seasons is only relevant for ISRU with solar power, secondary is landing during the winter then the sun never go over the horizon. 
Having an radar would be very nice for mapping the ground, in KSP 1 it might be hard to see how steep slopes is. 

18 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The only way to actually know is to ask new players if they want to deal with having everything tilted somewhat.

I don't see how much it really matter if its an inclination anyway. On my first trip to Jool I ended up in an very inclined orbit and was not experienced enough to use an high Ap and Tylo or Laythe gravity assists to fix this. Kerbin and Mun should be at zero degree but does it matter for minmus? you has to account for the inclination anyway. 
And yes its nice that Duna and Ike has their axis the same direction

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Terrible? How?

Terribly inaccurate to the way ice caps work.

[Bej Kerman]

32 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Terrible? How?

Terribly inaccurate to the way ice caps work.

It looks pretty though. Realism < Composition of the shot

[KerikBalm]

23 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The only way to actually know is to ask new players if they want to deal with having everything tilted somewhat.

They won't have to deal with it at all until they are going beyond kerbin orbit.

Going to Mun with, say 2 deg of inclination, will be rather insignificant, there won't be anything to deal with, unless you are going for perfection.

Going to Minmus will be the same, as it's already an inclined orbit.

But this does raise a point, will there be a view mode that aligns with a planets axis/ rotational plane? Can we switch between a view alignment with the ecliptic an the planets axis?

[Bej Kerman]

21 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

23 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The only way to actually know is to ask new players if they want to deal with having everything tilted somewhat.

They won't have to deal with it at all until they are going beyond kerbin orbit.

I just don't think us vets should be speaking for new players when we've forgotten what it's like to be new.

[Superfluous J]

On 7/10/2022 at 2:56 PM, Bej Kerman said:

It looks pretty though. Realism < Composition of the shot

I don't think Duna being correctly oriented would look less pretty. In fact I think it would look more pretty.

But I find realism pretty so ¯\__/¯

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 7/10/2022 at 4:11 PM, Bej Kerman said:

I just don't think us vets should be speaking for new players when we've forgotten what it's like to be new.

I'm here, Huckleberry

[Superfluous J]

I found the list I had made years ago regarding KSP2 tilt changes I'm going to make.

Note, I am not suggesting these as changes I think should be in the game. I list them as changes I think I will make, barring the game not allowing the changes to work.

Moho: Axis tilt to match its orbit. Rotation so it rotates 3 times per 2 orbits, like Mercury.
Eve: Axis flipped so it rotates backwards, like Venus.
    Gilly: Axis tilted to match its orbit around Eve. Rotation so it rotates in some fraction of its orbit, like Moho.
Kerbin: Axis tilted 23 degrees, like Earth.
    Mun: Axis and orbit tilted 6 degrees from Sun, like Minmus is now. No real reason, just wanted it not in Kerbin or Sun's line.
    Minmus: Axis tilted 23 degrees from Kerbin, or 0 degrees from Sun. To make interplanetary from Minmus easier (Hey it doesn't have to be ALL harder)
Duna: Axis tilted 25 degrees, like Mars. Rotation still locked to Ike.
    Ike: Orbit and tilt to match Duna's axial tilt. Rotation still locked to its orbit.
    Duna/Ike Alternate: Make Ike a bit bigger and make Duna/Ike a true dual world, depending on how (and if) KSP2 handles that.
Dres: Axis tilt to match its orbit. Maybe add a thin ring if it's easy.
Jool: No change.
    Laythe: Remove oxygen from the atmosphere (sorry but it makes no sense even in this silly universe)
    Vall: See Eeloo.
    Tylo: No change.
    Pol: Orbits Tylo in some way. I've always wanted a moon to have a moon.
    Bop: Axial tilt to match its orbit.
Eeloo: Axial tilt to match its orbit.
    Vall: Orbits Eeloo. Eeloo needs a Charon!

 

[sciencecompliance]

On 6/27/2022 at 5:31 PM, intelliCom said:

Actually, in some cases, if the axial tilt matches the orbital inclination, things can actually be easier, as if you set up your spacecraft to match the orbital inclination of a highly inclined celestial body, capturing into orbit around that celestial body would already line it up with the body's surface rotation.

I get that you're talking about the game's coordinate system and the fact that all the planets' poles point in the same direction, but, if you weren't aware, axial tilt in real astronomy is based on the angle of a body's axis relative to its own orbit around whatever body it's orbiting.  I only say this because if the "axial tilt matches the orbital inclination", then that body actually has zero axial tilt (also known as obliquity) in real astronomical terms.

[sciencecompliance]

On 7/10/2022 at 3:33 AM, The Aziz said:

No seasons on atmosphereless planets unless you count the star being higher up in the sky, and by our current knowledge only Earth has climate complex enough for significant changes in the environment around the year. Mars for example only changes with the amount of ice on the surface and dust storms. Venus is heated by its own greenhouse effect regardless of time of the year, gas giants may experience nothing more than change in wind speeds and Titan apparently only changes with size of the methane lakes.

How does Earth vary more significantly than some other bodies that have seasons?  Saturn changes quite drastically depending on the season, partially due to massive shadows that are cast by the rings that change dramatically over the course of a Saturnian year.  Uranus would have even more extreme seasons since its nearly 90 degree axial tilt would mean one pole would be facing completely away from the sun for many (Earth) years.  The only way I can think that Earth's seasons are some kind of wild outlier in their intensity is with the way the biosphere changes seasonally, but that's not really a climate thing.  Actually, the presence of liquid water on Earth even mitigates seasonal changes in some places and creates microclimates.  For instance, Seattle is at a higher latitude than Chicago but has less extreme seasons due to the effect of ocean currents.

[t_v]

50 minutes ago, sciencecompliance said:

How does Earth vary more significantly than some other bodies that have seasons?  Saturn changes quite drastically depending on the season, partially due to massive shadows that are cast by the rings that change dramatically over the course of a Saturnian year.  Uranus would have even more extreme seasons since its nearly 90 degree axial tilt would mean one pole would be facing completely away from the sun for many (Earth) years.  The only way I can think that Earth's seasons are some kind of wild outlier in their intensity is with the way the biosphere changes seasonally, but that's not really a climate thing.  Actually, the presence of liquid water on Earth even mitigates seasonal changes in some places and creates microclimates.  For instance, Seattle is at a higher latitude than Chicago but has less extreme seasons due to the effect of ocean currents.

If I remember correctly, seasons on planets like Saturn and Uranus just mean the gases warm and cool, but not enough to change state. Sometimes wind patterns change as a result, but it isn't notable enough to make a big difference in experience if you were in the clouds. Earth not only has water but has a water cycle, and the freezing point of water is encompassed by the seasonal shift, making the most prominent liquid on the planet turn into a solid and also sometimes lift into the air and become a vapor, things that aren't really impacted by seasons on other planets. 

[Bej Kerman]

17 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Kerbin: Axis tilted 23 degrees, like Earth.
    Mun: Axis and orbit tilted 6 degrees from Sun, like Minmus is now. No real reason, just wanted it not in Kerbin or Sun's line.
    Minmus: Axis tilted 23 degrees from Kerbin, or 0 degrees from Sun. To make interplanetary from Minmus easier (Hey it doesn't have to be ALL harder)

This is supposed to be the way new players are introduced to KSP? It has to be laid out flat. Minmus on its own can be tilted so as to be an introduction to these concepts.