Scale of KSP

[Galactic Nexus]

I was just reading today\'s obligatory topic asking about when planets are being implemented and wondered something; what sort of scale will KSP go to? I mean, are we talking just the Kerbol system? A stellar cluster? A Spore-sized galaxy? The bigger the sandbox, the bigger the hurdles, of course. Chief among which is simply time. Without jump/slipspace/sci-fi jargon drives, getting beyond the nearest one or two stars would take days, even at the highest current warp speed.

I\'d absolutely love for KSP to go as far as to have a full galaxy, like SPORE does, but I don\'t know if that\'s realistically feasible. What are you guys hoping for? What do you think we\'ll actually get?

[Thaniel]

Well, I can guarantee you it won´t go as large as the galaxy in 'Elite, first encounter'. That was imense, and have probably never been done before or since.

As for how far KSP is/will/should go, there have been some musings about neighbouring starsystems, but it seems to me that how much/far that will go is very uncertain. I can´t remember hearing about it from any official source, and tbh, if squad is able to implement into the game what they have listed in the 'stuff to come' list, then I will be more than happy enough, because they are effectively generating a new subgenre here.

[mukut1994]

well id love a whole universe where the galaxies are randomly generated but... there are all of those programming limitations

the kraken is due to floating point precision problems and there will be a fix for that but it shows that making ksp just one solar system will already be really hard to do, and whole other solar systems and galaxies...

i hope it happens but i dont think it will go much further than a few solar systems in one small (compared to real world) galaxy

[rkman]

Besides other planets, other stars are also planned. Also some sort of warp- jumpdrive is planned.

As far as i know a galaxy is not planned, so that would mean the KSP universe will consist of a smallish star cluster.

I think a couple of dozen stars each with several planets already gives us many hundreds of hours of exploring and building rockets and bases. I suppose thousands or even tens of thousands of stars would be overkill, far more than most people could ever hope to visit.

[RayneCloud]

There\'s potential for quite a lot, though there are major technical issues preventing (currently) the play-space from growing very very large. Though the game seems to only crash out at about a light year (actual distance) from Kerbol itself. This is due to floating point errors and the like.

But the potential for growth is there, who knows what will happen down the line?

[ForumHelper]

Making random galaxies could be possible if we had a scene switch(loading screen or something simillar) when a vessel gets far enough from a star that\'s within current 'level'. This would eliminate many technical problems I believe.

[Flying Penguin]

Making random galaxies could be possible if we had a scene switch(loading screen or something simillar) when a vessel gets far enough from a star that\'s within current 'level'. This would eliminate many technical problems I believe.

But (and I\'m just thinking aloud here) if you compartmentalise space into loadable chunks (much like levels in other games), don\'t you make it much much harder to compute transfers?

If I want to transfer between two systems which are more than a Kraken safe distance apart (and are therefore in two loading areas), how would you deal with calculating the physics of the transfer? The only way I can think to do it is to have a low-fidelity physics model for long distances, with a more realistic model kicking in for the current load area.

I\'m sure it can be done, but it might need a bit of a re-think of the way transfer maths are handled....

[Thaniel]

I think I would rather have a single large solar system, with Oort cloud and the works. With resource mining, surface base building, centrifugal forces on structures (for building wheel station) and supplies and lifesupport, mission planner and taining of crew. The micromanagement, the interplanetary trajectories with multiple gravity assists, the resupply missions for outer system mining facilities.... I realy don´t see why we should need warp and other solar systems. But, I´ll take that as well when it comes

[RayneCloud]

I think I would rather have a single large solar system, with Oort cloud and the works. With resource mining, surface base building, centrifugal forces on structures (for building wheel station) and supplies and lifesupport, mission planner and taining of crew. The micromanagement, the interplanetary trajectories with multiple gravity assists, the resupply missions for outer system mining facilities.... I realy don´t see why we should need warp and other solar systems. But, I´ll take that as well when it comes

I could not agree with you more! The future of the game in the next 6 months is so very bright. The potential is there for so much to explore and do just in the local solar system that we wont need anything else for a long long time.

[EchoingMoon]

I might be wrong, but I think that\'s how Firefly (The Series) handled their universe.

Instead of humanity being spread around an entire galaxy, it was spread within two or three large star systems, all relatively close together (In fact, I think the star systems were all orbiting one giant central star!)

One giant star-system would be a nice way of avoiding the more Sci-Fi heavy (magic-like) forms of travel. Although, that being said, I\'m not sure how possible/likely a system like the one described above is.

[Shadownailshot]

I might be wrong, but I think that\'s how Firefly (The Series) handled their universe.

Instead of humanity being spread around an entire galaxy, it was spread within two or three large star systems, all relatively close together (In fact, I think the star systems were all orbiting one giant central star!)

One giant star-system would be a nice way of avoiding the more Sci-Fi heavy (magic-like) forms of travel. Although, that being said, I\'m not sure how possible/likely a system like the one described above is.

Not all of those FTL drives are 'magic like.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive-----> There\'s a real theoretical one, and if you\'ve ever watched any Star Trek, it\'ll be very familiar to you.

Making random galaxies could be possible if we had a scene switch(loading screen or something simillar) when a vessel gets far enough from a star that\'s within current 'level'. This would eliminate many technical problems I believe.

I would like to direct you to this website, which is for another space craft simulation/game that is in the works, but still pre-alpha. It\'s been in development for a very long time, mostly under one individual. If you look at the planned features and the challenges it faces, you will see why. But if you take a look, also, at the currently completed features, you will see some very cool things.

http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=26

[DonLorenzo]

One thing I\'m hoping for is that among all the many different worlds, there will be one, or even a couple or REALLY HARD ONES. What I mean with that is that they would be absolutely difficult to get to, be far out, have a weird orbit or somesuch. Ofcourse they\'d also be really massive (high G) or have a difficult atmosphere. Basically, something that will really be an achievement if you can even land on it. Let alone return.

[Coupon]

I say it\'s more important that the kerbol system is fully populated. I mean like 8 planets with many moons around them, like the real solar system. Wouldn\'t it be super cool if there was a gas giant with 20 moons to explore?

[Shadownailshot]

I would love a bunch of planets. A whole solar system alone is a huge scale. It already takes about 3 game days to get to and land on minmus. It\'s just the 10,000x acceleration that makes the game feel so small.

[Themohawkninja]

How processor intensive would a Spore sized galaxy filled with on-rails systems actually be? Wouldn\'t the game have to cease processing a lot of stuff outside of a certain distance to make sure that the processing requirements don\'t get out of hand?

[rkman]

There\'s no question that it is possible in principal to make the KSP universe very large, with multiple galaxies and millions of stars.

The game Elite did that in the 1980s and \'90s. It ran on less than 1MB RAM, more than a factor thousand less than when PCs have today.

Certainly it would and should require much more RAM now because of higher standards of graphics quality, but the issue is not that every single star and planets needs to be in memory all the time, nor that each needs to be uniquely defined. It can all be generated procedurally including the surface, mostly \'on the fly\'. The point being: if it was possible back then, then its possible now.

But wrt to KSP the question is: what would it add to the gameplay?

It would require KSP to change focus from rocket building to space exploration/trade/fighting pirates/empire building - fun, but not the sort of game the KSP seems to aspire to be. At the very least it would take much more time to develop.

Not all of those FTL drives are 'magic like.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive-----> There\'s a real theoretical one

It\'s either real or theoretical.

I\'d say the Alcubierre drive is hypothetical: the theory of relativity allows for it, but it requires technology that nobody has any clue about as to whether it\'s even possible (it needs negative curving of spacetime/anti-gravity).

[Salda007]

How processor intensive would a Spore sized galaxy filled with on-rails systems actually be? Wouldn\'t the game have to cease processing a lot of stuff outside of a certain distance to make sure that the processing requirements don\'t get out of hand?

The purpose behind the on-rails system is that it is very easy to calculate, because you\'re using set formula based on the orbital parameters and the overall clock. If the engine needed to calculate everything\'s position by calculating the physics for them, then the engine would be stressed.

[Shadownailshot]

There\'s no question that it is possible in principal to make the KSP universe very large, with multiple galaxies and millions of stars.

The game Elite did that in the 1980s and \'90s. It ran on less than 1MB RAM, more than a factor thousand less than when PCs have today.

Certainly it would and should require much more RAM now because of higher standards of graphics quality, but the issue is not that every single star and planets needs to be in memory all the time, nor that each needs to be uniquely defined. It can all be generated procedurally including the surface, mostly \'on the fly\'. The point being: if it was possible back then, then its possible now.

But wrt to KSP the question is: what would it add to the gameplay?

It would require KSP to change focus from rocket building to space exploration/trade/fighting pirates/empire building - fun, but not the sort of game the KSP seems to aspire to be. At the very least it would take much more time to develop.

It\'s either real or theoretical.

I\'d say the Alcubierre drive is hypothetical: the theory of relativity allows for it, but it requires technology that nobody has any clue about as to whether it\'s even possible (it needs negative curving of spacetime/anti-gravity).

Well it\'s theoretical, there\'s plenty of math behind it that supports that it can be done. It just requires the use of things we don\'t have a full understanding of. I\'m sure people said the same things to leonardo davinci about his flying machines.

And why, if there\'s a galaxy, or even a large cluster of stars, do we need empire building and combat? It says the kerbal\'s goal is to 'conquer space'. That doesn\'t necessarily mean combat and pirates.

[Themohawkninja]

The purpose behind the on-rails system is that it is very easy to calculate, because you\'re using set formula based on the orbital parameters and the overall clock. If the engine needed to calculate everything\'s position by calculating the physics for them, then the engine would be stressed.

The way KSP is now (in terms of streaming), is that all the objects in space always exist. If we had a Spore sized galaxy, than (unless they changed the object streaming), the computer would have to load all the planets and stars at once. Even if they are just on-rails, that many 3D objects seems like it might take a toll.

[jinxville]

i think people are forgetting the sheer size of just one galaxy, and also the need to test every planet sun and moon, texture and place in space would take millions of years, however i think as someone has said a brief loading screen of some kind would enable much larger areas.

with regard to any space game like elite, do you really think that is the same as creating fully textured 3d approachable bodies in space that can then be landed on? with a physics engine directing rocket thrust and gravity effects?

i can write down what id like to see in a game, but to actually bring that into being takes a long time, i dont think a lot of people who post on here understand what it takes to create a game.

[rkman]

Well it\'s theoretical, there\'s plenty of math behind it that supports that it can be done. It just requires the use of things we don\'t have a full understanding of.

It requires use of things we do not even know exist (anti-gravity).

And why, if there\'s a galaxy, or even a large cluster of stars, do we need empire building and combat?

Otherwise there\'d not be much to do to justify such a large play field. All you could do is go there, and there\'s not enough time in a lifetime to go to all those planets and moons. At any rate it would just be 'more of the same', with very little variety. There\'s only so much variety that can achieved with star systems, you can\'t have a million of them and have them all be interesting in some way. A couple of hundred bodies spread over a few dozen systems could all be more or less unique/special/interesting.

So it would make sense to give such a large universe a purpose; there\'d have be things going on over there - more than just planets orbiting stars.

with regard to any space game like elite, do you really think that is the same as creating fully textured 3d approachable bodies in space that can then be landed on?

The point of the example of Elite is that it demonstrates it is not necessary to create/texture everything by hand, it can be done procedurally including textures. also Elite does simulate Newtonian physics including gravity.

Elite\'s successor Battlecruiser has procedural planets, and a spacegame currently in development has it to - and has it look pretty: http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=90&catid=4.

[Themohawkninja]

i think people are forgetting the sheer size of just one galaxy, and also the need to test every planet sun and moon, texture and place in space would take millions of years, however i think as someone has said a brief loading screen of some kind would enable much larger areas.

with regard to any space game like elite, do you really think that is the same as creating fully textured 3d approachable bodies in space that can then be landed on? with a physics engine directing rocket thrust and gravity effects?

i can write down what id like to see in a game, but to actually bring that into being takes a long time, i dont think a lot of people who post on here understand what it takes to create a game.

I understand what it takes... but I also know of a psuedo-cheat way of making stuff like galaxies. It\'s called a random number generator.

[MrPwner]

Like Infinity: The quest for Earth? Where a galaxy and all it\'s stars and planets are procedurally generated the same way for everyone.

Making every star and planet in a galaxy is just unrealistic.

[Themohawkninja]

Like Infinity: The quest for Earth? Where a galaxy and all it\'s stars and planets are procedurally generated the same way for everyone.

Making every star and planet in a galaxy is just unrealistic.

Random Number Generators people! They make everything easier/faster on huge scales!

[jinxville]

.

The point of the example of Elite is that it demonstrates it is not necessary to create/texture everything by hand, it can be done procedurally including textures. also Elite does simulate Newtonian physics including gravity.

Elite\'s successor Battlecruiser has procedural planets, and a spacegame currently in development has it to - and has it look pretty: http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=90&catid=4.

yes its in dev so isnt finished so therefore cant be talked of as we all know games that looked great but were never completed or even had a playable demo, until i see it in a game as described here i say it isnt feasible., not at galaxy size at any rate.

i am hoping that one day it will happen as i it just needs time, but it isnt happening yet and not for a long while.