Show and Tell - Ovin

[KerikBalm]

1 minute ago, SOXBLOX said:

Did you account for KSP's different scale in your calculations?

Yes, I am assuming a Kerbin - Earth equivalency

[SOXBLOX]

1 minute ago, KerikBalm said:

Yes, I am assuming a Kerbin - Earth equivalency

Is that correct, though? If Kerbin were the size of Earth, and the rest of the game were scaled accordingly, the orbit of Eeloo would still be inside Mercury's. Maybe there's another factor you missed?

[KerikBalm]

10 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

If Kerbin were the size of Earth, and the rest of the game were scaled accordingly, the orbit of Eeloo would still be inside Mercury's.

No, not if SMAs were also scaled accordingly.

10 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Maybe there's another factor you missed?

No, Ovin is not like anything we have seen.

It's proportionately too big, and the closest thing we've seen to makes mercury seem like it's really far from the sun.

Edited October 24, 2021 by KerikBalm

[The Aziz]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

No, Ovin is not like anything we have seen.

Great! The game won't get repetitive.

When Intercept asked an actual scientist how close two planets can be without destroying each other, so it can be physically possible, I can't be bothered to go "ackchyually" and after days of research (because I have nothing better to do than to question someone who knows more than I do) present 5 papers that it cannot exist, instead I will just enjoy the game as it is, and believe that the devs went through the exact same process while working on Ovin.

Maybe you should do yourself a favor and save these $60 to spend it on something more "scientifically accurate".

I still can't believe people who get salty over something that is entirely optional.

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Great! The game won't get repetitive.

One could say the same thing based on worlds we have detected. There's so much out there, that there's no need for this

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

When Intercept asked an actual scientist

"an actual scientist" in what field?  With what career history? Does the rest if his/her field agree?

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

how close two planets can be without destroying each other, so it can be physically possible,

One concept is just the Roche limit. That's simple and straight forward, doesn't even need a scientist.

The other requires a detailed planetary formation model to see if such planets would ever actually form

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

believe that the devs went through the exact same process while working on Ovin.

See, the issue is that I have no faith in the Devs process. I am not convinced that they actually are able to find the right experts, ask them the right questions, and correctly understand the response and it's limitations.

They have already proven this with an engine, and I think they are reinforcing this conclusion with a planet.

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Maybe you should do yourself a favor and save these $60 to spend it on something more "scientifically accurate".

We will see.

As I said earlier, their mmH engine put me off, then their NERV-US engine gave me hope again.

I will wait and see what the finished product is like, and if there is a diamond in the rough that's worth the sifting (ie modding the junk out).

I will give my opinion along the way as new info comes out, before I make up my mind on the final product.

[Admiral Fluffy]

7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

how close two planets can be without destroying each other,

Not very. If Rask’s diameter is half that of Rusk’s, I would consider it a two planet system. It would also be pretty plausible. Anything higher than that I think is kind of pushing it. (Now if we could make Pluto a planet again, and Charon one too, that would be pretty cool)

Edited October 24, 2021 by Admiral Fluffy

[OHara]

On 10/24/2021 at 6:48 AM, KerikBalm said:

[Ovin is] proportionately too big, and the closest thing we've seen to makes mercury seem like it's really far from the sun.

The method we use to find exoplanets greatly favours finding massive, close-orbiting, planets.   Recording the required three transits of the parent star means watching for three orbits of that planet.  The confirming Doppler shift of the induced wobble of the parent star is proportional to the orbital momentum of the planet, divided by the mass of the star.

So nearly everything the Kepler telescope has found so far, has an orbit smaller than Mercury's orbit (about 0.4× Earth's orbital radius).

The Kepler project did find a few apparent planets that have near the size and mass (4× Kerbin) of Ovin, after applying the 10× scale from KSP to the real analogues: Kepler-10b, Kepler-36b, Kepler-102, and 55 Cancri e.   

One would think that a planet with 40 m²/s surface gravity, and in a cool enough spot for what look like ice rings, would collect itself a reasonably dense atmosphere.   (Edit: The sky in the show-and-tell video is pale blue, as opposed to the black of space -- though that might just be the demo rendering environment.)

I hope that it does have an atmosphere (or that they change their minds about the surface gravity) because landing under 40 m²/s gravity does not sound like fun, unless we have drag to slow things down.  Even the gravity on Tylo makes any mistakes on landing get out of control quite fast, to the limit of what I think would make a good game.

Edited October 29, 2021 by OHara
as Admiral Fluffy points out, the top post mentions a "scorched surface," so maybe they are not thinking of ice rings, at least not water or methane ice

[MechBFP]

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

One could say the same thing based on worlds we have detected. There's so much out there, that there's no need for this

"an actual scientist" in what field?  With what career history? Does the rest if his/her field agree?

One concept is just the Roche limit. That's simple and straight forward, doesn't even need a scientist.

The other requires a detailed planetary formation model to see if such planets would ever actually form

See, the issue is that I have no faith in the Devs process. I am not convinced that they actually are able to find the right experts, ask them the right questions, and correctly understand the response and it's limitations.

They have already proven this with an engine, and I think they are reinforcing this conclusion with a planet.

We will see.

As I said earlier, their mmH engine put me off, then their NERV-US engine gave me hope again.

I will wait and see what the finished product is like, and if there is a diamond in the rough that's worth the sifting (ie modding the junk out).

I will give my opinion along the way as new info comes out, before I make up my mind on the final product.

Your criticism is strange. On one hand we have KSP, which inherently has impossible planets, orbits, etc, already for gameplay reasons, and yet it is such a travesty that KSP 2 does the same thing for gameplay reasons?

Makes little sense to me. 
 

[Meecrob]

I have to say, these debates are pretty interesting. I'll admit that I'm bad for falling into the trap of thinking KSP2 should be made based on how I play the game.  Its cool and jarring at the same time to see other opinions. However, the game would be crap if the devs just took a bit of my suggestions, a bit of yours, and a bit of someone else's, etc. I think the biggest part of this universe coming together is a coherent theme throughout. The best part about this though is currently like nobody goes to Dres, so its apparent you can have fun in the game without visiting every body. So like, just don't visit this fake planet with fake engines...I bet you can even mod them out of the final game...same way I think marine/submarine play is absolutely a waste of dev time. Its a game about space! But reading all of your replies about how much you guys like boats/submarines, etc., I gotta suck it up, bite my tongue and go "those people paid for the game, and therefore are just as entitled to what they want in-game as me".

18 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Your criticism is strange. On one hand we have KSP, which inherently has impossible planets, orbits, etc, already for gameplay reasons, and yet it is such a travesty that KSP 2 does the same thing for gameplay reasons?

Makes little sense to me. 
 

Well, I'll play devils advocate here. I think what they mean is that they accept KSP1 has impossible physics in the real universe, but the devs created the KSP universe, so anything they create should "fit" that impossible universe - as in Ovin does not currently fit.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Meecrob
I suck at grammar, evidently.

[Bej Kerman]

15 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

It's proportionately too big, and the closest thing we've seen to makes mercury seem like it's really far from the sun.

I'm just gonna get to the point: we can split hairs over what's too unrealistic for KSP, but I think everyone else here just sees a fun gameplay challenge and not a 'massive' lapse in realism, and quite frankly spending hours trying to explain how the density doesn't work out won't convince us this won't be a fun activity.

[Admiral Fluffy]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

density doesn't work out

None of the density’s work out, but most of us ignore it for the sake of fun gameplay

[Pthigrivi]

Minor note based on this article a smattering of Iron pentacarbonyl lakelets would also be cool to see here. 

[mcwaffles2003]

22 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

"an actual scientist" in what field?  With what career history? Does the rest if his/her field agree?

Dr. Joel Green, an astrophysicist:

https://www.stsci.edu/stsci-research/research-directory/joel-d-green

He has served as a consultant and was present in several of the early dev videos

Also, how are you this mad over Ovin when the game has bodies like Laythe in it?

[Meecrob]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Dr. Joel Green, an astrophysicist:

https://www.stsci.edu/stsci-research/research-directory/joel-d-green

He has served as a consultant and was present in several of the early dev videos

Also, how are you this mad over Ovin when the game has bodies like Laythe in it?

Yeah, but as posters upthread said: is he a "real"scientist? I mean this GAME must have people quitting their jobs to devote their life to a game! Like no video game in history has not adhered 100% to the bounds of physics!!! Say it ain't so!!

Snark aside, this isn't a level D NASA simulator, so attenuate your expectations...you play the game with a keyboard and mouse...or a controller if you are hardcore...or a gamepad if you are so cursed. You can't please everyone. I know I'm gonna get bashed for this comment, but in the real world, you learn there is an equilibrium where nobody is happy, but they aren't upset either. KSP2 is a big enough game that 4 year olds are saying " yo don't make it this way" and literal astrophysicists are like "MAKE IT HARDER!!!" In the end, this game isn't about you, its about a community of people who wanna dick around with rockets. Like this isn't an actual space program. let some people have fun, for  something's sake!

Edited October 25, 2021 by Meecrob

[KerikBalm]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Dr. Joel Green, an astrophysicist:

https://www.stsci.edu/stsci-research/research-directory/joel-d-green

He has served as a consultant and was present in several of the early dev videos

Ok, well, as I said earlier: " am not convinced that they actually are able to find the right experts, ask them the right questions, and correctly understand the response and it's limitations"

The guy seems qualified, but there are plenty of examples of consultants being hired, and either not interpreted correctly, or ignored, or only used for some parts while other things are done without consultation: Jurassic Park films, Interstellar, etc 

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, how are you this mad over Ovin when the game has bodies like Laythe in it?

See my reply on pg 5, reproduced here:

On 10/19/2021 at 7:40 AM, KerikBalm said:

Yea... I'd rather have it be a proper titan analogue.

It's clearly in there for gameplay.

I figured if we had other star systems, something like laythe could be an exoplanet, but with KSP 1's single system, they didn't have any real good place to put it. It still irks me a little

Eve also irks me a little. 1.7g for 7/6 the radius ... What's its explanation for being so dense? The gameplay challenge, clearly.

Ovin cranks this up to 11, most likely because of f engines that I don't think belong, so I worry it's one unrealistic thing begetting another.

If it were a bit more in line with what we've seen: 1.5 kerbin radii, 2-3 G, orbiting it's star very close (explaining why it didn't turn into a mini-neptune), that'd be great. But I look at the dV estimates, the estimates for what a mmH engine would be like if mH were metastable, and they seem to correspond.

I worry that their mmH engines are solutions in search of a problem, so they made Ovin in response.

If it was a bit closer to what we actually observe, then an engine like the NERV-US would be suitable (but for now, it's probably a bit overmatched by Ovin).

Plus they are missing some interesting possibility with the immense solar power and heat that could come with having the world be absolutely baked by it's star (solar thermal rockets beamed power, etc), which any such super-terrestrial would have to be to keep it from accumulating hydrogen

[Meecrob]

This is a board specifically for science. Comments like

"The guy seems qualified, but there are plenty of examples of consultants being hired, and either not interpreted correctly, or ignored, or only used for some parts while other things are done without consultation: Jurassic Park films, Interstellar, etc  "

are kinda misplaced, because this isn't a movie. Like if I bring out a video game and you are like "yeah but jurassic park!!" like you lost me. So cuz 2 movies were not scientifically factual, you wanna crap on KSP2? Like who are you? Why should I take your opinion into consideration if I was a dev? Prove to me scientifically that because Jurassic Park and Interstellar sucked, you extrapolate that to mean KSP2 will suck. I'm all ears!

Edit: or here's an Idea! wait for it to come out before you crap on it!

"Meeeh, but I think the devs are doing a bad job!"

Don't buy it...you do not have a right to a spaceflight sim...you have a privilege based on your income. Choose how you spend your money. I'm not your Mom. Neither is the Dev team. you don't like it? cool! Go try Simple Rockets 2 or whatever the crap you like it elon musk? there are many games you can play that do not have the same KSP-stupid-physics. Why you gotta crap here instead of just installing a new game if you hate so much?

Let's look at cars. Tell me one that is "perfect" Or rather tell me what you do not like bout even awesome cars...same as planes...go ask any pilot about the plane they like flying the most....ask them for the faults of it and you will walk away saying "ok, shut up!"

Learjet-rear anyone?

Edited October 25, 2021 by Meecrob

[TLTay]

I hope Nate is ok. We haven't heard from him in a while, and he usually comments once or twice on show and tell.

[mcwaffles2003]

16 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Yeah, but as posters upthread said: is he a "real"scientist? I mean this GAME must have people quitting their jobs to devote their life to a game! Like no video game in history has not adhered 100% to the bounds of physics!!! Say it ain't so!!

So did you just like not read anything in the link I provided? It even has links to his website with his CV which shows a fair bit...

14 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Ok, well, as I said earlier: " am not convinced that they actually are able to find the right experts, ask them the right questions, and correctly understand the response and it's limitations"

The guy seems qualified, but there are plenty of examples of consultants being hired, and either not interpreted correctly, or ignored, or only used for some parts while other things are done without consultation: Jurassic Park films, Interstellar, etc 

Dunno what to tell you then....

14 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I worry that their mmH engines are solutions in search of a problem, so they made Ovin in response.

I think they just wanted a high thrust, high ISP (but not necessarily interstellar) engine available. We've been over this before and yes, there are many other options that were available that would also fill that niche. That said, if the engine we're replaced with a similar stat engine better rooted in realism... isn't this how a game is supposed to be made? You create tools then you create problems for them to solve, then players use those tools and solve those problems. So, I don't understand your beef here. Why does it matter that Ovin is a response to mmH engines if those engines could have just been the same with different lore? Kind of just comes off as salt leftover from not liking mmH engines to me.

Edited October 26, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why does it matter that Ovin is a response to mmH engines if those engines could have just been the same with different lore?

This. Thisthisthis. The mmH engines could very well be nuclear salt rockets and we wouldn't care despite NSW having a much higher ISP.

[OHara]

A nuclear-salt-water engine, as usually imagined, does seem to fit the job of lifting off strong-gravity Ovin.  It is such a popular concept, that I guess KSP 2 will want to include that kind of engine.

The concepts that have been circulated for nuclear-salt-water engines tend to prevent melting of their nozzles by flowing water along its inside, cooling by adding more reaction mass.  It seems to be a design that needs to operate at high thrust, just to prevent the reaction from moving upstream.  Looking at Winchell's summary on project rho, this engine is seen as being far in the future, not for the science but for the significant engineering challenges --- so it might come in the interplanetary phase of a KSP 2 progression. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by OHara
spelling

[TheOrbitalMechanic]

10 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why does it matter that Ovin is a response to mmH engines if those engines could have just been the same with different lore?

And if Ovin's size/density is a problem (which has also come up in this thread), they can easily just... scale up the size (but not mass) a bit. I doubt they're at a point in development where it's impossible to change the parameters of a specific planet, if such a point even exists.

[KerikBalm]

On 10/25/2021 at 9:41 PM, Meecrob said:

Prove to me scientifically that because Jurassic Park and Interstellar sucked, you extrapolate that to mean KSP2 will suck.

Why would I prove that to you? this is a strawman. My point was that those movies, despite having scientific advisors, contained significant lapses in scientific accuracy. Having a qualified advisor doesn't mean that the product is scientifically accurate.

On 10/25/2021 at 9:41 PM, Meecrob said:

here's an Idea! wait for it to come out before you crap on it!

Yea, you mean an idea like this:

On 10/24/2021 at 3:56 PM, KerikBalm said:

We will see.

As I said earlier, their mmH engine put me off, then their NERV-US engine gave me hope again.

I will wait and see what the finished product is like, and if there is a diamond in the rough that's worth the sifting (ie modding the junk out).

I will give my opinion along the way as new info comes out, before I make up my mind on the final product.

It seems we agree in principle, you just don't want to hear intermediate feedback.

17 hours ago, TheOrbitalMechanic said:

And if Ovin's size/density is a problem (which has also come up in this thread), they can easily just... scale up the size (but not mass) a bit. I doubt they're at a point in development where it's impossible to change the parameters of a specific planet, if such a point even exists.

At 10 Kerbin mass, unless this is ridiculously close to its host star (no indication of that), it should be a mini-Neptune at least.

My question is why they felt the need to put in a planet exceeding anything observed, that doesn't fit any of our models of how planets form.

I understand that the answer is likely "the gameplay challenge". Of course this gameplay challenge is absurd with chemical rockets, its obviously meant for the more powerful propulsions we'll get... which brings me to mcwaffles2003's point

On 10/26/2021 at 11:25 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I think they just wanted a high thrust, high ISP (but not necessarily interstellar) engine available. We've been over this before and yes, there are many other options that were available that would also fill that niche. That said, if the engine we're replaced with a similar stat engine better rooted in realism...

Well, the candidates that can fill that niche, afaik,  are ones that spew radioactive death (orion, Nuclear salt water, open cycle nuclear thermal liquid/gas core), or get close and fall short of what mmH would be, that is:

LOX augmented NERVA as a competitor to water-diluted mmH, and closed cycle gas core as a competitor to magicly confined ("cesium doped magnetically confined") undiluted mmh.

Both of which would be expected to have lower TWRs, significant radiation shielding issues, and significant thermal issues before and after engine burns.

These would provide interesting challenges that isn't just the same thing, but with the numbers increased (like a grindy RPG where a level 3 character fighting level 3 enemies is pretty much the exact same as a level 1 character fighting level 1 enemies).

On 10/26/2021 at 11:25 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

isn't this how a game is supposed to be made? You create tools then you create problems for them to solve, then players use those tools and solve those problems.

I think its generally the other way around, you create an interesting problem to solve, and then provide some tools to solve it. Although it can go the otherway, where players take existing tools and find novel combinations (often not anticipated by the developers) to solve problems.

On 10/26/2021 at 11:25 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why does it matter that Ovin is a response to mmH engines if those engines could have just been the same with different lore? Kind of just comes off as salt leftover from not liking mmH engines to me.

My issue is that those engines would not have been the same with different lore.

I can understand this coming off as salt from not liking mmH engines, because it seems like this is a response to mmH engines (if we used similar engines with different lore, Ovin would be a bit less extreme, and thus more realistic). 

I see a cascade or snowball effect from those mmH engines spilling over into Ovin, and who knows what else that has yet to be revealed.

I see no indications that those engines provide anything interesting in gameplay. They seem likely to be just like chemical engines, but better - I find the idea that they are "balanced" by just needing a bigger fuel factory to be un-interesting.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, the candidates that can fill that niche, afaik,  are ones that spew radioactive death (orion, Nuclear salt water, open cycle nuclear thermal liquid/gas core), or get close and fall short of what mmH would be, that is:

LOX augmented NERVA as a competitor to water-diluted mmH, and closed cycle gas core as a competitor to magicly confined ("cesium doped magnetically confined") undiluted mmh.

Both of which would be expected to have lower TWRs, significant radiation shielding issues, and significant thermal issues before and after engine burns.

These would provide interesting challenges that isn't just the same thing, but with the numbers increased (like a grindy RPG where a level 3 character fighting level 3 enemies is pretty much the exact same as a level 1 character fighting level 1 enemies).

My issue is that those engines would not have been the same with different lore.

I can understand this coming off as salt from not liking mmH engines, because it seems like this is a response to mmH engines (if we used similar engines with different lore, Ovin would be a bit less extreme, and thus more realistic). 

I see a cascade or snowball effect from those mmH engines spilling over into Ovin, and who knows what else that has yet to be revealed.

I see no indications that those engines provide anything interesting in gameplay. They seem likely to be just like chemical engines, but better - I find the idea that they are "balanced" by just needing a bigger fuel factory to be un-interesting.

Fair enough, maybe they were just having a hard time finding a non-nuclear option but really wanted to keep radiation mechanics in the game. An alternative timeline would be to not have mmH but also never have introduced radiation mechanics and we would be at the same point. No one would complain about realism issues but there would also be less nuance in the play. Also, I get what you mean about the grindy RPG but just like in RPG's as the level increases so do the options for how to approach the combat. Power still needs to balance or else it wouldn't work (either slaughter everything easily or hit an unsurpassable wall). In the case of KSP 2 sure the planets become more difficult to lift off from while having stronger engines to work with but I believe more nuance and engineering will be required to reach the same level 1 results. For instance, now there will be a bunch of heat to dissipate along the way. 

Either way, it seems the devs wanted an engine to fill a role of (non-nuclear, med-high ISP, med-high thrust) and mmH is what they found and their tolerance for soft sci-fi in the game is a bit more than yours. Also, we don't know how mmH fuel will be obtained but I doubt the solution will simply be to just build a bigger factory. My guess would be that it is going to be a fairly difficult resource to find and will require players to build fairly elaborate systems to start recovering it which would make for engaging gameplay.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

I think its generally the other way around, you create an interesting problem to solve, and then provide some tools to solve it. Although it can go the otherway, where players take existing tools and find novel combinations (often not anticipated by the developers) to solve problems.

This, I plainly disagree with. They need to build the mechanics of the game before they build the "levels" in which to express those mechanics. Never heard of a game where they build the levels before they build the "game". You need to decide the game has jetpacks before you add really high ledges.

[shdwlrd]

Ok, we're given a preview of a new planet. There is no context or hint to what type of star this planet is orbiting. Is it possible that this planet is orbiting a giant, very active star? Or it could be the core of an old gas giant of a dying star?  Or can it a rogue planet that was thrown out of a star system? Or by some luck, it was a small star that survived its collapse? Remember we only have a very small sample set for saying how planets should be made and what materials the cores could be made of.

[SSTO Crasher]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:47 PM, Hyperspace Industries said:

If I may suggest something: a science report on the surface could be something like: "You (or the mystery goo) feel the same sense of dread felt by some of the first to land on Eve, the sneaking suspicion you might not get off this rock, at least, not soon."

Yes