It's all relative

[Nazalassa]

v/a(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) = t

Let's say we want to reach 299,000,000 m/s. Then:

v / (a sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) = t  ->  299,000,000 / (9.809 sqrt(1 - 299,000,000^2 / 299,792,458^2)) = t

t = 299,000,000 / (9.809 sqrt(1 - 0.99472027661))

t = 299,000,000 / (9.809 sqrt(0.00527972339))

t = 299,000,000 / (9.809 x 0.07266170511)

t = 299,000,000 / 0.71273866542

t = 419508600.426 seconds or 13,3025304414003 years

uuuh...

If we only want to go half light speed, it's 1,1163734299848 year.

[FranFranz]

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

We can speed the Universe up already with a feature literally every KSP player has used, how would it be difficult to do the same thing here?

Well, having large time dilations would imply that the rest of the universe (planets, ships, etc.) will speed accordingly, which I would guess could impact performance.

 

11 hours ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

This is where I'm disagreeing. I don't doubt there are efficient algorithms for numerically computing the integrals, but I contend that, if you're going to have SR in the simulation, it needs to be universal. That is, it doesn't just affect your ship, but every other body in the game (artificial, celestial, whatever). So, when focused on a specific ship, it'll need to perform those calculations in real time for hundreds of bodies. Especially for the ones that are orbiting, since their velocity vector is always changing relative to any objects that don't share that orbit. So that's one issue that makes me think it would be left out: the calculations necessary for computing the Lorentz transformation for every other body relative to whatever object you're focused on is too expensive, with too little reward.

You would not have to calculate a proper integral for every object relative to all others. It would be sufficient to calculate it relative to Kerbol (or any other fixed point in space).

And for planets things would be easier because their orbit is elliptical, fixed and predictable, unlike player's ships. You can calculate the effect once for one orbit and then save it to memory, rather than calcualate it in real time. Same thing applies to calculating the time dilation effect due to the gravitational field. It simply depends on mass and distance from the planet, and you can consider it within the sphere of influence and neglect it outside.

[Nazalassa]

Now the question is, will KSP2 be relativistic, or not?

In other words: will there be relativistic effects like time distorsion etc. at speeds near lightspeed or not, will a ship be destroyed (leaving its energybehind) if it goes above lightspeed?

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, FranFranz said:

20 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

We can speed the Universe up already with a feature literally every KSP player has used, how would it be difficult to do the same thing here?

Well, having large time dilations would imply that the rest of the universe (planets, ships, etc.) will speed accordingly, which I would guess could impact performance.

Again, we already have timewarp. It speeds up the entire universe. Its performance impact is negligible. As with many similar arguments, I'm seeing problems being made up.

 

5 hours ago, Nazalassa said:

Now the question is, will KSP2 be relativistic, or not?

In other words: will there be relativistic effects like time distorsion etc. at speeds near lightspeed or not, will a ship be destroyed (leaving its energybehind) if it goes above lightspeed?

How would you reach lightspeed under relativity?

[Nazalassa]

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

How would you reach lightspeed under relativity?

Let me reformulate my question: will KSP2 have relativistic physics or newtonian physics?

That was just a failed attempt to "materialize" newtonian physics.

[Bej Kerman]

10 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:

34 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

How would you reach lightspeed under relativity?

Let me reformulate my question: will KSP2 have relativistic physics or newtonian physics?

We don't know. We can only hope Intercept does not take the easy way out and does do relativistic physics for the sake of education and interesting gameplay.

11 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:

That was just a failed attempt to "materialize" newtonian physics.

Microsoft Flight Simulator (1994) had Newtonian physics, although that didn't stop it from doing some basic simulation of deterioration of acceleration near lightspeed (albeit not very accurate). Not relativistic, but at least respecting it a bit.