Incarnation of Chaos

Do we even know if KSP2 is supporting openGL/Vulkan on release? Because otherwise you're not running it on Mac without boot camp.

Ah, so it's a usability thing. Got ya.

Unless I'm misunderstanding that's basically how IRL refrigeration works (you have a hot and a cold side, and a working fluid with a low boiling point but easily liquified under pressure). Are you saying that it's that difficult to code that type of behavior in KSP? If so, then are all the Kerbals on the equator because of the lack of AC units xD

*George Takei voice* Oh myyy Downloading now, let's see if we can do something truely crazy.

20-30, and everything from Visual to Gameplay. I have too much computer for this game on my main rig, so i don't have to worry about performance too much.

Wow; I didn't even think you were working on anything like that after I didn't get a reply. You're awesome dude, thanks!

Can you tell i don't like sliders by now? Someone is going to want to do something weird, now they have to learn the actual math and config system anyway. This is basically my entire argument, just start them at the basics and build them up. Introduce things like atmosphere, equations later after cutting their teeth on airless example planets etc. Like I'm not entirely opposed to an editor; especially if it has hooks into whatever planetary config system KSP2 has. That would allow you to basically rapidly prototype planets and systems, then more advanced users could define their own custom atmospheres and equations. But i just can't see in what situation it would be anything but a supplement to already knowing the configs, and that's my primary issue. It's something that while is nice to have; isn't strictly needed and honestly would likely be better done by the community anyway.

Simple in principle, but i would caution you on overestimating how many have actually seen something in the form ex+1 or etc. Now you're correct that this could be abstracted away from the player entirely, but then you run into a problem. How do you deal with the people who aren't seeing what they're expecting? Especially when they might not know the math under the hood and it's implications? I just feel like there's an incredible potential here for confusion leading to feature creep and bespoke bugs. And no matter how "Powerful" you make this editor; it's always going to pail in comparison to just using Kopernicus configs or whatever KSP2's built in equivalent is. Why not just start them with the best solution first, document it well, and make the learning curve easy. Then things like this don't matter because they just become part of the process of learning, instead of a frustration that you have to stomp onto the forums and figure out why it isn't working correctly. KSP2 has been about this from the beginning, providing more and improved tutorials and on-boarding instead of dumbing down for the sake of accessibility, so this "Planet editor" is a massive step backwards from that if implemented.

You literally don't; you can copy and paste your KSP install to another folder and version lock yourself. And this will very likely be the case with KSP2. [snip]

I think they were trying to say that bugs caused with a mod are reproducible by others with the same mod, while this proposed planet editor wouldn't have the same level of error reproducibility. So nothing stops a mod from introducing a bug; it's just far, far easier to troubleshoot when it does.

I kinda want 3.5 and 5M variants of the 2.5 10M inflatable shield, so like a 3.5 M Heat shield that inflates to 15-25M and a 5 M Heat Shield that inflates to 25-35M. Also ballutes would be nice (Also any mod suggestions are welcome; though i know of one that has ballutes already). I'd also like a MUCH wider variety of parachutes and materials (There was a mod for RealChute that was going to extend the materials but i can't find it now D: ) , because sometimes you just gotta go fast.

From everything they've already said; it's going to be far easier to mod planets into KSP2 than KSP. And Kopernicus isn't too hard to work with if you want a basic planet, so i don't really see the value here tbh.

The RAM seems a little light, and that's an IGPU. So I'd say no guarantees either way.

There is absolutely no reason to use E-GPU on a desktop, you'd be far better off with a low-profile GTX 1050 ti that could fit than even a much more powerful card in an EGPU enclosure. The performance of any GPU will be cut roughly in half by the overhead from TB3, and the enclosures themselves aren't cheap. You're looking at a combined cost of >600 dollars USD for even a low-end GPU and enclosure. And for that price you could easily grab a new ATX case, PSU, 16GB RAM and a motherboard and cooler compatible with your existing CPU, along with a RX 570. You can actually use much of what you have (CPU, HDD, even RAM if you wanted) which further reduces costs. I know it sucks, but the solution to avoiding spending even more in the future is to take the time now to actually think about what you can do to use what you have instead of trying to make it work with parts it never was supposed to.

Alright, that clears it up. If I'm still thinking about all of this tomorrow i might shoot a PM your way or two, because the lack of resources is my biggest barrier in all honesty. The C++ code doesn't scare me, nor does making a interface to plug whatever i make into KSP. But even after scrawling thru the dedicated sections on this forum i couldn't actually pin down exactly how to setup the environment needed. The math doesn't even really scare me that much; even though i just got thru calculus recently. If i can get to a point where i can write code, and see it crash, then I'm actually a happy camper. The actual simulation portion has plenty of examples out there also, and even entire papers on the topic. Getting it all to work with FAR without absolutely crushing performance....now that's a larger issue, but one i have to have a working implementation of my idea before i can even begin to worry about. Anyway though, thanks for your continued replies.

Tie the physics delta-time to an exponential equation that triggers after about ~5-10 hours of normal game-play, and begin increasing the speed until the user's computer either crashes or the frame rate is in the single-digits. This could also be tuned to allow the speed increases to occur slower or faster, or even decrease the speed instead of increase.

It might just be me just misunderstanding what "Shader" means in this context I'm not familar with GPU code; you'd likely know that from our previous conversations xD And yeahhhhh i wasn't even going to try to get anything resembling a true fluid sim, and was going to do pretty much exactly what you outlined below if i ever got around to it. From everything i saw you can get excellent approximations of fluid behavior anyway that just "Emerge" from the simulation anyway; which is fine for KSP.

While i completely agree that you should be able to toggle the degree of the weather "Simulation" to your liking; I'm also going to say nope on this. Weather systems have very distinct looks from orbit (They're cyclonic), so even a rough simulation would allow you to pick out those areas with potentially damaging winds as long as it made sure that these elements were reflected in the orbital display (Which you could easily do with textures resembling them). Now if you're talking about high winds in clear air, then that's harder...but not impossible still. Anything within a decent proximity to an area of high or low pressure is going to experience higher winds, due to the atmosphere attempting to equalize the difference. (Air rushes out of areas of higher pressure, rushes into lower pressure as a very rough guideline). But this is also a game that has a pretty important element...LAUNCHING ROCKETS INTO SPACEEEEE. So any weather should hopefully come with contracts and parts for making weather satellites, monitoring stations and other equipment so that you could actually get a real-time picture of conditions planetside instead of having to rely on dead reckoning. That's what we do IRL, and one of the main reasons forecasting has improved so much over the years.

Yeah i didn't want to do it as a shader tbh, that wouldn't really achieve what i wanted which was a very rough weather simulation with Storms, Fronts and Low and High pressure systems. But i was actually considering having a shader as a "Fallback" mode for situations where performance is bad/needed; though since this is all in atmosphere i really wasn't thinking about extremely high physics warps. And i was thinking that i might just be able to "Cull" the simulation elements while above a certain height, not computing anything but just the state pretty much. So not displaying anything but your normal atmosphere/cloud textures beyond a certain height; which could also be just swapping in the shader "Fallback" mode if that was implmented also. Though for performance; i was thinking a hybrid approach may have been needed. Having the visible weather effects (Rain, clouds, etc.) mostly on the GPU; with the more detailed simulation on CPU. And one of the main reasons i wanted to do it in CPP was mostly due to my experience within it, and because if i wanted it to run efficiently it would have to be multi-core as best as possible (I'm aware much of these calculations wouldn't be threadsafe, but each indivdiual "Layer" of the simulation could be on it's own core perhaps). But like i said; it never really got too far beyond the conceptual level for me. Oh i don't care about the time, but the circumstances around the development make me suspicious at best. You just can't really have a better incubator for development hell at this point, but it DOES look like they're rounding a corner and going full speed ahead. So I'm not too worried at this point.

I'm more worried about feature creep than anything; KSP2 has been delayed twice. How much of that might have been influenced by them seeing the fourms and deciding whatever they had just wasn't enough?

Personally; i didn't vote because there was no option to vote "No" without also answering what kind of weather "I wanted". Which completely defeats the point of a no option, and which i would've been voting otherwise. KSP2 developers have way better things to do than implement weather; even if it's not the most complex thing they could be wanting. But yes; i've had this worry since the first announcements. Day 1 everyone wanted GPU accelerated physics (Without understanding why that's basically not going to happen), Multithreading (Without understanding that KSP is actually multithreaded already, so KSP2 will just leverage more of it), and every single one of their favorite mods made stock. There's a lot of people who are going to be setting themselves up for disappointment, and realize that KSP2 isn't their personal fantasy come to life. I can only hope the robust modding support and sales can recoup any of those intially lost customers in the end assuming KSP2 isn't an absolute pile of dumpster trash to begin with (Which remains to be seen).

Size The Earth is much larger in radius, and much more massive. So it's much more difficult for gravitational anomalies to affect orbits as drastically (I'm sure you could still measure it with precise enough instruments though). Also we have this big thick soup we call an atmosphere overhead, which restricts most orbits to be much, much higher than they could be otherwise to avoid the drag.

I actually looked into it myself and came to similar conclusions; even started looking at how i could interface a C++ plugin with KSP (Similar to principia). But i decided i really just didn't have the time or dedication to write, debug and maintain something like this. Also i wasn't certain if KSP/Unity had a Cloud implementation that would allow for it, and not destroy performance. It would be a cool project though, so it's still on my mind xD

Also just want to bring this up, and because these come up so much in particular. Even when these cards were released, they were NEVER intended as cards for heavy use. These were cheap, bottom bin silicon that could be thrown in OEM PC's to provide multiple display support and accelerate media or Excel calculations. The GT 1030 is a much better card, and far more suitable for a "Entry-level GPU" (I'd argue that a RX 570 is far better, and at 150 used blows this out of the water but there's plenty of reasons why you might not be able to use it). But the GT 730 and GT 710 should not be the benchmark, as they weren't ever intended to be. And these chips are ANCIENT; being based on 40nm and launched in 2014. These are essentially math coprocessors on a process that was outdated even back then that you want KSP2 to "Optimize" for; imagine if all games did this? We'd never see anything past the bloody X360 era at best, and likely PS2 graphics would be more the standard. Like i get people want to be able to run KSP2 on a reasonable machine....but...have you looked at parts lately? Because i feel like most of this is from people who haven't seen just what a 200 dollar modern GPU can do these days.

Prebuilt "Gaming PC" or laptop I'm betting.