Do KSP2 use single gravity as KSP1 or multi-gravity like principia？

[pwatx1]

Do KSP2 use single gravity as KSP1 or multi-gravity like Principia？

Multi-gravity system was much difficult but more realistic and more fun.

Maybe we can use a option in settings to let player to choose which one they like.

[BekfastDerp13]

It will most likely use single gravity for simplicity.

[whatsEJstandfor]

Assuming the design hasn't changed since 2019, Nate confirmed in an interview with ShadowZone that there won't be n-body dynamics; it's still patched conics with certain exceptions in which there's a bespoke solution (like for Rask and Russ).

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

certain exceptions in which there's a bespoke solution (like for Rask and Russ)

I'm hoping that whatever code they put in place for the Rask/Rusk exception will open a door for mods to do some really clever stuff with regards to Lagrange points, n-body, etc

[t_v]

13 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I'm hoping that whatever code they put in place for the Rask/Rusk exception will open a door for mods to do some really clever stuff with regards to Lagrange points, n-body, etc

Definitely Lagrange points, but probably not n-body. The reason for this is that they probably made optimizations to the Rask/Rusk system which work for restricted 3- body but don’t work for n-body. When you try to bring more bodies in, those optimizations won’t play nice. Still, the system might be expandable to a degree and will probably be a good base to build true n-body from. 

[darthgently]

1 minute ago, t_v said:

Definitely Lagrange points, but probably not n-body. The reason for this is that they probably made optimizations to the Rask/Rusk system which work for restricted 3- body but don’t work for n-body. When you try to bring more bodies in, those optimizations won’t play nice. Still, the system might be expandable to a degree and will probably be a good base to build true n-body from. 

Yes, to clarify, I mean code that would be used by a mod, to do things similar to Rask-Rusk 3-body, not general n-body.

[mattinoz]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:11 AM, darthgently said:

Yes, to clarify, I mean code that would be used by a mod, to do things similar to Rask-Rusk 3-body, not general n-body.

https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/dev-diaries/developer-insights-4-ksp2-engineering/

According. to this early insights there will be multiple places in the game that more than 1 body physics will be applicable Rask/Rusk is only one example of it. There was early talk of a spacial graph that extracted mini-scenes that a craft was in assuming that system is what decides how many bodies have enough gravitational influence but I doubt it ramp up based on system specs as that would make it harder for new players to learn from more experienced players with better hardware. 

 

[t_v]

I never noticed that, this probably means that there will be more systems with different orbital mechanics. I do want to mention that it didn’t specify what changes were made, so Rask and Rusk might still be the only 3-body system but there might be other systems where immense bulges on planets perturb orbits or perhaps other interesting effects. As for the spatial graph, this isn’t for deciding how many bodies there are, it is basically for dynamically subdividing the universe so that you don’t get floating point errors and bouncing bases. Your ship will be in its own space bubble which is simulated at a much higher resolution than, for example, interstellar space. And to curb the potential discussion, no, this has nothing to do with any time warp or other gameplay mechanics, it is purely in the back-end. 

[mattinoz]

If you divide the universe in to manageable chunks for the physics engine when it seems odd to me ruling out using that mini-verse to create the local gravity playground. Assuming the system will include visible bodies then the central sun(s) of the system are likely to be included unless a long way out.

Seems to me it would be less complicated long term to have a system handle it than to fine tune it be hand. Sure systems will be on rails and craft will be able to go on rails to avoid station keeping. 

 

I do wonder if it will be possible to get in such a low system gravity situation that kerbals will be sub-orbital to a colony ship when EVA.

Edited May 1, 2022 by mattinoz

[t_v]

1 minute ago, mattinoz said:

If you divide the universe in to manageable chunks for the physics engine when it seems odd to me ruling out using that mini-verse to create the local gravity playground. Assuming the system will include visible bodies then the central sun(s) of the system are likely to be included unless a long way out.

Seems to me it would be less complicated long term to have a system handle it than to fine tune it be hand. Sure systems will be on rails and craft will be able to go on rails to avoid station keeping. 

So, when I say subdivided, it means spatially, not physically (is that the right word?). The system that the craft is in does not contain the star or the planet it is orbiting, only the craft and some objects around the craft. This doesn’t affect the physics at all, you will still see gravity between the craft and the planet even though they are in different subdivisions. The main point of this is to have a much higher degree of precision when in specific scenarios, so the system with the craft is simulated to the millimeter level whereas the craft’s motion around the planet is only measured in centimeter precision or something. Ideally, you shouldn’t have a different physics based on subdivision, because you will always be in the same one. 

[BigStar Aerospace]

I hope that one of the exceptions for the multi-body physics will be right there in the Kerbin SOI, I'd love to be able to set up an Armstrong Cycler for the Mun where it actually swings around the Mun in an infinity symbol that moves around Kerbin slowly so we can get close to the Mun. Also, I bet there is a Lagrangian point or some sort of cycler orbit between the Mun and Minmus that would be perfect for transfers.