Kerminator K-100 Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 After finding these articles I was wondering if the Devs knew about this. They did say they were planning on adding realistic engines to the game and this, while very difficult to build, could be an amazing way to do interstellar travel. https://interestingengineering.com/a-faster-than-light-warp-drive-powered-spaceship-may-be-possible https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32449240/nasa-warp-drive-space-time/ https://www.sciencealert.com/how-feasible-is-a-warp-drive-here-s-the-science For those of you who didn't read it: A bubble of Space-Time is created, you sit in the bubble, the bubble shoots through the space-time fabric, you can travel at ridiculous speeds and it technically isn't faster than the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 Not going to happen, no warp drives, alcubierre drives, hyperdrives, wormholes, stargates, or any other forms of faster than light sci-fi tech in stock. That will be up to the modders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 The Alcubierre drive is theoretically sound, but actually obtaining exotic matter is a massive if, hence why it isn't going to be in KSP 2. 16 minutes ago, shdwlrd said: Not going to happen, no warp drives, alcubierre drives, hyperdrives, wormholes, stargates, or any other forms of faster than light sci-fi tech in stock. That will be up to the modders. Oh, I'm sure there'd be FTL if there was a theoretical way of obtaining the propellants, much like getting MH to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said: The Alcubierre drive is theoretically sound, but actually obtaining exotic matter is a massive if, hence why it isn't going to be in KSP 2. Oh, I'm sure there'd be FTL if there was a theoretical way of obtaining the propellants, much like getting MH to work. The big problems with the alcubierre drive isn't the exotic matter per se. It's the energy requirements that the exotic matter is supposed to solve. We also don't know how to manipulate space time, gravity, or the fabric of space itself. Hell, we as a species can barely understand how afore mentioned works, yet alone get to a point to prove the theories right or wrong. At some point I can see a player getting a craft to a good percentage of "C". But that would be using conventional means with cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said: After finding these articles I was wondering if the Devs knew about this. They did say they were planning on adding realistic engines to the game and this, while very difficult to build, could be an amazing way to do interstellar travel. The devs have confirmed that this will not be added to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewie Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 Yeah, nope. No siree, nopeee. The devs (by which I mean Nate Simpson) have made it clear by this point that all the near future engines will be based on real life projects (that never came to fruition) and on theoretical engines that SOMEDAY may exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 And FTl isn't necessary, the distances in KSP aren't going to be large enough to necciatate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 10 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said: And FTl isn't necessary, the distances in KSP aren't going to be large enough to necciatate it. Actually, we don't know that. Technically, even realistic distances don't "necessitate" FTL. Kerbals basically live forever in stock KSP1, so they could afford a century-long interstellar cruise, if that's what it takes. TBH, Alcubierre drive is more plausible than some of the tech already showcased (or present in KSP1, like magic reaction wheels ). However, it's on very shaky foundations, and I'd rather not see them include it. Stick with fission and fusion, between them, those two will give you all the performance you'll ever need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Dragon01 said: Actually, we don't know that. Technically, even realistic distances don't "necessitate" FTL. Kerbals basically live forever in stock KSP1, so they could afford a century-long interstellar cruise, if that's what it takes. TBH, Alcubierre drive is more plausible than some of the tech already showcased (or present in KSP1, like magic reaction wheels ). However, it's on very shaky foundations, and I'd rather not see them include it. Stick with fission and fusion, between them, those two will give you all the performance you'll ever need. I mean iv'e said before that Alcubierre and Antimatter is more plausible than Purple Space Magic among other things. So I'm not dismissing it out of a perceived flaw, it's more just i think people are really, really jumping to conclusions if they think we'll "Need" FTL in KSP2. KSP1 stats show the vast majority never go interplanetary, so i seriously doubt they're going to make going interstellar that much harder. Plus this is a 2K game, "Warp Speed" is a DLC title they can't resist. And bringing mechanics such as FTL, Relativity, Wormholes/Blackholes with their own standalone expansion and fully fleshing the systems needed to support them out instead of whacking them into a serviceable state for KSP2's launch i'd imagine would work out better anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Well, antimatter is perfectly plausible, actually. Just very hard. This would be decent DLC material for those who get to the top of the tech tree and want more things to research. I still wouldn't want FTL, though. The only way is backed by a very shaky theory, and IMO wouldn't fit with the game. In fact, I highly doubt there'll ever be a need to achieve a significant fraction of C. Rather, timewarp will let us skip ahead several years, and other stars will be close enough that high end drives will suffice. The problem with relativity, especially black holes, is that physics calculations get wonky. You won't truly understand how wonky until you've taken a college course in GR. I highly doubt we'll get anything even approaching it in KSP. Essentially, it would mean every object in the universe has its own clock, and they're not in sync. It would be very hard to simulate properly, because GR involves complex differential equations, and quite frankly, I don't think the devs are up to it, seeing as they're not even doing n-body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Kerbal Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 There all ready said there aren’t going to put in “Magic a technology” this includes warp drives and portals. Nate Simpson said it himself. 8 hours ago, Dragon01 said: Well, antimatter is perfectly plausible, actually. Just very hard. This would be decent DLC material for those who get to the top of the tech tree and want more things to research. I still wouldn't want FTL, though. The only way is backed by a very shaky theory, and IMO wouldn't fit with the game. In fact, I highly doubt there'll ever be a need to achieve a significant fraction of C. Rather, timewarp will let us skip ahead several years, and other stars will be close enough that high end drives will suffice. The problem with relativity, especially black holes, is that physics calculations get wonky. You won't truly understand how wonky until you've taken a college course in GR. I highly doubt we'll get anything even approaching it in KSP. Essentially, it would mean every object in the universe has its own clock, and they're not in sync. It would be very hard to simulate properly, because GR involves complex differential equations, and quite frankly, I don't think the devs are up to it, seeing as they're not even doing n-body. NASA has already created a blurring and a basic idea of what the engine would look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probe137 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 This should be sandbox only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoVampire Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 @Dr. Kerbal what is a magic technology? I myself would say no technology is magic. Not even warp drive or hyper drive. Why? Because what makes a technology "magic" to one person and completely mundane to another is the level of experience and knowledge one has of said technology. The only thing in all honesty that makes warp drive for example a thing of science fiction or "magic" is our current level of understanding of physics and perhaps even quantum mechanics and maybe other fields of science I am not thinking of. I do not think its fair to call any technology magic. 58 minutes ago, probe137 said: This should be sandbox only I disagree 100%. Anything given to sandbox should be 100% available in career mode <with proper unlocks and research of course>. To give say me a sandbox only player access to warp drive and deny say a career mode only player warp drive is unfair. Regardless of the mode, be it sandbox or career or science, the basic facets of the game should be universal, and the only difference should be the level of effort required to achieve access to those facets. 040110132020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 FTL means time travel, which would be pretty hard to do in a game. I am certain that relatively will not be modeled in KSP2, but as long as we stick to only a few percent of c, it wouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Who needs those FTL engines and warps when the Kerbals are immortal? Just launch them, sit, and wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Kerman Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 The KSP2 devs confirmed that there won't be FTL out of the box. There is modder interest *cough cough* in creating an FTL mod though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popestar Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 20 minutes ago, KerikBalm said: FTL means time travel, which would be pretty hard to do in a game. I am certain that relatively will not be modeled in KSP2, but as long as we stick to only a few percent of c, it wouldn't matter. This brings up questions in my mind about gravitational time dilation, which doesn't exist in KSP. This is a real life thing that we would have to prepare for, but its not in the game. Which then leads me to believe that FTL and other time theories won't show up there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewie Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 9 hours ago, AlamoVampire said: @Dr. Kerbal what is a magic technology? I myself would say no technology is magic. Not even warp drive or hyper drive. Why? Because what makes a technology "magic" to one person and completely mundane to another is the level of experience and knowledge one has of said technology. The only thing in all honesty that makes warp drive for example a thing of science fiction or "magic" is our current level of understanding of physics and perhaps even quantum mechanics and maybe other fields of science I am not thinking of. I do not think its fair to call any technology magic. Totally agree. There’s actually a saying...any technology that can’t be explained by our knowledge is magic. (As far as we are concerned) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 12 hours ago, Lewie said: There’s actually a saying...any technology that can’t be explained by our knowledge is magic. (As far as we are concerned) The saying is "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". While it is similar to what you said, they aren't the same. You could bring a nuclear reactor back to before they discovered radioactivity or even subatomic particles, and they wouldn't have the knowledge to explain it, but they'd be able to tell it wasn't magic... they would be very very confused as to the source of the heat though, and if you weren't there to guide them, they'd be very confused as to why people got sick and died when they poked around inside it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 ... before they decided to bury it or drop in water, and the result significantly exceeded expectations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 5 hours ago, KerikBalm said: The saying is "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". While it is similar to what you said, they aren't the same. You could bring a nuclear reactor back to before they discovered radioactivity or even subatomic particles, and they wouldn't have the knowledge to explain it, but they'd be able to tell it wasn't magic... they would be very very confused as to the source of the heat though, and if you weren't there to guide them, they'd be very confused as to why people got sick and died when they poked around inside it. I should have gone on: If you instead brought this back to more ancient times, they'd regard it as magic. In the later part of the 1890's, they started to discover x rays (didn't know what caused them, but they didn't say it was magic), radiactivity, and subatomic particles. But they'd been able to make electricity since the early 1800s (Faraday, 1830's). Show them a nuclear reactor making electricity, they'd understand it was a machine using an unknown source of heat, but not a magic machine. No more than they regarded the discovery of x rays and radioactivity as discovering "magic". Go back to ancient summeria, the first agricultural societies, and yea, they'd say it was magic. The tech would be sufficiently advanced to cause complete bewilderment of primitive societies, but not society in... say 1870. The point is not that an explanation is lacking (" technology that can’t be explained by our knowledge"), the point is that the tech would be so far advanced that we can't even be able to fathom what is going on. An 1870's engineer may look at a nuclear reactor, understand that there's some kind of heat engine driving a dynamo, but he won'd understand what all the pipers are doing, what the control rods are doing, why certain barriers are there (radiation), how various parts were manufactured, what the computerized systems are doing, or how heat was being produced. He would not be able to explain how it works - only how certain parts of it work - he would be able to see that it was however a machine working on physical principles and not magic. This is because he would at least be able to understand some principles of the machine (heat engines, and dynamos for making electricity), forming points of reference and making it is not completely foreign to him. A stone age farmer wouldn't have any point of reference, or understand any part of the machine - magic. Personally, I am not a believer in the quote "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Implicit in that assumption is also that there are always such large gaps in our knowledge that a very advanced tech could wouldn't have any part that we could use as a point of reference to distinguish it from magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 3 hours ago, KerikBalm said: Personally, I am not a believer in the quote "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Implicit in that assumption is also that there are always such large gaps in our knowledge that a very advanced tech could wouldn't have any part that we could use as a point of reference to distinguish it from magic. And the caveman said "I don't believe in 'any sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic', because it assumes that there's tech that wouldn't have any sticks and stones I.E. understandable parts in it". Of course, nuclear reactors don't have sticks and stones inside, nor are rockets powered by branches tied to the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said: And the caveman said "I don't believe in 'any sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic', because it assumes that there's tech that wouldn't have any sticks and stones I.E. understandable parts in it". I'm not saying that it is impossible, but it shouldn't be assumed. Also, said caveman saw stuff all around him/her that couldn't be explained. The stuff in the sky was basically magic lights that didn't behave like any earthly things... Now there is funky quantum stuff, and dark matter in particular that we know next to nothing about. Yet even dark matter technology, if it were to exist, wouldn't be considered magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Some content has been removed due to personal remarks. Folks, remember that the forum is a place for friendly debate. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone else, and that's fine. (In fact, it makes the forum a more interesting and edifying place than if everyone just sat around going "yup" at each other all day.) So, please expect that folks are going to disagree with you from time to time, and take it in stride. They're not attacking you, they're disagreeing with what you said. And as long as it's done civilly, there's nothing wrong with that. So when they do that, feel free to respond in kind. And please address the post, not the poster. It's never appropriate to make personal remarks; this accomplishes nothing and never ends well. (For example, "I disagree with <thing you said> because <reasons>" is fine, because it's addressing the post. "Why do you have to argue so much" is not, because it's a personal remark directed at the poster themselves.) If you believe that someone is being so egregiously rude that they're violating forum rules, then by all means report the post and the moderator team will have a look. (It's what we're for.) But please don't try to take someone to task for their behavior yourself, because you're not a moderator and it's not your place to do so. Thank you for your understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probe137 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 It'd probably be too complicated for the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts