KSP2 Artemis Recreation

[t_v]

8 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

does this mean that we will be seeing persistent smoke and condensation trails in the atmosphere

Most likely it would fade out, like the smoke trails in KSP 1. Keeping track of a trail like that is hard enough that it wouldn't be worth the performance hit, and then moving it around with fluid simulations is very difficult

[mcwaffles2003]

On 9/3/2022 at 8:42 PM, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

You’re assuming there is no sun. Unless the sun is being blocked by something (like a planet), you’re eyes or camera would adjust to where you wouldn’t be able to see the stars. They’re too dim. You may go to the article that @JoeSchmuckatelli provided, but it states that Al Worden saw the stars on the dark side of the moon, not the bright, which makes sense since the sun wouldn’t force his eyes to adjust.

Also, @whatsEJstandfor I noticed that after I posted. After writing nothing but emails for weeks you kinda forget how easy it is to sound like a buzzkill. Thanks for letting me know .

If you are in space, so long as the nearby star is not in your vision, the light from it does not matter as none of it is being reflected back to your eyes to ruin your night vision. The sky would appear brighter than if you were stranded on a remote island in the ocean at midnight. In my experience, just a bortle 2 zone, the sky is very vibrant. Same can be said about a body with no atmosphere so long as you are looking away from both the sun and the surface.

[PopinFRESH]

17 hours ago, magnemoe said:

...Now pre alpha sounds a bit weird to me, as I se it if you can do the core gameplay in the game world its alpha like I see it, however formally I think alpha is the version testers start to test on. 
 

Alpha would generally mean the software is "feature complete" and it is being tested to find bugs, working on optimizations, working on artwork, audio, etc.

Pre-Alpha is essentially everything before finalizing the features before formalized testing is started. This is essentially when iterative testing of individual features or feature sets is done, but its not formal "testing of the game as an actual game".

[MechBFP]

9 hours ago, PopinFRESH said:

Alpha would generally mean the software is "feature complete" and it is being tested to find bugs, working on optimizations, working on artwork, audio, etc.

Pre-Alpha is essentially everything before finalizing the features before formalized testing is started. This is essentially when iterative testing of individual features or feature sets is done, but its not formal "testing of the game as an actual game".

Depends on the methodology they are following but generally alphas are not “feature complete”. Maybe “planned feature complete” would be more accurate, as you almost always find some features you need to add to solve problems during this stage that didn’t come up during regular development. Once you get to the beta stage then you shouldn’t be seeing anymore feature creep, otherwise your alpha testing wasn’t sufficient. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:43 AM, MechBFP said:

Once you get to the beta stage then you shouldn’t be seeing anymore feature creep

Usually true... Except I remember WG completely changed the flight model for WoWP at the end of Beta/launch. Wasn't worth playing after. 

(not that the game was ever great - WASD flying game - but offered to illustrate that Alpha Beta and Gold standards of yesteryear are not always followed.) 

[PopinFRESH]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:43 AM, MechBFP said:

Depends on the methodology they are following but generally alphas are not “feature complete”. Maybe “planned feature complete” would be more accurate, as you almost always find some features you need to add to solve problems during this stage that didn’t come up during regular development. Once you get to the beta stage then you shouldn’t be seeing anymore feature creep, otherwise your alpha testing wasn’t sufficient. 

Fair point and more correct than I originally stated. I guess I should have rather said that generally the move to alpha "fixes the scope" and has most features prototyped. End of an alpha should be "feature complete", e.g. all of the features have been implemented and are functional but may have bugs.

[gussi111]

Shouldn't the engine plume "cone" in a vacuum be going straight and not curved?

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, gussi111 said:

Shouldn't the engine plume "cone" in a vacuum be going straight and not curved?

The plume expands because there's no surrounding pressure. The opposite of what you're positing is what happens, the plume is straighter in the presence of an atmosphere.

[Anth]

11 minutes ago, gussi111 said:

Shouldn't the engine plume "cone" in a vacuum be going straight and not curved?

Take a look at the last spacex launch on youtube.

Look at the engine plume after it launches compared to when its close to engine cut off.

When it is closer to main engine(s) cut off the plume has expanded.

Also I recommend looking up Saturn 5 footage. That shows it to a much more obvious degree than the falcon 9

(OMG what is the Starship booster going to look like with its many engines!?)

[gussi111]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The plume expands because there's no surrounding pressure. The opposite of what you're positing is what happens, the plume is straighter in the presence of an atmosphere.

 

12 minutes ago, Anth12 said:

Take a look at the last spacex launch on youtube.

Look at the engine plume after it launches compared to when its close to engine cut off.

When it is closer to main engine(s) cut off the plume has expanded.

Also I recommend looking up Saturn 5 footage. That shows it to a much more obvious degree than the falcon 9

(OMG what is the Starship booster going to look like with its many engines!?)

You guys are not understanding what I'm trying to say, I know that it shouldn't be going straight like in the atmosphere, I'm saying that the shape of the cone is curved outward instead of the side of the cone going in a straight line like a triangle.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, gussi111 said:

 

You guys are not understanding what I'm trying to say, I know that it shouldn't be going straight like in the atmosphere, I'm saying that the shape of the cone is curved outward instead of the side of the cone going in a straight line like a triangle.

Im guessing the expansion of the gas is non-linear after leaving the engine bell,... is that true to life? 

[Bej Kerman]

55 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im guessing the expansion of the gas is non-linear after leaving the engine bell,... is that true to life? 

Yes, pretty sure a KSP 2 post went over how they make the effects and another went over how they figured out how the plumes would expand and glow. It's being developed by professionals so I don't see much reason to worry if the engine effects will be especially accurate.

2 hours ago, gussi111 said:

I know that it shouldn't be going straight like in the atmosphere, I'm saying that the shape of the cone is curved outward instead of the side of the cone going in a straight line like a triangle.

Personally, that doesn't make much sense to me. The lower volume of the engine bell isn't cone-shaped which means the plume starts off as a cylinder instead of a cone, and the exhaust is a fluid and has momentum like the rocket it's propelling, so it takes time for the outward pressure to divert the fluids outwards into a cone.

I'm not knowledgeable on fluid mechanics and how engines work, so this is a best guess for me. But it is supported by what I see in KSP 2.

[Pthigrivi]

Oh yes, more explanation here:

[t_v]

The gas will accelerate outwards due to the small amount of pressure it has, which is why it isn’t a straight cone. 

[gussi111]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

The gas will accelerate outwards due to the small amount of pressure it has, which is why it isn’t a straight cone. 

I didn't say that it should be a straight cone like in the atmosphere, I'm wondering why the plume cone in a vacuum has an outward curve like what's physically making it curve outward, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  

Edited September 9, 2022 by gussi111

[Pthigrivi]

13 minutes ago, gussi111 said:

I didn't say that it should be a straight cone like in the atmosphere, I'm wondering why the plume cone in a vacuum has an outward curve like what's physically making it curve outward, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  

Im sure a physicist could explain this better, but essentially the gas particles are bouncing off each other as they leave the nozzle causing the gas and the diameter of the plume to expand. There's no atmosphere to contain it, so it accelerates out before continuing on straight once the pressure drops low enough. In reality this should look fuzzier and more volumetric, but they've simplified it for better performance. 

Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about, am I right about that?

Edited September 9, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[t_v]

38 minutes ago, gussi111 said:

I didn't say that it should be a straight cone like in the atmosphere, I'm wondering why the plume cone in a vacuum has an outward curve like what's physically making it curve outward, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  

I know, I was hoping to answer your question. Pthigrivi put it into more words, sorry if I wasn’t clear. 

[Bej Kerman]

The question has been asked and answered like 3 times now... 

[mcwaffles2003]

Anyone else notice the less noodliness of the rocket?

 

But is it just me or are the plumes really vibrant in space? I get if its a bit of fiction for game aesthetics, Im just comparing against how spacex vids and RP1 have shown me.

Edited September 12, 2022 by mcwaffles2003

[The Aziz]

They are going for scientifically realistic look (hence the pink exhaust of MH engine) but if you look at footage from Rocketlab stage separation or SpaceX's fairing sep (with camera from inside the fairing) you'd see the game is not far off from the real thing. Or at least I think so.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 9/3/2022 at 9:01 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

DebDeb could still be binary, correct?  Kerbol (the star) is, by cannon, a single star.

However - as I re-read your post, you're saying the chroma effect is why people are saying DebDeb is a close binary; in that case, yeah, I don't think the chroma is good evidence for that... but I'm still hoping that DebDeb is binary.  If for no other reason than it's cool.

I'm revisiting this: appreciate your thoughts.

When I first wrote this, I wasn't thinking about the fact that the KSP2 team has said they're planning n-body physics for Rask and Rusk... but stated they'd be unique ("bespoke solution developed specifically for Rask and Rusk").

(Timestamped)

While the idea of DebDeb being a binary did not come up in this...

If DebDeb is a binary star system - can the patched conics system be sufficient for this? 

I'm assuming, yes.  Based on the fact that no-one would reasonably expect to land on one of the stars, n-body physics won't be needed for this system.  Is this assumption correct? 

(I.e. a perhaps-overlapping SOI system could probably do the job, just fine.  Any planets of the system would just orbit an arbitrarily (or rather specifically) placed barycenter of the two stars, and until you get below a critical distance to one of the stars, your ship would be in orbit/fall around the barycenter - until you hit the closest star's SOI.  Is this a reasonable understanding of the likely solution?)

 

[Bej Kerman]

34 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

overlapping SOI system could probably do the job, just fine

Players will figure out how to get near DebDeb without melting, and at that point patched conics would not do the job very well. Orbits do not act like they do under patched conics when near binary objects. I don't think patched conics could qualify even as a bare minimum approximation of three body.

[mcwaffles2003]

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

They are going for scientifically realistic look (hence the pink exhaust of MH engine) but if you look at footage from Rocketlab stage separation or SpaceX's fairing sep (with camera from inside the fairing) you'd see the game is not far off from the real thing. Or at least I think so.

Maybe this matters on a per fuel or per engine basis then as looking at footage of the merlin engine, the plume is very dim while I agree seeing the Rutherford engine on the electrons second stage resembles the video better. Though the fuel argument in this case doesn't work as both engines run with RP-1, maybe nozzle material or combustion completeness? Either way, I see what you are pointing out, thank you.

[Kirbin Kerman]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:17 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Maybe this matters on a per fuel or per engine basis then as looking at footage of the merlin engine, the plume is very dim while I agree seeing the Rutherford engine on the electrons second stage resembles the video better. Though the fuel argument in this case doesn't work as both engines run with RP-1, maybe nozzle material or combustion completeness? Either way, I see what you are pointing out, thank you.

The yellow color from plumes comes from leftover fuel continuing to react with the oxygen in the air. As you reach a higher altitude, the plume not only expands in diameter, it also becomes more washed out (and in the case of RP-1, gray and sooty) as there is less oxygen present. As far as I know, this visual effect is omitted from both KSP1 plume mods and from KSP2

Edited September 29, 2022 by Kirbin Kerman

[mcwaffles2003]

10 minutes ago, Kirbin Kerman said:

The yellow color from plumes comes from leftover fuel continuing to react with the oxygen in the air.

The video shows the rocket separation in space though