FTL travel/special relativity

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Say, in real world, how are you going to pilot a probe beyond the asteroid belt? Either crew, or a program, unless it's a simple photograph&measure fly-by.

I don't pilot probes in the real world. I only do it in KSP.

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

I don't pilot probes in the real world. I only do it in KSP.

By switching to the probe, i.e. by moving the source of will to the probe far away from Kerbin by game magic.

Irl you would have a crew or an AI there. Or program the sequence.

Edited February 25, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

By switching to the probe, i.e. by moving the source of will to the probe far away from Kerbin by game magic.

Exactly.

[kerbiloid]

So, Kerbals (possessed by the player) are the natural source of will on that ship.

[Guest]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

So, Kerbals (possessed by the player) are the natural source of will on that ship.

I'm not following you. A probe has no kerbals on it.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that signal delay would introduce all kinds of complications, most notably related to probes. You could declare probes genuinely autonomous and pretend that you're the AI when you're flying them; however, this would pull the rug from under CommNet as it would no longer be logical to require a signal for control. If you don't want that, you would need mechanisms to make probes fun to play even if direct control is only possible over short distances -- for example, give them a built-in MechJeb so that you can plan manoeuvre nodes when you have a signal, and the probe will then execute them when it gets there, whether there is a signal or not, and use a similar mechanism for triggering other probe actions (collect science, transmit science back, etc).

Rovers of course present their own complications: how would you drive a probe rover with a signal delay of even, say, one second? 

That might all be very cool, or it might not, but either way it's not simply a matter of introducing a signal delay parameter. It's complicated, and in my view there are lots of other things that should be higher priorities than this.

[kerbiloid]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

A probe has no kerbals on it.

Then beyond the appropriate lightspeed delay limit it should be either programmable (doable by kOS or so), or semi-sapient (obviously can be only imitated by switching you to the probe), or crewed (the same, but formally Kerbals are not AI).

[Guest]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Then beyond the appropriate lightspeed delay limit it should be either programmable (doable by kOS or so), or semi-sapient (obviously can be only imitated by switching you to the probe), or crewed (the same, but formally Kerbals are not AI).

As I said above, that would break CommNet. Moreover, if the probes were semi-sapient, i.e. directly controllable by you regardless of signal delay, then what difference would signal delay make, other than having to wait for transmitted Science to get back?

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

then what difference would signal delay make, other than having to wait for transmitted Science to get back?

It should make you building totally autonomous starships using the radio signal only to transmit the Science.
So, complicated crewed ships.

Edited February 25, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

It should make you building totally autonomous starships using the radio signal only to transmit the Science.
So, complicated crewed ships.

And that would be better, why?

[Dirkidirk]

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

As I said above, that would break CommNet. Moreover, if the probes were semi-sapient, i.e. directly controllable by you regardless of signal delay, then what difference would signal delay make, other than having to wait for transmitted Science to get back?

bUt sCIenCE iS ImPORtanT

Spoiler

especially when in other star systems.

all of the options suggested in the posts above could be options in the settings, with no relativity or light speed limit as default. or mods, mods are always an option.

 

[Guest]

Optional features are bad. If you can't integrate it into the gameplay well enough that it has to be in for everybody, don't make it at all.

[Dirkidirk]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

Optional features are bad. If you can't integrate it into the gameplay well enough that it has to be in for everybody, don't make it at all.

but...

Edited February 25, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Be careful of what you wish for. Signal delay would make remote direct probe control impossible. That means probes would have to be programmed. That means you would need a way to program them that's powerful enough to do cool stuff yet accessible enough that non-programmer players would be able to work with it. It would totally change how they work and be a major undertaking.

In my view there are higher priorities than that.

 Use something like mechjebs maneuver planner. 

Probes:

+ lighter = more dV

- need to plan ahead and no on the fly changes far from kerbin

Crew:

+ instant control always

- heavier = much less dV 

 

Then kerbals would finally have a real reason to exist outside surface samples/flag planting/labs...

28 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Optional features are bad. If you can't integrate it into the gameplay well enough that it has to be in for everybody, don't make it at all.

Isn't that a tad extreme of a viewpoint? Optional features are good for setting a difficulty curve, you're effectively arguing against an options menu

Edited February 25, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

 Use something like mechjebs maneuver planner. 

How would you deal with probe rovers or probe aircraft?

How would this not make CommNet pointless, since you would no longer need to require signal for control?

How would you deal with probes that require control on re-entry?

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

How would you deal with probe rovers or probe aircraft?

You dont, now kerbals have a value! Also what if the delay for motion was only based on the distance between the probe and the nearest connected kerbal?

 

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

How would this not make CommNet pointless, since you would no longer need to require signal for control?

How does one transmit science without a signal?

 

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

How would you deal with probes that require control on re-entry?

Build re-entry vehicles that are passively stable?

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Dirkidirk]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You dont, now kerbals have a value! Also what if the delay for motion was only based on the distance between probe and the nearest connected kerbal?

Build re-entry vehicles that are passively stable?

certain parts can have full autonomy and thonk, and now @Brikoleur is going to tell me why that is a bad idea.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[kerbiloid]

51 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

And that would be better, why?

1. Because it's the only realistic way.

2. Because is the purpose of the game to send something beyond Pluto or to build complex ships? Do you really need some "scientific" data from Eeloo?
This is exactly the case when the aim is nothing, the progress is all.

Edited February 25, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You dont, now kerbals have a value! Also what if the delay for motion was only based on the distance between the probe and the nearest connected kerbal?

So no more Curiosity-like missions. Gotcha.

32 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

How does one transmit science without a signal?

You don't need a net for that, just a sufficiently powerful antenna. No point building relay networks anymore.

32 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Build re-entry vehicles that are passively stable?

No gliders then. Gotcha.

I wouldn't like these changes because I have particularly enjoyed building relay networks, making use of them to send rovers to Eeloo and Tylo, building probe gliders and planes and sending them to Duna and Eve, and so on.

I also think it's frankly a little silly that people who are clamouring for realism are also clamouring for changes that would make analogues of some of our most famous real-life probe missions unworkable. No more Lunokhod, Curiosity, Spirit, Opportunity, because signal delay.

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

1. Because it's the only realistic way.

More realistic is not the same thing as better. If it was, KSP would have a 1:1 scale solar system, for one thing.

(I didn't understand what your second statement has to do with the question.)

35 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

certain parts can have full autonomy and thonk, and now @Brikoleur is going to tell me why that is a bad idea.

I already did, didn't I? If you have probe parts with full autonomy, then that would invalidate CommNet and the emergent gameplay that comes with it. In my view that's not a worthwhile trade-off.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

So no more Curiosity-like missions. Gotcha.

Was Curiosity real-time operated without programming?

But unlike the irl, in KSP you can either program it if you wish, or (mostly) build a crewed spaceship and have a crew in Duna orbit to control the rover without delay.
This brings purpose to the crewed flights, which are more intriguing and Kerbal.

6 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

No gliders then. Gotcha.

Were there uncrewed gliders irl?
And thus you have to build brand new crewed spaceplanes for Duna.

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

More realistic is not the same thing as better.

And that's exactly why in KSP you can send spaceships with Kerbals to other planet, and drive heavy crewed rovers instead of the Curiosity.

8 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

(I didn't understand what your second statement has to do with the question.)

It means that KSP allows you to send people to other planets, no need to be limited with Curiosity and Voyager.

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

So no more Curiosity-like missions. Gotcha.

Curiosity moves about 660ft/day, So how about this, you drive the probe rover and in an offscreen simulation the rover drives as if you had an instant connection, when you leave that background version is saved and replaces the current version after the wait time from light lag has expired. Or introduce a simple maneuver planner for rovers

Now its a curiosity replica mission!

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

You don't need a net for that, just a sufficiently powerful antenna. No point building relay networks anymore.

if you want to wait forever if you want your science to transfer and dont want to drive your curiosity replica

9 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

No gliders then. Gotcha.

Are glider probes a thing IRL? :O

Also why cant a glider be passively stable?

 

Y'know though, this could all be easily resolved and both sides of the community could have their way with a simple option button to turn it off

[MechBFP]

Time delay is annoying. Nah

[Guest]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Was Curiosity real-time operated without programming?

No, it wasn't. But KSP probes aren't programmable, so you would need to implement a programming interface for them to make it possible -- and even if you did, programming them would almost certainly be so challenging that only very few players would even bother. In other words, you would effectively remove a rather large chunk of emergent gameplay from the game: remote rovers.

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

But unlike the irl, in KSP you can either program it if you wish

No you can't. There is no probe programming interface in KSP. Mods don't count. If you're expecting a probe programming interface in KSP2, then say so: that validates one of my points, viz. that introducing signal delay would require introducing new, non-trivial gameplay systems to deal with it.

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This brings purpose to the crewed flights, which are more intriguing and Kerbal

It would also restrict your gameplay options and remove big chunks of emergent gameplay. "They're more intriguing and Kerbal" is your opinion, and I disagree with it.

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This brings purpose to the crewed flights, which are more intriguing and Kerbal

I can build crewed spaceplanes for Duna right now. Not being able to build uncrewed ones anymore would be a loss.

 

[Hotel26]

Imagine a spectrum with Realism at the left-hand end and Imagination at the right-hand end.

Here, let me help you visualize:

Realism <-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------> Imagination

                                                                                                                                              KSP

With a slider so you can adjust...

The players with little imagination aren't going to stay with any game for very long, but will move on quickly.  (Might I recommend Elite Dangerous?  I hear it's good, though I personally don't care.)

What has really distinguished KSP for me, and I think it has sprung from the original spirit intended by its creators, who played with toy rockets as kids, is the (amazing) level of Imagination (and Inspiration) it has catered for.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Hotel26

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Are glider probes a thing IRL? :O

Also why cant a glider be passively stable?

A glider can be passively stable (should be, in fact), but when re-entering, a passively stable glider will go through the atmosphere like a greased cat and then burn to a crisp. To brake for entry, it has to present a high angle of attack, which requires control input.

I don't know if glider probes are a thing IRL, but they're certainly a thing in KSP -- and I can't see why glider probes would not work IRL as well, assuming we had a suitable planet to send them to. Venus or Titan maybe?

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Y'know though, this could all be easily resolved and both sides of the community could have their way with a simple option button to turn it off

No optional features. Either make it good enough and well enough integrated into the gameplay that everybody needs it, or don't implement it at all.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

But KSP probes aren't programmable, so you would need to implement a programming interface for them to make it possible -- and even if you did, programming them would almost certainly be so challenging that only very few players would even bother.

I still can't se how sending a small rover cheatingly controlled in real time by the player can be more intriguing than a sending pack of Kerbals in a big rover with a drill and portable scientific tools.

The driving is absolutely the same, but the crewed flight is more challenging and beautiful.

Who needs the Curiosity when you can ride across the Duna in a jeep with music and beer?

Ask the astronomers marstronomers, what would they prefer if they could choose?

5 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

It would also restrict your gameplay options

It would bring a purpose to the Kerbals.
If you can do everything without them, then why should they exist at all?

Look at the real world. Do you really like it, with a ten of tiny rovers and several tens of tiny probes instead of space flights?

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

A glider can be passively stable (should be, in fact), but when re-entering, a passively stable glider will go through the atmosphere like a greased cat and then burn to a crisp. To brake for entry, it has to present a high angle of attack, which requires control input.

Why at all need a glider if it's not crewed or supplying a crewed base?
Just use a heatshield, like irl.