More realistic physics engine

[Abel Military Services]

More realistic physics engine: 

Moveable Planets 

 

[The Aziz]

"more realistic"

 

 

[intelliCom]

4 hours ago, Abel101126 said:

More realistic physics engine: 

Moveable Planets 

 

You talk about a more realistic physics system and propose movable celestial bodies as a positive?
Not a better aerodynamic model, not kraken extermination, but movable planets?

What do you think Unity is right now? Unreal Engine 16? It may be a physics sandbox, but it's not Universe Sandbox. Go play that instead if you'd really want entire planets to be moved somehow.

[Bej Kerman]

11 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

What do you think Unity is right now? Unreal Engine 16?

I agree with everything else, but here you imply that

1. Unity is bad, or at least worse than Unreal (which it isn't)

2. That having planets move and influence each other gravitationally would be difficult. This has already been modded into KSP 1.

[Catto]

Yeah it should i guess

[intelliCom]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I agree with everything else, but here you imply that

1. Unity is bad, or at least worse than Unreal (which it isn't)

2. That having planets move and influence each other gravitationally would be difficult. This has already been modded into KSP 1.

1. I didn't mean to imply that, Unity's great, but I have this idea that OP thinks of realistic as being "cool" like Unreal Engine's uber-realistic graphics nowadays, instead of "cool" like "oh hey I can actually make an aircraft that functions as it would in reality"

2. But the actual tidal forces of such an event would have to be completely ignored in order to function on the computers of today. Hardly "realistic", is it?

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, siklidkid said:

Yeah it should i guess

?

Just now, intelliCom said:

2. But the actual tidal forces of such an event would have to be completely ignored in order to function on the computers of today. Hardly "realistic", is it?

This isn't needed anyway

[Catto]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

?

Let me put it in more detail: KSP2 should have a better phys engine than KSP1, but not by that much. The developers still want newbies to the game to learn about it well.

Just now, siklidkid said:

Let me put it in more detail: KSP2 should have a better phys engine than KSP1, but not by that much. The developers still want newbies to the game to learn about it well.

I have no idea what i'm saying, i'm not an astrophysicist.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, siklidkid said:

Let me put it in more detail: KSP2 should have a better phys engine than KSP1, but not by that much. The developers still want newbies to the game to learn about it well.

Realistic =/= difficult. People seem to think FAR is more difficult than the stock game, but that's far from reality. The idea that realism makes things difficult only goes so far.

[Catto]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Realistic =/= difficult. People seem to think FAR is more difficult than the stock game, but that's far from reality. The idea that realism makes things difficult only goes so far.

Yeah. It's not going to be that realistic, but atleast a little more realistic, with all the new parts.

[intelliCom]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This isn't needed anyway

The moon causes significant tides, and you're telling me that if an Earth-sized planet were to pass closer to Earth than the moon is, just barely skimming the atmosphere, that tidal forces don't mean anything in that situation?

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This isn't needed anyway

The moon causes significant tides, and you're telling me that if an Earth-sized planet were to pass closer to Earth than the moon is, just barely skimming the atmosphere, that tidal forces don't mean anything in that situation?

Et cetera et cetera, whatever. Temperature and roche spheres can be static values, it doesn't matter.

[intelliCom]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Et cetera et cetera, whatever. Temperature and roche spheres can be static values, it doesn't matter.

Either:

You ignore the effects of such a close pass, so it's no longer "realistic", as is the point of this post, or;
You include the effects of such a close pass, so your computer reaches the heat of a nuclear reactor.

Just leave the planets on rails, moving them isn't important or within KSP2's idea of "rational situations". Stop insisting the planets need to move.

Edited April 8, 2022 by intelliCom

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, intelliCom said:

You ignore the effects of such a close pass, so it's no longer "realistic", as is the point of this post, or;
You include the effects of such a close pass, so your computer reaches the heat of a nuclear reactor.

Rask and Rusk should be evidence enough you don't have to simulate tidal effects to just model the effects in a static manner.

2 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Just leave the planets on rails, moving them isn't important or within KSP2's idea of "rational situations". Stop insisting the planets need to move.

Literally my first message to you here was me agreeing that the planets don't need to move. You don't like it when I misquote you, so why are you misrepresenting me? Everything on from that point was me just going along for the sake of it.

16 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

The moon causes significant tides, and you're telling me that if an Earth-sized planet were to pass closer to Earth than the moon is, just barely skimming the atmosphere, that tidal forces don't mean anything in that situation?

Why are you insisting that the planets need to move and have simulated tidal effects?

[intelliCom]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Literally my first message to you here was me agreeing that the planets don't need to move. You don't like it when I misquote you, so why are you misrepresenting me? Everything on from that point was me just going along for the sake of it.

Because I was trying to explain how even attempting to try and make moving planets "realistic" would run into so many problems that suddenly make it less realistic all over again. I'm trying to stay with the post's topic here. Yes, there's mods for it. Yes, "moving planets" can work. But "moving planets" suddenly introduces a bunch of extra issues in realism that make it not worth it to begin with, as per OP's motivation for a more realistic physics engine.

This is why I compared such a feat to "Unreal Engine 15". Because trying to make such physics "realistic" would put such an unbelievable amount of strain on a computer that it's not even practical for a scientific simulation.

It's not processing moving planets on its own that's intensive. It's making that "realistic."

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

That having planets move and influence each other gravitationally would be difficult. This has already been modded into KSP 1.

Edited April 8, 2022 by intelliCom

[snkiz]

Not really a yes or no question when you think about it. How high should they make the minimum spec? What activities do you prioritize? Is it even the physics engines fault?

The fist one is obvious, were it all proper N-body It would very quickly replace the crisis meme, not in a good way. So you will have to compromise. Some things might be difficult to make behave correctly across all possible flight regimes. Going from water, to  air to vacuum. And Then is the physics even your problem? FAR doesn't really change the game physics, just how it presents your craft as a unified body, as opposed to the stock collection parts flying in linked formation with arcane oclusion rules and drag cubes. 

 

What I will say is I wish the physics were more intuitive in the way it handles the overall shape of crafts. A way to 'weld' joints that would have been  IRL, like fuselage parts in line. Some fake N-body, specifically Lagrange points. They are talked about often when discussing IRL missions. So some simple representation of them, but still on rails would be good enough IMO.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, intelliCom said:

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Literally my first message to you here was me agreeing that the planets don't need to move. You don't like it when I misquote you, so why are you misrepresenting me? Everything on from that point was me just going along for the sake of it.

Because I was trying to explain how even attempting to try and make mov

And I was only going along.

[Maria Sirona]

Realistic enough already.