Bej Kerman Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 That would really cool to have in ksp but, it seems hard to implement it in game. Props for watching Kursesgat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted November 17, 2019 Author Share Posted November 17, 2019 Just now, SpaceFace545 said: That would really cool to have in ksp but, it seems hard to implement it in game. In what way would it be hard? Just now, SpaceFace545 said: Props for watching Kursesgat Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said: In what way would it be hard? Anything more than 2km long gets... interesting. It's not impossible. This is KSP after all. But it'd require hand-coded special cases to be invented and implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted November 17, 2019 Author Share Posted November 17, 2019 55 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said: Anything more than 2km long gets... interesting. It's not impossible. This is KSP after all. But it'd require hand-coded special cases to be invented and implemented. This is about KSP 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 45 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said: This is about KSP 2. That doesn't change that it will require special code to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted November 17, 2019 Author Share Posted November 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said: That doesn't change that it will require special code to handle. What do you mean 'special code'? I'm pretty sure KSP 2 wants to handle time warp, physics and physics ranges much differently than KSP's alphabetti spaghetti code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Given we have no information on how exactly KSP2 will handle physics range, or if physics range will even exist, let's not get into an argument about the fine print of the game while we haven't even seen the cover letter yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 6 hours ago, Gargamel said: haven't even seen the cover letter yet. Dying for new infos. On the skyhook it's an interesting concept but I don't get the catch, can't be that easy, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Master39 said: Dying for new infos. On the skyhook it's an interesting concept but I don't get the catch, can't be that easy, no? I can't imagine that it's that straight forward. Outside of the issues they say, I can see many problems due to materials and the physics of the individual components. I keep seeing the hook being unintentionally reeled up like fishing line or being deviated by huge amounts when it catches or collides with something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HebaruSan Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 [Sub-]orbital rendezvous at 4000 m/s, what could go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 Sounds rather fun, but I'm not sure I see that much advantage compared to a space elevator. Just shorter string won't be that advantageous, if you end with much higher load on it due to swinging and higher propellant expenses for keeping the counterweight in orbit. Anyway, it would be quite interesting to have support for such superstructures. And it probably should be quite doable with some smart design to avoid full simulation of both ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 8:39 AM, Bej Kerman said: What do you mean 'special code'? I'm pretty sure KSP 2 wants to handle time warp, physics and physics ranges much differently than KSP's alphabetti spaghetti code. A discussion of why it would be hard would get long and have a lot of technical stuff in it that would likely be both hard to follow and not very interesting to anyone who's not a programmer. Suffice to say that it would be hard and require a lot of special-casing and likely be more trouble than it's worth. My guess is that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Way too much work and risk for nowhere near enough benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 15 hours ago, Alchemist said: Sounds rather fun, but I'm not sure I see that much advantage compared to a space elevator. Just shorter string won't be that advantageous, if you end with much higher load on it due to swinging and higher propellant expenses for keeping the counterweight in orbit. Anyway, it would be quite interesting to have support for such superstructures. And it probably should be quite doable with some smart design to avoid full simulation of both ends The advantage is that we could do this with current materials; space elevators would require the mass-production of flawless carbon nanotubes to get the borderline strength necessary. But neither will happen anytime soon anyway. We (humans) haven't even refueled a ship in orbit; let alone develop the needed infrastructure and organizational resources to build megastructures. No country or corporations are willing to assume that burden financially or the inherent risk with these projects. Baby steps are being taken through, and it's looking like all of the above may change in the coming decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul23 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Did I suddenly warp into reddit? At least make a post we can talk about without having to get sucked into the coorperate ignorance of privacy that is google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 4:56 PM, Incarnation of Chaos said: But neither will happen anytime soon anyway. We (humans) haven't even refueled a ship in orbit; let alone develop the needed infrastructure and organizational resources to build megastructures. No country or corporations are willing to assume that burden financially or the inherent risk with these projects. Doesn't the Progress module regularly refuel ISS? Does that not count for some reason? https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/progress_about.html Personally, I prefer the 'Fountain' approach, as that lets you start small and on the ground to prove everything works as expected and cheaply, then you just increase the number (and speed?) of the kinetic elements as your platform rises higher and higher. The hardest part seems like it would be building the vacuum tube as you climb higher... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 7:08 PM, Snark said: A discussion of why it would be hard would get long and have a lot of technical stuff in it that would likely be both hard to follow and not very interesting to anyone who's not a programmer. Suffice to say that it would be hard and require a lot of special-casing and likely be more trouble than it's worth. My guess is that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Way too much work and risk for nowhere near enough benefit. Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't say it'll be easy or hard to implement, because you appear to be suggesting you aren't a programmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said: Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't say it'll be easy or hard to implement, because you appear to be suggesting you aren't a programmer. Actually, my intention was to indicate that, I do have an idea of what I'm talking about, since 1. I am in fact a programmer (have been shipping software for a living for >25 years), and 2. I've got a fair amount of understanding of what makes KSP tick under the hood, since I've been modding it a fair amount for the last few years, and actually going into the reasons would likely be tedious, lengthy, uninteresting, and likely rather cryptic to anyone who's not a programmer, which I assume would encompass most of the audience in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, Snark said: Actually, my intention was to indicate that, I do have an idea of what I'm talking about, since 1. I am in fact a programmer (have been shipping software for a living for >25 years), and 2. I've got a fair amount of understanding of what makes KSP tick under the hood, since I've been modding it a fair amount for the last few years, and actually going into the reasons would likely be tedious, lengthy, uninteresting, and likely rather cryptic to anyone who's not a programmer, which I assume would encompass most of the audience in the thread. Would you like to go into the reasons anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said: Would you like to go into the reasons anyways? Sure, but it would likely be one of those massive Walls of Text™ to which I am prone, and would take a while to set down. So it'd need to be later when I have time. IRL stuff beckons at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said: Would you like to go into the reasons anyways? To start with, you would need very large precision for very large objects and very high relative speeds for those objects.(if you are in position, would you want the hook to have a 99.999% chance of skipping past your position instead of grabbing your ship? If not, the system will need to run physics calculations for any sort of sky-hook parts(including ships trying to catch a sky-hook)) 100,000 times more often than is done for any other parts in the game, causing a lot of slow-down). More than just a massive slow-down this will change how other things interact with those sky-hook compatible parts and may need a whole separate approach to implementing physics. Because both the numbers and the precision needs to be so high, it will probably not be able to use any of the standard data-types, meaning a lot of custom-coded calculations using bits of math that can't take advantage of CPU optimizations like floating-point look-ups(yes, it is often faster to look up a calculation in a table than to do the math yourself, even if you are a computer. Remember the problem with Pentiums? That was bad numbers in a look-up table) Because KSP players like to home-brew, every single part that gets close to being in-range of a sky-hook will need microsecond-increment physics simulation in case someone decides to make a custom sky-hook handle out of fuel tanks or something.(or else the hook will just skip past the entire ship without interacting with it) The accuracy and precision needed to use a sky-hook successfully requires extensive computer calculations and control, making it wholly unsuitable for the sort of seat-of-your-pants flying that is encouraged in KSP. Just a few reasons I can't imagine seeing anything even close to a sky-hook in KSP2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 ^^^^^^ A small wall-of-text ^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrisjosh2711 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) Im about 99.999% sure its safe to say no. Did you see anything like that in the trailer? Have the devs discussed it? Regardless the difficulty of implementing it, the futuristic engines and ability to build in space makes it redundant, imo. Edited November 21, 2019 by harrisjosh2711 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 It definitely shouldn't (and pretty much can't) be done by simulating the entire thing, let alone custom-built from small parts. But if when you approach the end the things actually simulated are the few parts on the end and then there is just the structure going into the distance simulating the rest of the thing with all the inertia (yes, completely custom code for a specific part) - that's something plausible. Anyway, docking to the hook would be a very Kerbal piloting experience. Because, even if the horizontal speed is matched, you are still on suborbital trajectory and gravity pulls you down, while the thing you are trying to dock with has upwards acceleration (due to its rotation). Which would probably be even more complicated than precision landing with VTOL. (Of course, tethered drone option does allow to get a few moments of 0g maneuvering, but quite a narrow window at that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Terwin said: Doesn't the Progress module regularly refuel ISS? Does that not count for some reason? https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/progress_about.html Personally, I prefer the 'Fountain' approach, as that lets you start small and on the ground to prove everything works as expected and cheaply, then you just increase the number (and speed?) of the kinetic elements as your platform rises higher and higher. The hardest part seems like it would be building the vacuum tube as you climb higher... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain If i remember correctly it's transfering RCS fuel (Hydrozine), so technically you're correct because i failed to further qualify my statement xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts