shizophrenic

Warning wall of text!!! again you have 15 years of programming Expertise. that would make it quiet easy for you. you probably have always to work with funktions/objekts other programmed. Unity as far i think (with Ultra low programming wisdom, that is a fact, no sarcasm or ironic intened) mainly a collection of funktions/objekts that does relieve you from programming them yourself. you can treat them like a black box, enter the proper values and you get a defined result. maybe you have to follow Special worksteps to make them work. mabe i am totally wrong. but what is there physically modelled? maybe the light. but that would probably do unity for you and that i don't count. Else It is still only linear movement, i don't see any energy of Impulse exchange happening. I don't see any gravitational well effects, just movement at totally fixed velocities. sorry if you think that a inertial moving without any Forces acting on it is all what needed to call it a proper physical model, i can't say anything .... i would call that models geometrically modelled dynamic objects. they are a collection of Areas that are all fixed together. Dynamic objects i don't disagree, but that only means that you trigger a graphical effect when a condition is met. i see only that when another object reaches a defined distance to another Modell it gets delete and a graphically display on a surface of a geometrically object is displayed. thats geometric. again. geometrics yes. dynamic yes. models yes. physics not from you. sorry i still disagree. thats is proper physics with regard to the physics Models time resolution. the main reason it doesn't stop smooth are the rcs. there are only three Settings for a rcs, full thrust limited (shift lock on) and off. even if the SAS calculates a thrust of 77% of the full rcs thrust it just can't do that. also the sas simulates torque generated by high Spinning discs. it is quite naturally that such object can't be stopped/accelerated immediately. if you try to stop something Spinning at 10000 rpm with a mass of about 500g that you get something like a cannonball. A SAS can't instantly jump from 0 to 10.000 rpm. so there is a physically time lag in the reaction. the craft isn't aligned perfectly pointing upwards because you doesn't released the turn button perfectly at pointing perfectly upwards. sas always tries to align your craft in that direction it Points when human interaction ceases. (see below for human reaction times). still 120 fps aren't 120 different Pictures. my tv Shows me 100 fps but there are only 25 different fps coming into the tv. if you read my Explanation carefull and with a simple look in stock Settings you can easily tell that all more than 33 Frames wouldn't lead to better physics calculation. yes you can have more Frames but you get only 33 different Frames out of the physics engine. Because the smallest number for the time Frame you can set is 0,03 sec. only every 0.03 sec the positions can Change, thats about 33 times a second. so asking for more doesn’t increases the amount of Information you get or giving you a better physics calculation. physically modelled bullets you say. But what Kind of physically? all those modelled bullets are not interacting with each others except the Moment they collide with their target. you can simply calculate the Position of a single bullet. primary it is moving in a straight line. only 3(!!!!) Forces affect the straight line movement them gravitational pull, wind push and air resistance. each be can treated with a simple Modell, that can be expressed like: new velocity = old velocity + k1 *old velocity + k2* (old velocity)^2 + k3*(old velocity)^3. more calculation wouldn't lead to more noticeable accuracy mabe the k3 can be evenskipped . it just doesn't matter. any Input the Player does has far more Impact. average humans have a Reaction time of about 0.1 -0.2 sec for an expected Signal .if i calculate very 0.001 sec and the Player still gives the Input at best 0.1 sec later. if i assume a average velocity of 1000 m/s (that is a lot lower that the starting velocity of real tank bullets) the distance covered by the bullet is 100 m for the human error and 1 m for physics. ksp is different as those those bullets. in the wt example it would look like some hundred bullets are almost randomly chained together with all having small different velocity’s and directions. i said almost randomly because in ksp the Player has even with the restrictions a lot of freedom of Placement for parts. don't confuse the freedom with sense of Placement. WT's physics model isn't designed for that. And thats such a comparison between different models would ever lack any real base. what to say. well i only quite limited programming experiences. maybe not enough to say anything good enough. maybe we are talking about some different bases. for those bullets with their single part physics from earlier I would probably agree to your Point. but the base i talk about the the far more complicated physics of lots of interacting parts. with that base in mind i still think, it is better to make a prototype of every module. when i am finished with every module i want, i would evaluate how the modules affect each other. then i Focus on the modules that interact most or have the most Impact to all others. optimize them. redo Evaluation and optimization. until i am finished.

To your Rover/wheel Problem. Yes, depending on design it can be more stable on the side. especially if the side of the rover has more or equal area than the bottom. then the affecting Forces are distributed over much more area, than Standing in normal way. even more if the CoM in "normal" orientation is not Close to the ground.

At first i apologise for having been rude. now i try to give some real arguments. Regarding your Video i must say for someone beeing 15 years in the business it is not impressing me. From someone who never had programming experince or only Little like me years ago it would be more impressive. looking a Little more Close at it what do i see? two big static objects and several linear with constant velocity moving objects. Some graphic models, graphic effects. The movement is seemd a Little ruggish. Since i suck at any graphic related, those graphic models and effects i couldn't do. To any graphics related i can't say really anything, i can only guess. You mentionend programming graphic Card. i guess loading the models into the graphic Card Memory, defining a coordiante System, telling the Card the coords where to place the objects. during the executing the Programm will be just giving the graphic Cards the new coords, deleting and creating new loaded models. Else no physics calculation at all, only simple Geometrics. brushing up my programming i definitly can do that such calculations too. even a collision handling i could do that would look like that. Even never seen a single line of code or any Detail about the physics concept, i think i have a good estimate how much physics calculation ksp does. Each part recives a lot of different Forces, that have to be calculated every Frame of the timescale anew. I my opinion the "imprecisity of the vector calculation" isn't the the part that makes the calculations imprecisive. It is the underlying physics Modell, and the size of the Frame for the time. no physics Modell used in programs is exact, because not the full mathematical Expression is used. even E= mc^2 is only a 1. Order solution and values of the other orders (the next is ~m) are so small that they don't really matter (c^2 is just a so great number). I think the size of the Frame for the time is one of the major error contributor. between the timeframes the physics would be litterally frozen, the physics makes small hops. but real physics doesn't makes those hops. The most accurate way would be an Integration, but that would use even much more computing power. that leads to the wobbling from the SAS. i think it is physically correct, if they use the physics i think they are. The purpose of a SAS is to control the Rotation of the CoM. But mostly the SAS isn't sitting there, When the SAS tries to stop a Rotation it applies forces at the place it is installed.(Here i assumed something wrong, as another thread made made realise. The SAS applies regardless where it is placed its Forces always on the part that lies on CoM. So the transmitting of Forces start at that part and not at the SAS itself. But with exeption that fact the rest still applies). The Forces are transmitted to the connectet parts and from there to the next and so on. but during each step each part calculated as a single part, with ist own Parameters and the Connections aren't rigid. Every part recives more or less force, than actually needed for the stop of Rotation. They start to have small different directions and applying Forces to each other. Those small differences accumulate more and more, the craft wobbles. The more Parts between the CoM and SAS, the more likely the wobble. my tv Shows 100 Frames but from the TV Stations are about 25 comming. well 120+ Frames doesn't mean 120+ Frames are calculated with heavy physics. your tool shed example is quite interesting too, so when you have a small shovel you build the optimal shed to store it. since it is optimal you wouldn't waste materials and space, and there is only space for the small shovel. then you buy a saw, tear down the shed then build a new optimal shed around them. you Need a bigger shovel tear down the shed build again a new optimal shed. Sorry i just can't see how that is effective...

Ror your right, and thats so obvious that it could be considered as a bug

+1 as long it wouldn't be prerequist to anything else. no one should be forced to do something they don't want. Maybe for career mode it can be the Goal of a Mission.

Well then Tuareg. When and where can i dl "Tuareg's Space Programm" with all the nice things you mentioned... and i don't mind if it is EARLY ACCESS since it will be perfectly bug free since pre Alpha and made by you. ahh and since you didn't mentioned it, i still can expect it to run on Win, MacOS and Linux.

my 5 Cent to all multiplayer related arguments: 1. yes it would be nice to Play together with others. 2. my first, second and third hunch would be "impossible, to much Killers of fun (griefplay, Timing issues, skill of Players, etc.), the game is created with single Player in mind. 3. the communtiy pointed out ideas they didn't considered. 4. they changed their opinion on the Subjekt. Why are you using that aganist them? Do you want them to completly ignore ideas from the communtity? I am quite interrested in the way they think multiplayer would be fun. Personally i don't think they couldn't eleminate all the issues that i would consider a "no go" for multiplayer. So for me is all the time they spend into multiplayer probably wasted. But they decided they have a way. All i can (and want) to do now is wait to look at the result. If it Looks like fun i go and say "Guys my opinion was wrong great Job done". If it isn't then i ignore it completly and Play only the single player game part. If i am not sure i try the multiplayer part and decide then.

This discussion drifts more and more into why/when is that and that mod/Feature not in game/in game. If i understand the opening post right you could shorten it to "What is your opinion : more Content or polishing up existing" My answer would be : Bugfixing, and i think they do a good Job at that (i haven't found any critical bug) good mix of both. What seem Squad IS doing mostly right now? imho adding Content that leads to the question What are their reasons and criteria to doing it? i can only guess. and here my guesses from a game dev Point of view every Feature/Content they add will have Impact about the Setting, complexity, Image, game flow, "feel" and (quite important) difficulty of the game. Right now they have a Status that finds more acceptance than they ever expected to have. they would be stupid to topple that found Balance. Additionally they have to consider the PC's the game should run on. they have always to consider that they have limited resources. They aren't Blizzard that could throw a Team of the whole size Squads KSP-Team to put in something nice to have. also they wouldn't waste resoures on improving Features that may be have completly redone when they add new Content. it is simply more efficent to add more(all) Basic Content and then finetune/improve the Basic concepts so that all works together smoothly. When you add something (fully or partially) from a mod it has just to fit into the stock game and ... well i can already hear the hiss of flame(throwers) getting lit up in the Forum. also you have consider legal rights. and maybe they think like me that upgrading visuals should be done as a finishing touch.

Your right, should would be the better formulated. but i am not a native english Speaker and its late here.

Right! Yes is a valid answer. No is a vaild answer. but "I don't care would be a vaild answer to". I stated that 2 arguments used where not vaild. 1. The mayortity/minorty arguments. how can a minority (348 of several 10.000 or several 100.000 ) of the Players in biased poll (as it is in my opinion, see my last post) represent a mayority/minority. 2. the Argument: real space programms needs dV calculation so there follows a game must have it too. A game can have it but it isn't mandatory.

to 1.: No they wouldn't ask all. But if they want a representative poll, the would choose ppl to vote that based on the statistic distribution of the Population and ask them dircetly. They would Count the "Not voters" and based on that number they can estimate if their vote is representative. Under a certain percentage of Returns they wouldn't claim it is represenative. AND they would not start a biased poll. The poll question of this thread is biased (in my opinion). THIS poll on this Forum will lack those points, since only ppl who actually visit this forum are asked. Second the poll question attracts voters subconsciously and consciously WANT a dV readout. The question isn't neutral on the subject. Any scientifically poll would not only ask a black/White question. they would include something like "other opinion". This poll and poll question is like asking children in a candy store if they would like to have some candy. to 2. First: dV is needed for real live rocket engeniering. BUT not for a game. Real live rocket engeniering doen't have a quicksave / quickload function. Real live rocket doesn't have time warp Forward. Real live rocket doesn't have unlimited resources. Real live rocket doesn't have kerbals that would jump in any absurd craft you design. AND MAINLY : If it were really needed in KSP than only those ppl that do the calculations themself or use a mod that acomplish this would ever gotten to the other planets. That is obvoiusly wrong. Second: The game doesn't force you to plan missions like you do. YOU decided that, not the game. YOU has choosen to spend the amount of time and effort that was put into it. YOU have the Option to add lots of safety fuel and you decided to not do it. YOU have decided that putting all that limited time and effort would be worth a successful Mission. And if YOU mess up it is suddenly not anymore? Third: As you stated "because I unwittingly messed up a calculation". YOU did mess up. If you really heavily thought like you claimed, you would have double or triple checked you calcuations. Fourth: Yes Scott Manley does interresting things. He decided that doing that would be fun for HIM and worth all the time and effort. If he uses help/assistance from other ppl or Tools then HE has decided that doing it by himself would be not worth the time and effort. But how something any other Player do something he doesn't decide. He just Shows what he did. And even that he Shows something he chooses for himself.

I am only against invalid arguments. Personally it would be fine to have a dV readout in the VAB/SPH, when i plan a Mission. But after launch i personally don't need one. If my misssion Fails, it Fails because I made the Errors, be it in planning or executing. I won't blame a dV readout (may it be there or not) for that.

Not so sure about it. According to NASA Voyager 1 has reached interstellar space. So we have at least one objekt traveling interstellar.

After reading a lot on these Posts i hav my say two two things here often stated. 1. The "mayority / minority" Argument: ARE YOU SERIOUS???? ONLY 348 VOTES OF ABOUT SEVERAL 10.000 (or 100.000) PLAYERS ARE REPRESENTING ALL? Usually only ppl who are interested in a poll even read it. All ppl who didn't see the post ( in my opinion the real mayority) or don't care to read/vote (since they use mods or are fine whatever Squad decides) aren't represented. Such a poll would only representative if all ppl who play(own) KSP are forced to vote. And what me most annoys (and probably others) is the black/white choice we have. From the post i read most favor something between. I voted for yes but it was a 55/45 decision. I only Need a dV in VAB/SPH. At least i can remember what i planned and can approximate how much % fuel (and thus how much dV) is left. 2. The "dV ist essential for Rocketeering" Argument: I agree for the real space programms it is a essential Thing, but not for a game. In real Space Programms there is real impact of the mission success. E.g. lot of Money is involved, People earn their living through it, on manned Mission human lives are depending on it. All we Players can lose in KSP is the time and effort we spent in a Mission. In all that shouldn't have so much Impact on your daily live like a failure in real space programms since this is just a game...

I can understand Squad for not making the Systems not randomly generated right now. Squad is still creating the game. Error tracking for GUI, calculating for nodes and such things were harder. With one System you know what values have to get. The Argument about getting bored landing on planet x the y. time lies in just two Problems. The first squad i think is working on, ist more content. the second is the way a Player approaches the game. The game started as a sandbox game. the goals and the ways to realise them is your Job to do. And in my opinion with the development stage today different solar System won't kill repetitiveness. well the planets had different, orbits, atmosheres, names, colours and what else, but you will just using the same ways to get there, land there and go back. Probably all the mods will be adjusted to be able to do all the calculations for you, so even the argument "the values for the planets are random now ist harder" doesn't really aply. my opinion (!): To kill repetitivness it is more importance to give more reasons to plan different Missions than making the kerbal System variable.

Jeb is right now at ksc, always complaining about my designs, like "MORE BOOOSTERS", "struts are overrated","thats not wobbly enough to feel comfortable", "the Snack compartment is way to small", "the rover is to slow"... i think even Bill and Bob were mumbling about forgetting someone on the next Mission.

needed 4 Login tries to Login in for this post. i use F5 and F9 ... but often to realise that my last F5 was to long ago... never installed a mod. some i want to install later (like the map mod, but i am too lazy or havent found the Need (e.g. Mechjeb ) had till now only unmanned crafts departing for duna and eve. and i did't bother such things like launch Windows, the eve probe still Needs 200+ days to have Encounter. the first duna crashed due lack of electricity. i did transmit science but didn't notice that the System Setup was sun - ike - probe - duna. So the solar Panels where out but so sun to catch. when i wanted to stage the paracutes there was no electricity there. jeb couldn't leave the capsule on his first mun landing. on my new designed lander there was a paracute on the hatch i use nav nodes only for the direction and ignore the dv help or delete them altogether . just look how the burn works in map mode. i build a space plane but it is useless. starting orbiting Docking returning for just to deliver about a FL-T2000 tank of fuel isn't worth the time. all bigger designs are epic Fails Deleted my debris outside of kerbin sphere of influence. gets annoyed by new asteriods. it itches me to capture all that would hit kerbin... dropping all not used crafts on kerbin... and i use nuclear engine often... Ignores the fact that the lander cans aren't meant for reentry.

I am for a dv readout during design in the VAB/SPH. Wernher von Kerman would do this. During flight i don't think you can actually get the exact amount of fuel you have. An real engine has not an exact fuel comsumbtion like 10 l/sec. it would be more like 10 l/sec plus minus 0,5 l/sec. So you only have more or less good estimate how much you used. And i personally think after Launch all plans are doomed to fail (even more for kerbals). Like my first manned moon landing, was planned on mün happend on minmus. And the actual first mun landing didn't have EVA because on the new lander i put the paracute on the hatch.... If there has do be a readout during flight then it should be based on the kerbalnauts stupidity:sticktongue:. generally i am for some more data (like times/height to apo, peri, ascen, descen) at flight mode, switching between flight and map mode is quite annoying. all data that the game now gives in map mode (and the altimeter from iva) should be at least accessible in flight mode. i don't like the idea to have a mod installed for this. Some suggested putting some data views into iva makes no sense to me. then next you can ask "why can you see your craft from the outside and control it from here, lets make all controls useable only in iva ".

never take me wrong, radioaktivity is dangerous and should be used very carefully. Here is much talk about radioactivity and it seems some are struck by fear just reading the word. we all are always hit by Radiation (cosmic, clinical and from trace isotopes around us). if you ignore the ionising part you can define the light from a simple light bulb as extremly low energy Gamma Radiation (electromagnetic wave). no nuclear plant (or engine) would want Gamma Radiation since you can't easily extract the energy like you want. the nuclear plants aim a high Ratio for alpha, beta or Neutron (prefered) Radiation. the energy of these Radiation lies mainly in movement of their particels, whats equal to a theoretical (very high) temperature. To other Atoms they lose this energy through collision or electromagnetic interaction (this not for Neutrons), their movement is slowed down and the surrounding matter heats up (gaining Speed). as the mass for Neutron is almost equal to hydrogen, hydrogen Atoms are best for slowing down. for shielding purposes the rocket fuels fits that criteria perfect for Gamma Radiation you want high density materials (e.g. lead) to raise the probability for interacting with their electrostatic and magnetic fields. Alpha and beta Radiation can be completely shielded with quite thin metal Sheets, and are only problematic if they are incorporated. for a nuclear enigne follws: 1. mainly Neutron Radiation 2. Neutrons should have lost most of their energy in the engine (most People Forget that Point) 3. between engine and 'fragile' parts would be usually the fuel tank 4. reflection on other ships shouldn't be a Problem due to 2, 3 and Radiation density should go down with ~ 1/r^3 5. the isotopic Generation through the Neutrons, for the fuel Atoms there wouldn't be a significant raise in their natural Distribution. leaves the engine parts which are fixed. depending on the materials used (half time, Radiation emmited) they are be deposited. as stated by others the cosmic Radiation from the sun and all other sources outside the solar System since the energy in way up higher. a nuclear fission results usually in particles with energy about 2*10^6 eV. nuclear Fusion like in the sun starts at 14*10^6eV. Cosmic Radiation is measured up to 10^22eV. for health reasons Radiation in itself isn't the Problem, it is the deposited energy (the energy loses during the passage) in Body/cells. here you have to differate the three possiblitys 1. deposited energy is to low to do something (like raise temperature in a cell a Little). no Problems here. 2. deposited energy leads to a chemical reaction through collsion, temperature or ionisation. this part can lead to a genetic modification, which usually kills the cell, gets the cell killed by the own immune system or with lower probability to cancer/Mutation (cell must still function, be accecpted by the immune System and be able to reproduce). 3. deposited energy is so high that the cell dies instantly (loss of lots of cells leads to Radiation sickness, death). this would be bad and you have 2. too. again. never take me wrong, radioaktivity is dangerous and no one should suffer through it. if you Interpret it zynical you can see Point 2. : Mutation isn't bad and happens all the time. It is the engine of Evolution. Mutation through artifical Radioaktivity is like an additional Mutation on top of the normal. Ist like an accelerated Evolution. (well for those who suffer from it sounds hollow) knowing kerbals they are fine with that.

I play since January with pure stock parts (still thinking over what mods i want/need). Debris passed about 100m my first half-build Space Station during docking, so now i try to avoid any debris. That happend quite early so i never had much debris at all. I put on stages that go into orbit a probe and leave enough fuel to de-orbit. Debris on planets/moons gets terminated. I treat it like trash lying beside the roads (or craters) and kerbals usually don't care about it (except some kerbal rocket part engineers). Debris in Kerbin SOI stays. I build a vessel to de-orbit older stages and deorbited most. Right now there are about 10 old stages in rather safe orbits left. One more is in Orbit around mun and one more around minmus. With the Claw it should be now totally easy to get rid of them. Till 0.23.5 i kept the interplanetar debris, but after more than 25 astroids with their trajektories displayed i got annoyed and terminated the 7 of them. Only after that i saw that now we can toggle the view for crafts, debris, astros etc.