Kerblams: Dumb question

[MaxwellsDemon]

Perhaps this is a dumb question, or perhaps it's been asked before (or maybe both), but how come the explosion effects aren't scaled to the mass of the part exploding in some fashion?  Whether it's a thermometer or a orange tank, they all seem to blow up with equal ferocity...

[The Optimist]

49 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Perhaps this is a dumb question, or perhaps it's been asked before (or maybe both), but how come the explosion effects aren't scaled to the mass of the part exploding in some fashion?  Whether it's a thermometer or a orange tank, they all seem to blow up with equal ferocity...

No, tovarisch, it is because we put leetle bomb in all space program part for fear of bourgeois spies taking them

[swjr-swis]

51 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Perhaps this is a dumb question, or perhaps it's been asked before (or maybe both), but how come the explosion effects aren't scaled to the mass of the part exploding in some fashion?  Whether it's a thermometer or a orange tank, they all seem to blow up with equal ferocity...

It's because of the incredibly high density of matter in the Kerbal universe, and because none of the parts are intentionally designed to explode.

Due to the density, the slightest bit of thermal or kinetic energy added will initiate a nuclear reaction, but since none of the parts are explictly shaped to redirect that energy into their own mass, the rest of the part is immediately shredded by the initial shockwave and blown apart before it can be 'used' in the reaction. Hence, the energy and size of the explosion is always auto-limited to that first tiny initial bit, and the rest of the matter is dispersed, regardless of the size/amount of the part.

Edited July 6, 2016 by swjr-swis

[cubinator]

Because Kerbals are messy and somehow manage to dump bucket loads of rocket fuel on every_single_part.

[klgraham1013]

Because someone thought it was funny.

[Scientia1423]

Because every single part was made in a rocket fuel factory which is why the Kraken are after the Kerbals for robbing their graves of rocket fuel.

[kBob]

Because it has to run on older systems that have limited speed and computational ability?  Now when everyone has quantum computers running faster than light no doubt all the cheats and shortcuts can be removed from KSP (and all simulators) so they can be exactly like in real life  .

[klgraham1013]

16 hours ago, kBob said:

Because it has to run on older systems that have limited speed and computational ability?

It doesn't, but that's another discussion entirely.

This comes up a lot for a game lauded for it's complex physics.  You'd think that'd require a baseline higher than lemon.

Edited July 9, 2016 by klgraham1013

[kBob]

11 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

It doesn't, but that's another discussion entirely.

This comes up a lot for a game lauded for it's complex physics.  You'd think that'd require a baseline higher than lemon.

I should have said designed too, but really it's pretty common to want to make your software compatible with the oldest system you can to improve sales, I usually make sure my software can handle at least 10 year old computers.  Best though is be able to run on older systems and take advantage of newer ones (so for example when writing a complex programmers calculator I can check if there are processor features to enhance certain functions and use them, the check is quick then just set a flag after that it still works on older systems but is faster on newer ones but only adds a very few processor cycles over all).  As far as the calculations involved in tracking each individual part with a unique explosion for it I don't really have any idea how much more processing it would take (not much probably for 20 part ships, but 200 part ships, it might slow down even a modern i7 system would be my guess).  Also keep in mind that they started work on this roughly five years ago and if you read the developer notes you will see they are working on code clean up and improvements like using good old fashioned for loops instead of the more modern stuff Microsoft added to C# (which looks nice but is less efficient).

[MaxwellsDemon]

It's not a huge obstacle.  It's just a bit jarring to be coming into the atmosphere a little "hot" and see a titanic kerblam just because one OX-STAT panel was in a bad spot!