Jump to content

Will we get to other stars?


lyndonguitar

Recommended Posts

I could see something like this working with a high time-warp setting or a way to jump ahead in time (with huge increments, so that intersystem travel would still be done as normal) and having engines that are not that unrealistic. However, you'd also probably need some way to aerobrake when you get there; either a planet would need an atmosphere, or there would need to be things like dust around the stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, bring on the FTL and other solar systems, for those of you that don't want that, you simply would have the option to not use it.

I do want those things, and luckily the devs have mentioned both as likely additions to the game, hopefully they don't pay too much attention to those of you that don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, bring on the FTL and other solar systems, for those of you that don't want that, you simply would have the option to not use it.

I do want those things, and luckily the devs have mentioned both as likely additions to the game, hopefully they don't pay too much attention to those of you that don't.

Hopefully they have difficulty settings, so then we can make the game as difficult or as easy as we'd each like.

And if you don't like difficulty settings then you'd have the option to not use them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, bring on the FTL and other solar systems, for those of you that don't want that, you simply would have the option to not use it.

I do want those things, and luckily the devs have mentioned both as likely additions to the game, hopefully they don't pay too much attention to those of you that don't.

Go play other some sci-fi game if you want FTL. Edited by Canopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go play other some sic-fi game if you want FTL.

What a ridiculous thing to say, I want to play this game with FTL, as the dev's have mentioned wanting to add to the game.

Use some self control, if you don't want FTL, don't use it. No one would be forcing you to.

There are many parts to the game already that I do not use, despite other people finding them useful, it doesn't detract from the game for me.

Like it or not, this is already a game with science fiction as a integral element of the gameplay, it may be "hard sci-fi" in many respects, but it is in fact not strictly a pure simulation of things as they exist in reality. To our knowledge.

Does the crashed flying saucer or the kraken corpse bother you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a ridiculous thing to say, I want to play this game with FTL, as the dev's have mentioned wanting to add to the game.

Use some self control, if you don't want FTL, don't use it. No one would be forcing you to.

There are many parts to the game already that I do not use, despite other people finding them useful, it doesn't detract from the game for me.

Like it or not, this is already a game with science fiction as a integral element of the gameplay, it may be "hard sci-fi" in many respects, but it is in fact not strictly a pure simulation of things as they exist in reality. To our knowledge.

Does the crashed flying saucer or the kraken corpse bother you?

No, they don't bother me at all.:P Those are just Easter Eggs and not gameplay related. KSP is a game/half simulator about "realistic" spaceflight, meaning as based on Newtonian physics, with some fun elements. FTL would contradict the whole concept of KSP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTL would contradict the whole concept of KSP.

No, it actually wouldn't, what you mean to say is: You don't like it.

Not liking it does not "break the game" any more than the size and density of the planets, nor would it just be pure hand wavium tech based on things the devs have said AND things that many scientists believe could eventually be possible.

The latter is an important distinction in terms of a game where we all routinely send aliens to any and all planets in a cutesy pseudo representation of our own solar system, or hurtling out of said solar system, last time I checked we haven't done any of that yet either irl.

The simplest solution is for those of you who don't want it, to not use it, nor to ruin it for those of us that DO want it to be part of the game.

If it breaks the gameplay for you, don't use it. In fact, teh way the game is made, you could even simply remove the part from your ksp directory and never have to worry about it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, bring on the FTL and other solar systems, for those of you that don't want that, you simply would have the option to not use it.

I do want those things, and luckily the devs have mentioned both as likely additions to the game, hopefully they don't pay too much attention to those of you that don't.

You do realise that the question isn't "something or nothing?", right? Every moment of effort put into these things is a moment of effort that could be put into making something that actually fits within the style of the game (plausible semirealistic newtonian physics based space program (compacted for practicality's sake)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already so much to do in the solar system already. To visit every planet/moon and explore all of them takes 100s of hours. I dont mean just landing, I mean full on exploration. Plus setting up space stations and all that resource stuff that will be coming. That is plenty of content. I dont mind them adding another couple planets/moons and asteroids, but other solar systems is too much extra Dev time for very little return as very few people would ever get that far.

If they ever do add more solar systems I think they should be well after release and as paid expansions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this argument ending up being the war between the more "casual" gamers and the hard-core simulator guys. To address some of the questions coming up in terms of realisticness I would argue that neither party is right. One one hand you have the sim guys who want ultra-realism and time dilation near light speed (keep Einstein in mind when talking about this) and the "casual" people that want the interstellar expansion into the universe. Now, to those who think ALL FTL is "magic" it isn't. There are theories, Alcubierre's bubble, where the space time is compressed, with highly dense material, in front of the craft and expanded behind it with negative mass. The last is somewhat sketchy ill admit, but it is not out of the realm of reality completely. ALSO the "all other engines would be obsolete" argument can be addressed as such: activating an Alcubierre bubble drive near a planetary body of any kind would cause the ship to fall toward the nearest SOI and annihilate both (again look up the Alcubierre drive/bubble for cross reference). This means your ship has to exit KERBOL SOI before you can run the FTL drvie. I smell end game material here, does any one else?

(Again cross reference my info as I am not a theoretical physicist)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of their current game scope, if this were to ever be implemented, I think FTL dependent travel is unlikely. It may end up being a straight line to the star with high warp but I believe squad will do their best to satisfy even the most picky of their fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that the question isn't "something or nothing?", right? Every moment of effort put into these things is a moment of effort that could be put into making something that actually fits within the style of the game (plausible semirealistic newtonian physics based space program (compacted for practicality's sake)).

FTL DOES fit the style of the game, the rest of what you say doesn't sound like anything I think anyone should be genuinely concerned about, do you really think squad is going to skimp out on other parts of the game for it?

Because I don't, to me they seem quite capable of making ftl drives and whatever else your little green hearts could want.

Considering they had the ftl drive mostly working, with glitches, almost two years ago, iirc, it seems to me that they're committed to making a very high quality end product and willing to put the time and effort in to do so.

"plausible semirealistic newtonian physics"

Certain irl proposed ftl devices fit that definition as well as anything else in the game.

ALSO the "all other engines would be obsolete" argument can be addressed as such: activating an Alcubierre bubble drive near a planetary body of any kind would cause the ship to fall toward the nearest SOI and annihilate both (again look up the Alcubierre drive/bubble for cross reference). This means your ship has to exit KERBOL SOI before you can run the FTL drvie. I smell end game material here, does any one else?

Which is EXACTLY what the devs have stated it would be previously.

Edited by _Aramchek_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand you have the sim guys who want ultra-realism

It's not realism I want in KSP, it's challenge.

I already find this game to be almost too easy, and the only thing in the foreseeable future that is actually going to add challenge to KSP is the budget in career mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with any generalization, there is always an, or multiple, exceptions to the "rule". There are always those who will fall on either side of the fence and, since its pretty much an even split here, the likely hood is that Squad will find its own way to implement what it feels the game needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about imitating how ships in the film "Avatar" travels, make an antimatter engine, and it would take 1-2 years to reach the other star depending on ship size(in the movie its 6 years, but distances are scaled down for game purposes), The ship needs lots of time for acceleration and decceleration so It wouldn't work with short distances. We would still rely on the traditional propulsion system between planets, but interstellar travel, we use a different propulsion

You can ignore physics side-effects like Time Dilation, Time isn't exactly realistic in KSP anyway, does time run while you are making ships? you can even do 20 moon destination launches in one day, in real life every launch takes months apart.

There are lots of ways to balance it, just like we balanced the world of KSP(e.g. scaled down everything) to fit our gaming needs, It doesn't need to be hyper realistic at all. This is a good feature we are talking about, we are talking about an endgame scenario here

Edited by lyndonguitar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about imitating how ships in the film "Avatar" travels, make an antimatter engine, and it would take 1-2 years to reach the other star depending on ship size(in the movie its 6 years, but distances are scaled down for game purposes), The ship needs lots of time for acceleration and decceleration so It wouldn't work with short distances. We would still rely on the traditional propulsion system between planets, but interstellar travel, we use a different propulsion

You can ignore physics side-effects like Time Dilation, Time isn't exactly realistic in KSP anyway, does time run while you are making ships? you can even do 20 moon destination launches in one day, in real life every launch takes months apart.

There are lots of ways to balance it, just like we balanced the world of KSP(e.g. scaled down everything) to fit our gaming needs, It doesn't need to be hyper realistic at all. This is a good feature we are talking about, we are talking about an endgame scenario here

I respect your opinion, but if you want to go that way, you might as well add quantum technology and go back in time... My problem is, that all this interstellar stuff is highly theoretical and there is NO way that current tech allows this. Now I do realize that in real life crafts like Voyager I and II are on an interstellar trajectory, but mind that these can´t be controlled anymore... as far as I know, we´re just receiving signals, that´s it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect your opinion, but if you want to go that way, you might as well add quantum technology and go back in time... My problem is, that all this interstellar stuff is highly theoretical and there is NO way that current tech allows this. Now I do realize that in real life crafts like Voyager I and II are on an interstellar trajectory, but mind that these can´t be controlled anymore... as far as I know, we´re just receiving signals, that´s it.

You are trying to make it as realistic as possible, you don't get my point, in real life, technology is much slower, yes there is NO way that current tech allow this, and we might even get that kind of tech the latest at 100 years. But KSP is not bound to real life

KSP is a video game, not even a "real" simulator, Orbiter is the real simulator, in KSP time can be sped up, that means technology and development too, That means you can master getting to the moon in just one week of playing. Sooner or later you would end up taking over the whole star system, finding every secret it offers and essentially getting bored. that means endgame for YOU, even at restart you already know everything so why "explore" it again?

However many of us don't want to end our games yet, Interstellar travel solves this, You get into the unknown, possibly random generated stars and planets every time you play and it will offer more possibilities. All with theoretical but plausible tech. and no ones forcing you to use it, They can have a toggle for it "ultimate realism mode" where you can only use current tech and get trapped in kerbol forever even if you time warp x10000000000

Edited by lyndonguitar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about imitating how ships in the film "Avatar" travels, make an antimatter engine, and it would take 1-2 years to reach the other star depending on ship size(in the movie its 6 years, but distances are scaled down for game purposes), The ship needs lots of time for acceleration and decceleration so It wouldn't work with short distances. We would still rely on the traditional propulsion system between planets, but interstellar travel, we use a different propulsion

I fail to see how an antimatter engine with fantastic Isp and much better TWR than current ion engine (obvious since you can use it to build huge ships that can reach 0.7C at constant 1.5G acceleration) would not be useful also for interplanetary travel. In fact if there is no minimum size limit for this kind of engine technology there would be almost no niece left for any other kind of rocket engines.

In fact Avater is a pretty good example of why interstellar craft technology would make all the existing parts in KSP pointless. Do you see humans use any chemical rocket engines in that movie (little solids on the missiles aside)? Their Valkyrie SSTO is equipped with four fusion engines - two fusion rockets for orbital manourver and two fusion hybrid turbojet/scamjet for atmospheric flight and HTHL landing and hovering capability. Before discovering anti-matter rockets mankind have already mastered fusion rockets and jets to such a degree that they can cram four of them on a SSTO and still have impossibly high payload fraction on that craft. Now imagine mankind of that age trying to design an interplanetary craft, how easy would interplanetary trip be when every man and his mother could just slap a pair of fusion rockets on a tin can that can keep air in and go pretty much anywhere in the solar system? In such a world is there really any room for liquid fuelled chemical rockets?

Edited by Temstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein has been proven wrong about FTL, because there are sub-atomic particles capable of traveling faster than the speed of light.

No there aren't. Not for any sane definition of 'faster than the speed of light' anyway. Although if you understand then Lorenz transformations, the phrase 'faster than the speed of light' doesn't actually mean anything anyway. It's like saying you believe in circles with a circumferance to diameter ratio bigger than Pi, because why not? Numbers can be bigger than Pi, so why can't circles have bigger circumferance to diameter ratios?

Comparing relativity to vague best guesses made hundreds of years ago doesn't cut it. Relativity made numerous provable predictions that have been shown since to be correct. It's earned it's right to respect the hard way.

Nevertheless I'd be fine with an FTL system in KSP that only works well outside the bounds of any planetary system so the current feel of the game is preserved. My understanding is that this is the plan..

Oh yes, and Bussard Ramjets. Turns out they make better brakes than engines. The magnets you need to contain the fusion process for a CNO Cycle would have to be so powerful they'd tear the ship apart. Also the theoretical top speed for a BR, assuming perfect efficiency and no lost energy, is 0.119C because you have to first speed up the protons you're collecting to your current speed before you ejects them as exhaust, and there's a limit to the net energy they get from the fusion process. In practice, your top speed in likely to be a small fraction of that.

The other problem is that the collector scoop systems for a BR would have to be huge, on the order of the diameter of the moon. Good luck assembling that in KSP. It's several orders of magnitude bigger than the physics simulation range anyway. Light sails have the same problem. It would likely take you hundreds of years of game play to build one and the even huger solar arrays and laser focusing systems.

Me, I like my KSP as close to the way it is as possible. The ideal would probably be to have other systems just be a long way away but still reachable. Say put the outer planet of the nearest systems 5 or 10 times further away than the orbits of the outer planets round Kerbol. That would be unrealistic, but a decently playable compromise. However it might cause problems for the simulation engine. The way I see it, a hyperdrive that only works far away from a star is essentially just a loading screen for entering another game context for the new planetary system. If it solves some tricky technical problems for the devs, that's fine by me. I'd rather they spent their extremely valuable time providing fun things to do in the game rather than solving overly complex simulation engineering problems that don't actually add to the in-system exploration game play we all love.

Simon Hibbs

Edited by simonh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how an antimatter engine with fantastic Isp and much better TWR than current ion engine (obvious since you can use it to build huge ships that can reach 0.7C at constant 1.5G acceleration) would not be useful also for interplanetary travel. In fact if there is no minimum size limit for this kind of engine technology there would be almost no niece left for any other kind of rocket engines.

remember it doesn't start at 0.7c immediately after the engines fire, it took them 6 months to accelerate it to 0.7c and 6 months to decellerate it again. and They don't have to copy it exactly, in the game it could start slower

for example, the antimatter engine could take days or months to reach a speed faster than any rocket could achieve in the game, while the normal rockets in the game can take a few seconds to achieve the speed. making the antimatter inefficient for interplanetary distance burns and trajectories

The difference is that the antimatter engine has a higher speed limit (lets say 0.5c) so travelling long distances has great benefits

Imagine a Jet Plane, We use it to travel from country to country, Its superfast, but you don't see anyone using Jet Planes to go to work 1km away right? we still use cars for it.

Edited by lyndonguitar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are trying to make it as realistic as possible, you don't get my point, in real life, technology is much slower, yes there is NO way that current tech allow this, and we might even get that kind of tech the latest at 100 years. But KSP is not bound to real life

KSP is a video game, not even a "real" simulator, Orbiter is the real simulator, in KSP time can be sped up, that means technology and development too, That means you can master getting to the moon in just one week of playing. Sooner or later you would end up taking over the whole star system, finding every secret it offers and essentially getting bored. that means endgame for YOU, even at restart you already know everything so why "explore" it again?

However many of us don't want to end our games yet, Interstellar travel solves this, You get into the unknown, possibly random generated stars and planets every time you play and it will offer more possibilities. All with theoretical but plausible tech. and no ones forcing you to use it, They can have a toggle for it "ultimate realism mode" where you can only use current tech and get trapped in kerbol forever even if you time warp x10000000000

I´m not necessarily aiming for a 100% realistic game... I do realize it´s a game. I just think it´s a better idea to put all the efforts into one solar system and make it as badass as possible. When other stars are introduced, it wouldn´t make sense to have 1 or 2 stars, even for a game... you would need thousands! This would mean that everything has to be generated instead of hard coded and that´s where I can see quality drop over quantity. First, let´s make one `perfect` solar system... after that, who knows!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m not necessarily aiming for a 100% realistic game... I do realize it´s a game. I just think it´s a better idea to put all the efforts into one solar system and make it as badass as possible. When other stars are introduced, it wouldn´t make sense to have 1 or 2 stars, even for a game... you would need thousands! This would mean that everything has to be generated instead of hard coded and that´s where I can see quality drop over quantity. First, let´s make one `perfect` solar system... after that, who knows!?

Again, It's not real life again. You wouldn't need to make it thousands of stars to justify the real life's abundance of stars, even 4X space games don't have that many stars

The best way would be, as you said, One badass Kerbol System, and then, additional, optional, 5-10 random generated stars around it. that's it, when you are done exploring those 10 stars, you can restart the game again and expect a new set of 10 stars around kerbol, making the games' replayability last forever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

remember it doesn't start at 0.7c immediately after the engines fire, it took them 6 months to accelerate it to 0.7c and 6 months to decellerate it again.

Yes, with a mile long spacecraft weighing thousands of tons carrying god know how much people/suppliers/unobtainium at 1.5G! Imagine what those engines can do when pulling a lighter ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...