Jump to content

Realistic gravity in KSP 2


Recommended Posts

It will be great that KSP had realistic gravity.

In KSP1, if you calculate TWR in an excel document for a rocket in orbit,is not the same one that the game gives you,because the game use g as a constant of 9,81 m/s2,and the real g decrease with the distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, javiarrebolis said:

It will be great that KSP had realistic gravity.

In KSP1, if you calculate TWR in an excel document for a rocket in orbit,is not the same one that the game gives you,because the game use g as a constant of 9,81 m/s2,and the real g decrease with the distance.

?

In the game the acceleration of gravity decreases as you say, maybe you are confused with the value of the constant from the game reference for Kerbin at the surface?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Vortygont said:

?

In the game the acceleration of gravity decreases as you say, maybe you are confused with the value of the constant from the game reference for Kerbin at the surface?

Yes you can even measure gravity with the
https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/GRAVMAX_Negative_Gravioli_Detector
Its an made up instrument, measuring gravity in orbit is non trivial, you can measure changes in orbit around the planet /  body or tides I guess. On the ground its easier, weight an known mass on an accurate scale and you get local gravity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, javiarrebolis said:

It will be great that KSP had realistic gravity.

In KSP1, if you calculate TWR in an excel document for a rocket in orbit,is not the same one that the game gives you,because the game use g as a constant of 9,81 m/s2,and the real g decrease with the distance.

When the game shows you TWR, it is always relative to Kerbin g’s, so it won’t decrease on low mass bodies. I’ll admit, sometimes it helps to know what 0.35 TWR means on Minmus, so I’d like to see a total acceleration ability (in m/s^2) divided by the gravity you are experiencing. In orbit though, the effective gravity should just read zero. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gravity also decreases with distance in KSP, you can check this using the Kerbal Engineer Redux mod.

But the planets are unrealistically heavy, so gravity is higher than it would be on real planets of that size.

I wonder if the gravity could be realistic for the planet sizes, though this might make the game too easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

Gravity also decreases with distance in KSP, you can check this using the Kerbal Engineer Redux mod.

But the planets are unrealistically heavy, so gravity is higher than it would be on real planets of that size.

I wonder if the gravity could be realistic for the planet sizes, though this might make the game too easy.

The answer is to make planets full size, but that would change a lot of established KSP play, require a complete rebalance of all parts and engines, etc. etc.

KSP2 long ago confirmed that they will have the same planet size and scaling as KSP1, if I am remembering that correctly.

51 minutes ago, t_v said:

When the game shows you TWR, it is always relative to Kerbin g’s, so it won’t decrease on low mass bodies. I’ll admit, sometimes it helps to know what 0.35 TWR means on Minmus, so I’d like to see a total acceleration ability (in m/s^2) divided by the gravity you are experiencing. In orbit though, the effective gravity should just read zero. 

If you are using MechJeb (or probably any of several other mods), it will report TWR according to the local body rather than Kerbin. However, they still report it relative to surface gravity.

The game does do gravity (mostly) correctly, although it does not do "n-body". That is, once you are in the Mun's SOI, the game doesn't calculate the effect on your ship of Kerbin's gravity, the sun's gravity, Minmus's gravity, etc. All that is simplified by the Mun being "on rails".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, t_v said:

When the game shows you TWR, it is always relative to Kerbin g’s, so it won’t decrease on low mass bodies.

Are you sure about that? You can change the body frame of reference in the VAB and it updates the DeltaV and TWR values in the staging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you build a rocket with 1900kg of mass,with a Terrier engine,the TWR at Kerbin surface is the one I calculate in the picture below,and its the same one that the game gives you (bottom right of the picture).

1.png

But,if you calculate the same in vacum,my TWR and the game are the same if g is also 9,81,but in vacum it should be less.

2.png

So if you calculate the same in an orbit of 90km,the game gives you a TWR of 3'21,and it should be more,4'26 as I demonstrate.

3.png


So yes,i'm sure that KSP1 physics use g as a constant of 9,81.I imagine that for diferent bodies,its diferent,but it doesnt change with the distance between body and rocket.And thats my suggestion for KSP2,that g changes like in real life with the distance.

Edited by Snark
Image links adjusted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Are you sure about that? You can change the body frame of reference in the VAB and it updates the DeltaV and TWR values in the staging.

Yes, what I meant is that the TWR has a constant point of reference while in flight. I’m not sure that if you set it to a low mass body and launch it, it will display that way. I’m pretty sure I’ve done that and it still reverted to Kerbin gravity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t_v said:

Yes, what I meant is that the TWR has a constant point of reference while in flight. I’m not sure that if you set it to a low mass body and launch it, it will display that way. I’m pretty sure I’ve done that and it still reverted to Kerbin gravity. 

What you're saying it's very confusing. AFAIK TWR is set as reference to the SOI you are in and varies according to altitude.

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/14/2022 at 5:16 PM, javiarrebolis said:

It will be great that KSP had realistic gravity.

In KSP1, if you calculate TWR in an excel document for a rocket in orbit,is not the same one that the game gives you,because the game use g as a constant of 9,81 m/s2,and the real g decrease with the distance.

KSP 1 has realistic gravity... That's the reason behind rockets following elliptical trajectories and following the Kepler equation in general.

What KSP doesn't do is to have the most complete model of N-Body dynamics which takes in account the small effects of gravitational pulls of the rest of the bodies in the kerbolar system... These effects would translate in unstable orbits and special region in space like Largrange Points...

The TWR is shown relative to the reference surface gravitational acceleration of the body in which SOI your ship is flying. This is the right way to report the TWR so you can easily calculate the acceleration of your ship "on the fly"... And have a sense of the capability of the ship to take off from surface. It wouldn't make sense to report the TWR relative to the local gravity field, given that would make more difficult to swiftly calculate the acceleration and would loss it's meaning of giving you the sense of how good is your ship on supporting its own weight on take off/landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order of your pictures:

1) the vacuum toggle is about the engine properties, not gravity. This is because gravity isn't less just because you are in a vacuum - it is just that for a planet with an atmosphere you need to get some distance from the planet to go into vacuum and this decreases gravity. But the Mun wouldn't suddenly have more gravity just because it has an atmosphere (assuming same mass).

2) TWR as an indicator is interesting in order to know if you are able to lift-off and land on a body. For this to works you need to calculate it using surface gravity, which is what KSP does. For orbital maneuvers maximum acceleration is more useful. 

3) KPS definitely calculates single-body gravity according to Newton correctly. Both the stock gravity meter and Kerbal Engineer Redux shows you the correct gravity. All the orbits would look very different as well if it was just a constant. 

In short: your starting assumption is wrong.

 

For other people reading this and wondering how orbits would actually look like if gravity did not decrease with distance, I found this discussion which seems interesting, but I have not checked in any detail yet myself:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1345571/what-would-a-planetary-orbit-look-like-if-gravity-had-constant-magnitude

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...