How to make KSP more accurate?

[PhysicsBoy]

I want to make physics in KSP as accurate as possible for my potato mac. How do I do so? Are there any mods that will make it more accurate? Can you please list those?

I read how KSP doesn't have lagrange points and some other problems... sooo... hope you can help me!

[Guest]

Here you go: https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia

If you want really realistic, there's always 

...which includes Principia and a ton of other things.

 

[Streetwind]

...I'm not sure if a device described as a "potato mac" will be able to run the full RO suite successfully (or at least, in a playable manner)  

[Dafni]

10 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

...I'm not sure if a device described as a "potato mac" will be able to run the full RO suite successfully (or at least, in a playable manner)  

yes, plus (correct me if I am wrong) none of those mods include n-body physics, Lagrange points (mentioned by OP) etc.

Haven't messed with RO stuff in ages though, and would love to be proved wrong on this.

[Streetwind]

4 minutes ago, Dafni said:

(correct me if I am wrong) none of those mods include n-body physics, Lagrange points (mentioned by OP) etc.

Then I have to correct you, because that is literally what Principia does: n-body physics for KSP. Try it sometime, it is quite an experience. One that may very well tickle your fancy, but will at the same time make you understand better why the devs decided to use patched conics instead.  It is not for everyone.

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Streetwind

[Human Person]

2 hours ago, PhysicsBoy said:

potato mac.

Won‘t be able to run principia. Principia is the mod that introduces n-body physics.

[Dafni]

5 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Then I have to correct you, because that is literally what Principia does: n-body physics for KSP. Try it sometime, it is quite an experience. One that may very well tickle your fancy, but will at the same time make you understand better why the devs decided to use patched conics instead.  It is not for everyone.

 

Oh, okay, I stand gladly corrected then. Nice to hear, and definitely something to check out now that my PC should be able to handle such things.

Thanks for the information, and sorry for the misinformation on my part.

[Guest]

Out of curiosity -- as I haven't tried it -- what does Principia do to the Jolian system? I'm very worried about Vall.

[Zhetaan]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Out of curiosity -- as I haven't tried it -- what does Principia do to the Jolian system? I'm very worried about Vall.

Have a look.

The short version is that it boosts Tylo's and Vall's orbits to break the resonance (and attendant perturbation) and changes Bop's orbit to retrograde.

[Dafni]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Out of curiosity -- as I haven't tried it -- what does Principia do to the Jolian system? I'm very worried about Vall.

Good question. I would guess if you suddenly apply n-body physics to the stock Jool system it would mess it up pretty bad very quick. Maybe only Tylo would not care much and just stay where it is? After swallowing the smaller neighbors maybe? 

[Snark]

5 hours ago, PhysicsBoy said:

I want to make physics in KSP as accurate as possible for my potato mac. How do I do so? Are there any mods that will make it more accurate? Can you please list those?

I read how KSP doesn't have lagrange points and some other problems... sooo... hope you can help me!

Folks have listed various mods described above... but the short answer is that nothing in life is free.  Stock KSP uses simple patched conics (and therefore no Lagrange points, etc.) for excellent practical reasons.  Mods like Principia are going to clobber your CPU, and I wouldn't be surprised if there may be stability issues as well (though I'm in no position to comment on that, since I've never used it or read much about it.)

I expect it's safe to say, if you're using a lower-end PC, that anything you do to boost the "accuracy" is going to totally tank your performance, and slow the game to a crawl:  i.e. severely give up an awful lot of what most folks think of as "fun", in exchange for "accuracy".  So that tradeoff may or may not be worth it to you, depending on what your goals and motivations are.

It's sure as heck not worth it to me ...which is why I've never been even slightly tempted by Principia myself, despite having a decent computer.  But different folks like different things, and your interests may not be the same as mine.  So unless you'd like to explain a bit more about your goals / interests / likes / dislikes (i.e. why you want this), it's hard to give advice as to whether this would be a good tradeoff for you.

[Geschosskopf]

5 hours ago, PhysicsBoy said:

I want to make physics in KSP as accurate as possible

Welcome aboard!

Anyway, others have already pointed out the main mods that impose "Earth-like" conditions on KSP.  The question, however, is whether this is really "accurate"?  This is a question both philosophical and practical.  Here's the philosophical angle...

The main thing that distinguishes stock KSP from the reality we know is the tiny size of the KSP solar system, about 1/10 the size of ours.  But despite its tiny size, Kerbin as the same gravity as Earth, which means Kerbin's average density is greater than that of osmium.  And a star the size of that in KSP wouldn't have fusion in our universe.  From this, it is apparent that the stock KSP solar system exists in a parallel universe where the laws of physics are very different from our own, down to the level of the Fundamental Forces.  Besides not having n-body gravity, the KSP universe simply cannot have a single element in common with our own periodic table.

However, everything in KSP is designed to work in the KSP universe by applying the physical laws as they exist there.  Thus, everything in stock KSP is "realistic" and "accurate" in terms of conforming to the physical laws of the KSP universe.  It's just that those laws aren't entirely like those we're familiar with.  So here's the thing....  If you apply various "Just Like Earth" (aka "realism") mods to the stock KSP solar system, you introduce inaccuracies because the KSP system cannot exist under our laws of physics.  The only way to remove those inaccuracies is to increase the scale of the KSP solar system to match the Earthly physical laws you've introduced, because those laws dictate such things as the density of matter and the size of stars.

As a result basically, you have the following options:

• Stock solar system size, stock physical laws:  "Realistic" under the laws of the parallel universe this system exists in.
• Stock-size to intermediate-size solar system with any mix of KSP and Earthly physical laws.  "Unrealistic" to varying degrees due to the conflicts of Earthly physics with any solar system that's not full-size, and/or the conflict of KSP physical laws with any solar system larger than stock.
• Full-size solar system with Earthly physical laws:  "Realistic" under the laws of our universe.

Obviously, the further down the list you go, the more modding you have to do.  When you increase the size of the solar system, you also have to scale up all the parts (because dV requirements increase) or you'll never get off the ground.  IOW, this is limited by the horsepower of your computer.  So that's the practical side.  But if you don't go all the way down and do a total conversion to "Just Like Earth", you might find your philosophical sense of "accuracy" offended, if you're the type prone to such things.

If this feeling is strong enough, and your computer weak enough, you might just decide to stick with the stock system and its alien physical laws as the most "accurate" configuration you can make, and use whatever mod capacity your computer can handle to spruce up the visuals and/or add some parts that aren't available in the stock game.

[Laie]

13 hours ago, PhysicsBoy said:

I want to make physics in KSP as accurate as possible for my potato mac. How do I do so? Are there any mods that will make it more accurate? Can you please list those?

I read how KSP doesn't have lagrange points and some other problems... sooo... hope you can help me!

There's plenty of good answers already, but here's my two cents.

• an (IMO minor) issue is the simplified aerodynamics. FAR (Ferram Aerospace Reserach) does quite a bit better, but as long as you only do rockets and return in capsules you won't notice the difference.
• The core issue of most oddities is that the planets in KSP are so small while still having real-life-like gravity. The only true solution is upscaling the planets. Just two of the problems:
  • Orbital velocities are slow, yet atmospheric entry has to be hot and dangerous according to player expectations.
  • KSP Rockets are inefficient, mostly by parts being way more massive than they are IRL (the real Saturn V / Apollo  would make Kerbin orbit on the first stage, and has enough dV for a Jool-5).
• throttling and restarting rocket motors is non-trivial IRL (may want to try Real Fuels for that)
• simplified orbital mechanics are a pretty minor quibble in my book. If you want to have fun with lagrange points and low-power transfers, Principia is there for you.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Laie

[linuxgurugamer]

The Saturn 5 AKA Apollo could not get to orbit on the 1st stage. It required 2 stages to get to orbit.

You can also try using Engine Igniter and the Throttle Limit Extended to make the rockets more realistic

[Laie]

@linuxgurugamerslight misunderstanding here, edited my post for clarity. Not 100% sure if it's true, though, or if the first stage would fall just a little short.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Laie

[Gargamel]

7 hours ago, Laie said:

KSP Rockets are inefficient, mostly by parts being way more massive than they are IRL (the real Saturn V / Apollo  would make Kerbin orbit on the first stage, and has enough dV for a Jool-5).

It's a matter of scale.  The SV was built like it was because that is what the mission and physics required it to be.  The Kerbal analog to the SV would have the same mission performance, with far less energy required, be it less efficient or not. 

[PhysicsBoy]

Thanks guys. I'll try those.

Edited February 13, 2018 by PhysicsBoy