Rask & Rusk loss of individuality?

[Minmus Taster]

Overall Rask & Rusk should be a really interesting place to visit but I think there's a slight misstep with the design presented in 2021.

For the record this is not any sort of attack on the dev's, they've done an amazing job with the game and Rask & Rusk are already spectacular examples of the stuff they've done.

But there's something about Rask & Rusk that may be a detriment to that system overall in my opinion, this is based of pre-alpha footage of course and this might already be invalid but let me ask you this question, do you know is this Rask or Rusk?

If you answered "I have no clue" you'd be correct, to be fair the devs have yet to clarify which planet is which and this makes sense considering the games not even close to being out.

But if you are actually playing the game and you want to land on Rusk for example, other than the names on the map view how are you supposed to know which planet is which? and why should you care in the first, both planets seem to look mostly the same.

Lets look at Rask & Rusk during their reveal in game at PAX east 2019:

This may or may-not just be me, but Rask & Rusk look visually different from the tidal forces acting on each-other, lets assume that Rask is the top one and Rask is the bottom in this image for this post, from this angle Rask looks like a madness combat head, and Rusk looks like a cracked egg.

It might seem like a small change but this helps us to visually distinguish the two from each other, and it's also a great example of tidal distortion for the player.

This is the more modern design of Rask & Rusk from Episode 4 of the KSP2 feature video's:

For the most part it looks stunning and for the most part it's a huge improvement from when we first saw them, but now there's a small issue, I have no idea which is which now.

The only thing I can tell them apart is that Rusk seems to have more lava than Rask, and in my opinion that's not enough to make them unique, why would you want to explore both of them other than necessity to do so for a contract or colony supply mission.

So I guess my point after all that is that Rask & Rusk just don't have interesting enough individual identity to explore each of them in detail like what seems to be the goal with the planets in the game, and I'm even going to make the bold claim here that aside from the cool lava, both of them kind of look like boring rocks compared to the stuff the devs put on other planets in terms of actually exploring their surfaces.

It's a cool system, but not very cool planets.

And with that I now set you free from my rant, thank you for getting through the whole thing, I of course don't know anything about Rask & Rusk other than the pictures I've seen and might be totally wrong of course, have a great day 

[The Aziz]

you ever tried to orbit a binary system?

[Minmus Taster]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

you ever tried to orbit a binary system?

I have not, I was never questioning the interesting orbital challenge, they are very interesting and I'm looking forward to messing around at that system, I'm saying that from an exploration standpoint both of them are basically the same which might de-motivate people from spending to much time trying to explore both of them.

[Ahres]

While I see what you're saying, I know Intercept is trying to make planetary science as realistic as possible (think Minmus being glassy instead of icy). So with that in mind, would one expect Rask and Rusk to be vastly different? Besides, this feels like a complaint that you can't make until you've played the game and landed on both of them. From orbit they look similar, but who knows what we'll find on the surface.

[Minmus Taster]

8 minutes ago, Ahres said:

While I see what you're saying, I know Intercept is trying to make planetary science as realistic as possible (think Minmus being glassy instead of icy). So with that in mind, would one expect Rask and Rusk to be vastly different? Besides, this feels like a complaint that you can't make until you've played the game and landed on both of them. From orbit they look similar, but who knows what we'll find on the surface.

Good point, But I still hope that there's some sort of tidal bulging on them since that is pretty accurate anyways from my knowledge on the subject.

Like with what you see with the death star Mimas in orbit of Saturn:

[Admiral Fluffy]

1 hour ago, Minmus Taster said:

Like with what you see with the death star Mimas in orbit of Saturn:

Thats no moon...

[adsii1970]

4 hours ago, Ahres said:

While I see what you're saying, I know Intercept is trying to make planetary science as realistic as possible (think Minmus being glassy instead of icy). So with that in mind, would one expect Rask and Rusk to be vastly different? Besides, this feels like a complaint that you can't make until you've played the game and landed on both of them. From orbit they look similar, but who knows what we'll find on the surface.

It depends. I imagine that if we were to land on any of the rocky moons of Saturn, for example, we might encounter:

• Identical moons - and this would be expected if the moons were formed at the same time. This likely could happen if the moons were part of a larger body that broke apart as the result of some cosmic impact or was otherwise ripped apart during its formation. It simply makes sense if this is the case with these two satellites.
• Different moons - I suspect, if we see vast differences in moons, there are any number of possibilities that can account for them.
  • Differences such as leftover debris from early collisions with other planetary bodies.
  • Captured asteroids that strayed too close and was moving too slow to continue on an escape trajectory.

Spoiler

It would be neat if this kind of stuff was incorporated into the game. With Minmus being now glassy instead of icy, this does open up that possibility. Glass, as we know it, has to have a tremendous heat source, normally from some form of vulcanism (no relation to Spock or his homeworld of Vulcan). So, yeah, Minmus, at some point in its geological past, must have been exposed to extreme heat and pressure. Perhaps even, it is all that remains of a gas giant whose atmosphere was stripped away through some cataclysmic cosmic happening, setting its solid core adrift to rapidly cool to become a satellite of Kerbin...

As Carl Sagan once said, "the possibilities of what we will discover are endless..." I know I've mentioned the two main categories I can think of, but you'll have to excuse me - it's been a rough week.

[mattinoz]

Yes the planets aren’t cool at all and hanging out there for a long time isn’t going to be fun…

 

they are balls of molten planet after all. 
I see a lot of mia kerbals trying to get surface samples. 

[mcwaffles2003]

Wouldn't it be weird if they were significantly different from one another though? I don't imagine there's much aesthetically that can differ between 2 planetoids occupying the same region, around the same star, probably made of the same matter, while being half melted due to tidal forces. It's not like we can have one look like lathe or an ice world. That's just the price to pay to make an early system binary planet. Also, does their individual identity as planets really matter at the end of the day, can they not come as a pair?

[SciMan]

Even if they were "mostly the same" as far as the materials that make them up, they could have vastly different types of surface terrain, for instance one of them could be full of something like lava caves or impact craters, and the other one could be largely flat basaltic plains with deep fissures. Of course I'm only talking about the side that is away from the center of the system, we know that the side towards the middle should be largely a lava lake on both bodies.

[KerikBalm]

On 3/12/2022 at 12:21 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

. It's not like we can have one look like lathe or an ice world. That's just the price to pay to make an early system binary planet. Also, does their individual identity as planets really matter at the end of the day, can they not come as a pair?

I agree, they are a pair. I wouldn't complain that one side of minmus looks like the other*, so ditto for this planet pair.

The should be broadly similar, but different in details like arrangements of mountain ranges, fissures, craters, etc. Similar to how the minmus flats are broadly similar, but differ in size and shape.

*I do think many stock KSP planets are too uniform, one never sees the diversity of features as seen on Mars for instance 

Sure, Kerbin has a desert, mountains, and some rivers, but where are the canyons, mesas, volcanoes, rift valleys, etc...

[mcwaffles2003]

On 3/14/2022 at 7:07 PM, SciMan said:

Even if they were "mostly the same" as far as the materials that make them up, they could have vastly different types of surface terrain, for instance one of them could be full of something like lava caves or impact craters, and the other one could be largely flat basaltic plains with deep fissures. Of course I'm only talking about the side that is away from the center of the system, we know that the side towards the middle should be largely a lava lake on both bodies.

I feel like to have vastly different features on their away facing sides would suggest a type of inhomogeneity in the system. That would be appropriate if they were different masses but they look fairly similar in size to one another. Both should appear as crater pocked hell holes on their outward facing side, perhaps with visible tectonic plate boundaries as that's just how planets are in the birthing days of a solar system. There's a lot of debris everywhere and it's all conglomerating on protoplanets at a rate quicker than tectonic activity could erase.

[poopslayer78]

On 3/11/2022 at 8:01 AM, Minmus Taster said:

other than the names on the map view how are you supposed to know which planet is which

I agree that it would be nice to have some minor way to visually distinguish the two.  It could be something as simple as a large crater on one but not the other (which seems scientifically plausible especially for a young system), or even a distinctive lava pattern (an X-shape, a large crescent, or whatever).  Other than an aesthetic cue, I like the idea that the two planets are mostly symmetrical for the purpose of orbital maneuvers.

On 3/11/2022 at 8:01 AM, Minmus Taster said:

Rask & Rusk just don't have interesting enough individual identity to explore each of them in detail

Sure, if the player explores one planet, the other may not add much novelty, but by exploring any one of the pair you'll still get plenty of unique aspects like the tidal lava or seeing the other (very large) planet in the sky.

Another way to think about it: If you were to merge the surface area of Rask and Rusk into a single sphere, would you explore all of it?  Probably not.  Consider a body like Duna, a player may explore the northern hemisphere and not feel the need to explore the south since it's largely symmetrical.  That said, I think having a few easter eggs on each or some unique science biomes (or whatever system KSP2 uses) would be a nice motivation, but this doesn't really require unique visuals.

[MechBFP]

There is really no need for them to be unique in my opinion. The main driver for the player to explore it is the system itself, not the individual bodies.

[SciMan]

We're not talking about the complexity of the orbits, that would be found on a system that's just 2 boring grey perfect spheres orbiting each other. What we're talking about is what there should or shouldn't be that makes Rask different from Rusk.

Back on the topic of what would make one different from the other, it would pretty much have to be the specific configuration of surface features, such as the specific pattern of plate boundaries seen on each planet.

You could do more tho, for instance it would be interesting if they weren't quite fully tidally locked, or if the orbits weren't perfectly circular (but still having the exact same orbital period). For instance they could have different eccentricities, leading to a sort of "wobble" of Rask or Rusk as seen from the surface of the other planet. Could also have different inclinations, which would lead to a different kind of wobble as seen from the surface, tho again you'd have to make sure they stay synchronized for the most part.
Could also make one notably larger/smaller than the other (enough to tell by eye, but only with the other as reference, which is obviously not a problem since they're pretty much always both in view when orbiting them). Perhaps a 5-10% difference in diameter (which would lead to quite a large mass difference between the two unless their compositions are notably different (larger one less dense than the smaller one), due to how you calculate a sphere's volume).

[Vl3d]

On 3/18/2022 at 7:05 AM, MechBFP said:

The main driver for the player to explore it is the system itself, not the individual bodies.

I very, very, very strongly disagree with your assertion. Every mountaintop, crater or valley should have something new to discover.

[MechBFP]

37 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I very, very, very strongly disagree with your assertion. Every mountaintop, crater or valley should have something new to discover.

What exactly do you think the player is going to discover besides mountaintops, craters, and valleys?

Edited March 22, 2022 by MechBFP

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

I very, very, very strongly disagree with your assertion. Every mountaintop, crater or valley should have something new to discover.

I think that this is great in theory but hard to implement in practice. Rather, what I would love is a unique view for each location. For example, Laythe has an island with a lake in the middle, which is a unique view, and considering the entire ocean as one location, there are unique views of endless sea and seeing different islands. However, some islands are topographically similar to the point that you are looking at the same thing regardless of which island you are on. For places like Rask and Rusk it is fine if there are large plain lava plaines, but the major landmarks should be different enough to be distinctive. A double-crater as opposed to a single one would be enough. 

[Vl3d]

There are so many adventure / RPG sci-fi games out there for inspiration, so many thinks to see and discover and use. I think it's really sad to live in an austere, empty universe.

[Admiral Fluffy]

One of them would have bigger lava lakes than the other. You could maybe find more rare resources on that one.

Spoiler

I'm thinking of the one closer to the bottom   /\

                                                                                                     |   (This one)

 

 

[MechBFP]

51 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

There are so many adventure / RPG sci-fi games out there for inspiration, so many thinks to see and discover and use. I think it's really sad to live in an austere, empty universe.

Reality is often disappointing. 

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

There are so many adventure / RPG sci-fi games out there for inspiration, so many thinks to see and discover and use. I think it's really sad to live in an austere, empty universe.

24 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Reality is often disappointing. 

I think that austere doesn’t mean empty, nor is it disappointing. Our universe is made up of an amazing variety of celestial bodies, from planets made of immense clouds of hydrogen to stars that spin thousands of times per second. The percentage of these planets which have life is small enough to be negligible, from all our current measurements. So yes, that ball of neutrons flatter than a ball bearing is austere, but its microscopic hills and valleys and tiny marks where massive discharges of energy occurred are far from empty. And gas giants, despite being lifeless and frigid, have massive storms and sweeping landscapes of clouds that are more varied in form than any terrestrial planet. I for one am fine with a lifeless universe in this game, as long as it demonstrates the many beautiful austere places in our universe. 

[shdwlrd]

13 minutes ago, t_v said:

I think that austere doesn’t mean empty, nor is it disappointing. Our universe is made up of an amazing variety of celestial bodies, from planets made of immense clouds of hydrogen to stars that spin thousands of times per second. The percentage of these planets which have life is small enough to be negligible, from all our current measurements. So yes, that ball of neutrons flatter than a ball bearing is austere, but its microscopic hills and valleys and tiny marks where massive discharges of energy occurred are far from empty. And gas giants, despite being lifeless and frigid, have massive storms and sweeping landscapes of clouds that are more varied in form than any terrestrial planet. I for one am fine with a lifeless universe in this game, as long as it demonstrates the many beautiful austere places in our universe. 

Well said. 

[Vl3d]

I appreciate the beautiful words, but the plain truth is that the celestial bodies in KSP1 are very empty and boring. I want to have interesting things to discover - not land on a planet, do a few experiments, pack up and leave in 10 minutes and never come back because there is nothing more to discover other than a boring slab. I want to come back (to Rask and Rusk) 100 times, because there is always something new to find. Don't you think that if we found some unique and interesting stuff on the Moon we would have been back there? But no, people thought it's an empty place and did not put in the effort to visit it again for 50 years.

[shdwlrd]

50 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

plain truth is that the celestial bodies in KSP1 are very empty and boring

As it would be in real life. Not every planet can or will support life like NMS. Nor is it reasonable to think every planet should have it's own theme to it. 

Rask and Rusk is different than any other planet will be in KSP. They are breaking up while slowly spiraling to their doom. How is that boring? Do they need an amusement park added to each planet to make them more different?

50 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I want to have interesting things to discover

There probably will be, but you will have to stay on the planet and explore it to find the interesting bits to it.

50 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Don't you think that if we found some unique and interesting stuff on the Moon we would have been back there? But no, people thought it's an empty place and did not put in the effort to visit it again for 50 years.

No, it was politics that killed the thought of a moon base, not that there was nothing up there. We don't even know what is exactly on the moon and there is plenty we can learn from the moon. The only reason anyone is trying now is to say they are the first to establish one. Basically political bragging rights, nothing more. (The same reason why the Apollo program was greenlit.)

Edited March 23, 2022 by shdwlrd
Spelling