Time warp max speed

[Vl3d]

Simple question: what will the limit be for maximum time warp?

Will we be able to time warp through a whole interstellar journey or will we have to set alarms and do other missions for a while?

For KSP1:

In reality at 0.1c speed reaching the closest star would take ~50 years. That's ~75 minutes at 100.000x in gameplay time.

Not taking into account the hour per day / light year value difference compared to KSP, which scales up if light has the same speed. I'm not certain by how much.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Vl3d

[MechBFP]

It hasn’t been discussed yet so there is no answer. 

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Simple question: what will the limit be for maximum time warp?

Will we be able to time warp through a whole interstellar journey or will we have to set alarms and do other missions for a while?

For KSP1:

In reality at 0.1c speed reaching the closest star would take ~50 years. That's ~75 minutes at 100.000x in gameplay time.

Not taking into account the hour per day / light year value difference compared to KSP, which scales up if light has the same speed. I'm not certain by how much.

If the 1/10th scaling remains then nearest stars wil be 0.5, not 5, lightyears away meaning 7.5min @ 100,000x. I can't cite sources but I believe faster timewarps were confirmed. Finally, I personally wouldn't just send a ship to another star and just watch as it goes there... do other interplanetary missions in the meantime

[Gotmachine]

This always has been my main concern about the choice to expand KSP scope to interstellar ranges (which I also don't like for other reasons, but whatever).

The increased time scale of the game will fundamentally conflict with the "space program" aspect where you have multiple vessels, bases and missions ongoing concurrently, with a lot of actions that happen on a hours/days timescale.
I expect the granularity of the simulation as a whole to be seriously dumbed down to very high level abstractions as a result.

[mcwaffles2003]

52 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

This always has been my main concern about the choice to expand KSP scope to interstellar ranges (which I also don't like for other reasons, but whatever).

The increased time scale of the game will fundamentally conflict with the "space program" aspect where you have multiple vessels, bases and missions ongoing concurrently, with a lot of actions that happen on a hours/days timescale.
I expect the granularity of the simulation as a whole to be seriously dumbed down to very high level abstractions as a result.

I'm hoping this is where multiplayer can come in to help or at least some involved but useful automation mechanics. Either have more helpers to assist with the program or automate it so it doesn't drag.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Gotmachine said:

This always has been my main concern about the choice to expand KSP scope to interstellar ranges (which I also don't like for other reasons, but whatever).

The increased time scale of the game will fundamentally conflict with the "space program" aspect where you have multiple vessels, bases and missions ongoing concurrently, with a lot of actions that happen on a hours/days timescale.
I expect the granularity of the simulation as a whole to be seriously dumbed down to very high level abstractions as a result.

Very few players of KSP1 ever launch more than 1 mission at a time, so this of little surprise. 

[Pthigrivi]

Does anyone remember the the name of the thread we had about this roundabout a year ago? Some folks had some solid insights on what was possible/likely. 

45 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Very few players of KSP1 ever launch more than 1 mission at a time, so this of little surprise. 

I was actually a bit surprised so many players do run at least a few at a time in KSP1 (over 50%), and I would expect that number to go up quite a bit when colonization becomes a bigger deal. Even if they abstract supply routes so that they're not simulated I fully expect many players to have dozens of active vessels, probes, satellites, colonies, etc. each with their own set of resource producers and consumers. There's a whole Dev blog about the resource system so they're definitely considering all this carefully. 
 

 

[SciMan]

Well you've gotta take into account that the average person who posts on the forums isn't the average KSP player. The average KSP player probably hasn't even landed on the Mun.

So with that in mind, there's not that much incentive to have much more than one or maybe two craft in orbit at a time.

Only when you start exploring Minmus does the timeline really start (and only just start) to open up to the point that you can think about having multiple concurrent missions at a time.

Now that we have the stock alarm clock the ability to have multiple missions happening at the same time is much greater, but I still think the average KSP player doesn't do that.

Because the average KSP player isn't even posting on these forums.

EDIT: About the max time warp we're going to get, they confirmed it was going to be "higher" but not what the fastest would be nor how many more levels of it there would be.

Edited July 7, 2022 by SciMan

[Pthigrivi]

17 hours ago, SciMan said:

Well you've gotta take into account that the average person who posts on the forums isn't the average KSP player. The average KSP player probably hasn't even landed on the Mun.

Oh 100%, and even given that I was surprised it was so high. Still KSP2 is setting its sights quite a bit higher and if most players never landed on the Mun it would be because something major and wrong had happened in game design. They need most players to at least visit a few planets and start setting up stations and colonies, and a strong percentage who make it all the way to other star systems. I think the game should be playable in principle for folks doing one mission at a time but I'd be very surprised if most players don't have several probes and landers and prospecting satellites and a base or two all concurrently running. 

But that doesn't even really matter for this discussion, because they can't design a game like this that only functions if you've got one active flight. Some players (like me) will probably have dozens of vessels and bases to track in one way or another and if the game utterly bogs down when someone time warps there's an engineering issue that needs to be solved. Even if they had to scale interstellar distances down by 1/1000 to reduce wait times on long journeys it would still be worth it to make the game playable. Even at that scale the nearest star would be 500 times farther than Jool.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[pss88]

10 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

They need most players to at least visit a few planets and start setting up stations and colonies, and a strong percentage who make it all the way to other star systems.

I hope they will make Steam Achievements for that. And we will see actual percentages.

[pandaman]

4 hours ago, pss88 said:

I hope they will make Steam Achievements for that. And we will see actual percentages.

Which ONLY gives data for Steam players playing online (of which, incidentally, I will NOT be one).  So any extrapolation from that could be misleading.

[mcwaffles2003]

47 minutes ago, pandaman said:

Which ONLY gives data for Steam players playing online (of which, incidentally, I will NOT be one).  So any extrapolation from that could be misleading.

Why, are steam players fundamentally/significantly different from the general KSP playing populace or something? O_o

[pandaman]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why, are steam players fundamentally/significantly different from the general KSP playing populace or something? O_o

As players, they are probably not.

But many of us didn't buy from steam.  And many that did have said they save to, and play from, a separate folder and don't usually play from Steam itself to avoid 'auto update' breaking things.  Which means that any data from Steam is likely to be incomplete even for Steam players, and therefore not really representative.  Ok for a vague estimate I guess though.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, pandaman said:

As players, they are probably not.

But many of us didn't buy from steam.  And many that did have said they save to, and play from, a separate folder and don't usually play from Steam itself to avoid 'auto update' breaking things.  Which means that any data from Steam is likely to be incomplete even for Steam players, and therefore not really representative.  Ok for a vague estimate I guess though.

I mean I'm among the  "hey save to, and play from, a separate folder and don't usually play from Steam" but it would at least give a fair representation of unmodded play. 

[pandaman]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

I mean I'm among the  "hey save to, and play from, a separate folder and don't usually play from Steam" but it would at least give a fair representation of unmodded play. 

You may be right, but that is assuming that players don't play unmodded versions from a separate folder.   I know I probably would if I bought and downloaded from Steam.

But then I deeply resent having to go online to play a solo game that I bought and paid for.