N-body physics

[DunnoAnyThing]

I feel like just putting precession into action would be great alone by itself

[GoldForest]

18 hours ago, Arugela said:

I'm pretty sure it's just KSP1 with a new version of unity and the aspects of all the other space games added that don't effect the current game with a new price tag attached basically.  I guarantee you every single bug and problem related to the old game will pop up.

Bold claims. Any evidence to back that up? 

Also, lying to the consumer is major. Star Theory would face harsh repercussions if this was the case. 

Also also, if they don't deliver the product they promised, pretty sure that's called fraud, and could land them in serious trouble. 

Both carry major ramifications:
Lying - No one buys their product
Fraud - They end up in court

I doubt they want either of these. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by GoldForest

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Bold claims. Any evidence to back that up? 

Also, lying to the consumer is major. Star Theory would face harsh repercussions if this was the case. 

Also also, if they don't deliver the product they promised, pretty sure that's called fraud, and could land them in serious trouble. 

Both carry major ramifications:
Lying - No one buys their product
Fraud - They end up in court

I doubt they want either of these. 

You haven't really looked into the games industry have you? Completely fake trailers; games released without any promised features etc. are common place. And games companies/publishers very rarely face legal action when they do; that being said with everything we've heard between star theory, those invited to meet with them it would be incredible if KSP2 was in such a state. 

[Kerbart]

16 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

(...) games companies/publishers very rarely face legal action when they do; that being said with everything we've heard between star theory, those invited to meet with them it would be incredible if KSP2 was in such a state. 

That doesn’t mean freedom of consequences though. Look at No Man’s Sky; it may have turned into a decent game by now, but does anyone care, because they ones that haven’t bought it yet are certainly not planning on going to get burned by it, based in its reputation.

I agree that it would be incredibly unbelievable for Star Theory to pull such a stunt. Not just because of their invites and (relative) openness so far, but also because nothing Private Division has done so far points towards “making a quick buck.”

If KSP2 indeed turns out to be a graphical update to KSP1 and little else, and basically runs the same code, then it will be a bizar and unlikely long con. What is missing in that scenario: why?

Edited September 29, 2019 by Kerbart

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

You haven't really looked into the games industry have you? Completely fake trailers; games released without any promised features etc. are common place. And games companies/publishers very rarely face legal action when they do; that being said with everything we've heard between star theory, those invited to meet with them it would be incredible if KSP2 was in such a state. 

I have. I've even been peripherally involved in the games industry.

Some observations.

"Completely fake trailers; games released without any promised features etc. are common place." No, they're really not. They're not unheard-of, but the gaming public is vicious and has a really long memory, so when they do happen the uproar is enormous and lasts years. No publisher or studio wants to get into that situation. Most games by far however have reasonably accurate pre-release advertising, including trailers and feature lists.

Second, when this does happen it's very, very rarely a matter of straight-up lying -- at least early in the process: when things start to go pear-shaped, this can change. In fact I can't think of a single occasion of this being the case. Instead, especially in the age of Kickstarter, it's a matter of having over-ambitious goals and then discovering just how over-ambitious when it's time to implement them. This is also the case with stuff like graphical downgrades. Almost invariably there was an honest intention to deliver what was promised, it just turned out too hard or too expensive.

Third, gamers are incredibly good at self-delusion and self-hype. If something is as much as hinted at somewhere, they jump to the conclusion that it has been promised, and if it doesn't make it in, many take it as a personal betrayal -- multiplayer in KSP1 is a prominent example close to home. It was never promised, but never ruled out, and a significant contingent of KSP fans assumed as a matter of course that it was being worked on and would arrive one of these days, and got bitter when it didn't.

So, basically, any cynicism along the lines of "KSP2 is just KSP1 re-skinned" -- which would mean that Star Theory aren't just being over-ambitious, but are flat out lying when they're saying they've done a close to complete rewrite of the game, with barely any KSP1 code left -- is really foolish. If KSP2 turns out to be a disappointment -- which it very well might -- it's far, far more likely that this is for the usual reasons: overreach, being too open about planned features that might be dropped, and discovering that some promised feature was much harder to implement than anticipated. 

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

You haven't really looked into the games industry have you? Completely fake trailers; games released without any promised features etc. are common place. And games companies/publishers very rarely face legal action when they do; that being said with everything we've heard between star theory, those invited to meet with them it would be incredible if KSP2 was in such a state. 

"Fake trailers" and "Promised features" would be under lying, which doesn't hold any legal ramifications. 

Now, promising a brand new game from the ground up? They have to deliver it. If people find out that KSP 2 is just KSP 1 with a few touch ups, and doesn't have anything new, I'm pretty sure that is fraud and you can take them to court over it. Because they promised you a product, and delivered something else. 

And even if it's not fraud, they would be lying. Like @Kerbart and @Brikoleur and myself said, there's no point in them lying and the player base will make sure they see consequences are brought upon them. Bad reviews, which stirs people away, which means they lose money, is one major consequence that the player base can bestow. Take-two/private division knows this would be the outcome, and if there's one thing Take-Two wants, it's people's money. They're not going to sacrifice a chance to gain that money, so I'm confident that Star Theory isn't playing a lie or a fraud. Both would mean bad news.

Edited September 29, 2019 by GoldForest

[Guest]

To be honest, from what I saw so far, there's far too many people out here who want KSP2 to be KSP1 with pretty graphics, more star systems, and a few extra parts. KSP1 is proven to work, do a safe bet would be to make the sequel the same, but with a few touch ups (look no further than Tropico series for a crash course in how that works). I do hope that Star Theory will not end up pandering to those people, but actually make fixes and improvements. KSP1, though a good game, is not without problems, and they should be fixed, not deliberately recreated to pander to those afraid of any changes.

[GoldForest]

30 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

To be honest, from what I saw so far, there's far too many people out here who want KSP2 to be KSP1 with pretty graphics, more star systems, and a few extra parts. KSP1 is proven to work, do a safe bet would be to make the sequel the same, but with a few touch ups (look no further than Tropico series for a crash course in how that works). I do hope that Star Theory will not end up pandering to those people, but actually make fixes and improvements. KSP1, though a good game, is not without problems, and they should be fixed, not deliberately recreated to pander to those afraid of any changes.

Agreed.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

To be honest, from what I saw so far, there's far too many people out here who want KSP2 to be KSP1 with pretty graphics, more star systems, and a few extra parts. KSP1 is proven to work, do a safe bet would be to make the sequel the same, but with a few touch ups (look no further than Tropico series for a crash course in how that works). I do hope that Star Theory will not end up pandering to those people, but actually make fixes and improvements. KSP1, though a good game, is not without problems, and they should be fixed, not deliberately recreated to pander to those afraid of any changes.

To me the main selling point is having the base game rewritten by professionals and with the scope of the game clear from the start, having a gameplay that relies more on bases and stations (like colonies and shipyards) it's just the natural byproduct of that.

[pandaman]

8 minutes ago, Master39 said:

To me the main selling point is having the base game rewritten by professionals and with the scope of the game clear from the start, having a gameplay that relies more on bases and stations (like colonies and shipyards) it's just the natural byproduct of that.

Can't disagree with that.

I can see KSP1 and KSP2 each having a different 'focus' whilst still being essentially very similar.  Which means there is space (see what I did there) for both to exist in parallel.

KSP 1, to me, especially with the arrival of robotics and the rather involved prop/rotor system, seems to have moved away a little bit from the 'space exploration' side as the key focus.  Not that i dislike them or think they shouldn't be there, they can be very useful tools to have once you work them out (I haven't very well yet).

KSP 2 though seems, so far, to be bringing space exploration back to the forefront.  Hopefully with the robotics etc type functions included in a way that complements the exploration aspect without being over involved in themselves.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

5 hours ago, GoldForest said:

 

Just to be completely 100% clear; i don't think KSP2 will pull any of this junk. But i can understand the cynicism the original comment had; that was the entire point of my original response.

As for the rest; i don't really want to derail this thread with OT discussion since iv'e already been warned once.

[Bej Kerman]

N-body physics should be implemented, because having multiple SOIs in a binary pair would feel too unrealistic and jarring, and every time a modder wanted to make a binary pair, they'd have to make all those SOIs work properly.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Bej Kerman

[Arugela]

10 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Bold claims. Any evidence to back that up? 

Also, lying to the consumer is major. Star Theory would face harsh repercussions if this was the case. 

Also also, if they don't deliver the product they promised, pretty sure that's called fraud, and could land them in serious trouble. 

Both carry major ramifications:
Lying - No one buys their product
Fraud - They end up in court

I doubt they want either of these. 

Pretty sure that redoing it in a newer engine version with new stuff like bases is enough to get them out of lawsuits...

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Arugela said:

Pretty sure that redoing it in a newer engine version with new stuff like bases is enough to get them out of lawsuits...

KSP1 is being ported to the same engine version. 

(Nobody's going to sue anybody over this in any case.)

Edited September 29, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

The biggest change, I think, is the multiplayer. Colonization could probably be modded into KSP by a dedicated enough modder, and there are some systems available, though none quite as extensive as what's being shown. Improved visuals are a nice bonus, but not only was KSP1 supposed to look like that at one point, mods can give a similar experience, and if modders accepted TexturesUnlimited as a standard instead of sticking with stock visuals, visuals could match KSP2 in all areas. Which isn't to say I don't welcome a professional graphics overhaul, especially since it will set standards for KSP2 modders, perhaps leading to increase in mod production values.

[runner78]

One of the problem with N-Body is probably the timewrap. With simple on body orbit, you can calculate the position of the object for any time. With n-body this will not longer work. With height timewrap, the orbits will by unstable due to calculation inaccuracies. I doubt it exists a way to calculate n-body with fast forward on a mid-range consumer PC.

Edited September 30, 2019 by runner78

[Guest]

Actually, there is. Principia has it. N-body isn't as big of a computational problem as people make it out to be. People have been working on algorithms to do that for a long time, and there's more than a few rather efficient ones. Orbits do not become unstable in Principia, and timewarp is possible, and I think you may even warp faster than in stock. Computational requirements are nowhere near what most people seem to assume. A chaotic system is problematic as a model, where you want to match reality as closely as possible, but measurement errors cause your system to diverge from it. As a simulation, where you give the initial parameters (and hence no measurement error, because you decide what the exact values are), they're perfectly fine. A model has to be real, a simulation just has to be realistic.

Also, any silly attempts at having "partial N-body" would be slower than going full N-body. The aforementioned algorithms really work best if used with the problem they were designed for, and not some artificial "rails" thrown in. Having rails would complicate the problem quite a lot from a mathematical standpoint. The way Principia does it is pretty much optimal, and it seems to run pretty smoothly for most.

[FinalFan]

On 8/20/2019 at 5:11 PM, Nuke said:

would be nice but some work would be required to make the kerbol system stable for at least long enough to complete the game. if it starts to fall apart after that, well that's cool too.

This would certainly alter my perception of the kerbals and their motives!  Humans, too, would probably throw infinite money at maniacs willing to hurl themselves into space in horrifically slapdash vehicles if the incentive was the solar system disintegrating on a human timescale.  

[Incarnation of Chaos]

54 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

This would certainly alter my perception of the kerbals and their motives!  Humans, too, would probably throw infinite money at maniacs willing to hurl themselves into space in horrifically slapdash vehicles if the incentive was the solar system disintegrating on a human timescale.  

This would be an interesting scenerio for sure, but i don't think most people would want their space game to unravel before them after a century or two. Ofc if N-body was implemented there's nothing stopping you from making multiple versions of the system and allowing people to select them upon making a new save.

[Nuke]

6 hours ago, FinalFan said:

This would certainly alter my perception of the kerbals and their motives!  Humans, too, would probably throw infinite money at maniacs willing to hurl themselves into space in horrifically slapdash vehicles if the incentive was the solar system disintegrating on a human timescale.  

i like the way you think.

 

5 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

This would be an interesting scenerio for sure, but i don't think most people would want their space game to unravel before them after a century or two. Ofc if N-body was implemented there's nothing stopping you from making multiple versions of the system and allowing people to select them upon making a new save.

if you dont like that your planets are moving stick big engines on them and move them back. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 minute ago, Nuke said:

 

if you dont like that your planets are moving stick big engines on them and move them back. 

I'll just leave you with this.

Spoiler

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Nuke said:

if you dont like that your planets are moving stick big engines on them and move them back. 

FUN FACT: This was actually a game mechanic in another Star Theory game, Planetary Annihilation.

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, Master39 said:

FUN FACT: This was actually a game mechanic in another Star Theory game, Planetary Annihilation.

Colliding planets as high speeds to destroy your enemy...




But on a serious note, Idky this discussion is still going. Nate has already said they tried N-body and it didn't work out, so they abandoned it. 

And in all honestly, I would prefer an on rails galaxy, that way by the time I get to Rask and Rusk they aren't just a new asteroid belt. 

Hmmm, although, N-body for asteroids and comets would be okay. They poof out of existence whenever they leave range of Kerbin anyway. 

[Kerbart]

39 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

But on a serious note, Idky this discussion is still going. Nate has already said they tried N-body and it didn't work out, so they abandoned it. 

And in all honestly, I would prefer an on rails galaxy, that way by the time I get to Rask and Rusk they aren't just a new asteroid belt.

And let’s not forget, NASA uses patched conics for planetary mission planning. It’s not as bad as some people claim it is.

[Nuke]

i dont have a problem with n-body on select objects and for any player crafts (provided difficulty setting). it doesnt make any sense to try to move any of the full size planets, but if i wanted to turn gilly into a space ship i should be able to do that.