Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program 2 Release into Early Access Feb 24th

Intercept Games

By Intercept Games
in 2022

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lisias

Lisias

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Interstellar actually, using space volumetric division. By the way, I got a lot of flack from some users for saying that the sub-millimeter precision applies to everything using spacial coordinates, including rigid body array physics. They said it only applies to travel trajectory accuracy. I say it's both. What is your opinion?

I don't have the slightest idea about how they would do it, but I know how I would do it - by Frames of References.

Everything needs to be in a Frame of Reference - KSP1 has only one, Kerbol, and that's it.

Now consider multiple Frames of Reference - one for each stellar body. The Body Physics would be applied to the Frame of References, and anything inside a FR would be moved together it's owner  -  that would dictate the movements of anything attached to his FR.

So the FR for the Planets would be attached to the Sun in their Systems. The Moons would be attached to their Planets' FR. Vessels don't have a FR (don't thing it would worth it), they will be always "a client" a FR, as comets and asteroids. This would make things simpler to cope in the macro (where KSP1 borks).

But at a cost: vessels, comets and asteroids should be able to jump from a FR to another in a sensible way, and this may make N-Body Simulation somewhat complicated.

The only place where precision will be at stake is when jumping from a Star's FR to another - but this may not be a problem.

Edited by Lisias
Better phrasing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerbart

Kerbart

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I don't have the slightest idea about how they would do it, but I know how I would do it - by Frames of References.

Everything needs to be in a Frame of Reference - KSP1 has only one, Kerbol, and that's it.

Are you sure about that? I thought that's how the original Kraken was defeated - by introducing multiple FR's, retaining precision in calculations that would invariably be lost (introducing deep space Krakens) the further a ship travels. I might be wrong here. Or we're talking about two different things., but to my knowledge everything ins KSP1 is already jumping back and forth between various FR's all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lisias

Lisias

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Are you sure about that? I thought that's how the original Kraken was defeated - by introducing multiple FR's, retaining precision in calculations that would invariably be lost (introducing deep space Krakens) the further a ship travels. I might be wrong here. Or we're talking about two different things., but to my knowledge everything ins KSP1 is already jumping back and forth between various FR's all the time.

Well, I'm pretty sure about KSP 1 having only one thingy that I called Frame Of Reference. It's the reason why, when going interstellar, the orbits start to get weird, with the curves looking like a CorelDraw curve drawn in Bezier being converted to WMF using DDE and then scaled up in Word - if anyone here is old enough to know what I'm taking about.

Another example of how things can go south is by (ab)using Distant Object. The farther you see a vessel, the more likely you will get texturing fighting and flicking polygons (this effect is way worse on KSP 1.3.1, by the way - on Unity 2017 things get sensible better). This strange effect is due roundings on float, and they also happens on orbits as you get far enough from the Origin of the System, Kerbol.

Perhaps I should had said "Each Frame of Reference should have its own Origin?" so? 

— — POST EDIT — — 

I'm not finding my older posts on a discussion about the subject, I don't remember exactly what I said, so I can't find the right keywords to find it. So I will talk from what I remember from that discussion:

On KSP1, there's only one "origin", the player. Every time you switch to a vessel (and Kerbals are one part vessels on the game), the whole Universe is transposed with the current vessel position (or the camera? I forgot!) being the new Origin. 

All the stellar bodies and other vessels trajectories are calculated from this new "origin".  So, things far enough start to suffer from float roundings, getting screwed in the process - and this is the reason why if you switch to an "origin" far enough from Kerbol, the orbits of the planets start to be "squaryfied".

With multiple "origins", and with each celestial object being computed relative to it's own Frame Of Reference's origin, the calculations will be always precise - even if on the Map their got screwed by the round floats later. The roundings would happen only when drawing them, not when computing their trajectories - preserving the physics.

Edited by Lisias
POST EDIT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

It’d give me time to order another gaming laptop if mine won’t cut the mustard?

And that is Intercepts concern why exactly?

They have to find a balance between not selling the game to underperforming hardware that they said was the minimum because of then having to deal with support issues, refunds, etc, and people not buying the game because they set the minimum specs too high.

Since that will impacts tens of thousands of potential sales, it is just a wee bit of a higher priority to them than you wanting a few extra days to buy a new PC. 

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stoup

Stoup

Posted
Posted

Couldn't disagree more, honestly. You have people right here literally stating that they'd buy new hardware just for this game. If someone's system doesn't meet the minimum specs, don't you think they'd want to have the opportunity to correct that, rather than just being left in the dark? It's just as like to drive MORE sales, as people who otherwise couldn't play the game on release would now have the ability to, reliably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Stoup said:

Couldn't disagree more, honestly. You have people right here literally stating that they'd buy new hardware just for this game. If someone's system doesn't meet the minimum specs, don't you think they'd want to have the opportunity to correct that, rather than just being left in the dark? It's just as like to drive MORE sales, as people who otherwise couldn't play the game on release would now have the ability to, reliably.

The wants of the few don’t outweigh the needs of the many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stoup

Stoup

Posted
Posted
Just now, MechBFP said:

The wants of the few don’t outweigh the needs of the many. 

Aren't the 'many' that we're referring to, people who are going to buy the game? Anyone who's going to buy the game will need to know minimum specs. If people know them in advance it'd drive more sales on release, which is part of the point of having an early access release altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Stoup said:

Aren't the 'many' that we're referring to, people who are going to buy the game? Anyone who's going to buy the game will need to know minimum specs. If people know them in advance it'd drive more sales on release, which is part of the point of having an early access release altogether.

Did you literally not read my post regarding support/refund issues? If the specs aren’t ready, they aren’t ready. 

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wheehaw Kerman

Wheehaw Kerman

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

And that is Intercepts concern why exactly?

They have to find a balance between not selling the game to underperforming hardware that they said was the minimum because of then having to deal with support issues, refunds, etc, and people not buying the game because they set the minimum specs too high.

Since that will impacts tens of thousands of potential sales, it is just a wee bit of a higher priority to them than you wanting a few extra days to buy a new PC. 

Full and early disclosure will only save them that sort of hassle and reputational damage, though, and those of us whose hardware can’t run the game and aren’t going to buy new hardware are by definition not part of KSP2’s potential market.  Giving them the bad news now or later won’t make any difference to their purchasing decisions .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted
Just now, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Full and early disclosure will only save them that sort of hassle and reputational damage, though, and those of us whose hardware can’t run the game and aren’t going to buy new hardware are by definition not part of KSP2’s potential market.  Giving them the bad news now or later won’t make any difference to their purchasing decisions .

It’s not about good or bad news. It’s about ACCURATE news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerbart

Kerbart

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Stoup said:

Couldn't disagree more, honestly. You have people right here literally stating that they'd buy new hardware just for this game. If someone's system doesn't meet the minimum specs, don't you think they'd want to have the opportunity to correct that, rather than just being left in the dark? It's just as like to drive MORE sales, as people who otherwise couldn't play the game on release would now have the ability to, reliably.

That might come down on who calls what "release." The "requirements" are really recommendations, it's not like they're drawing a hard line in the sand where the game won't run (well, there probably is something like "1 MB graphics card, 4 MB of memory, etc" but that's likely the same hardware that KSP1 can run on)

By the time the "official" (1.0) launch is there they will have a much better idea what the average player considers "runs smooth" and what hardware is recommended to get that. Right now they might just list what the absolute minimum is but if you're fanatical enough to buy new hardware for the game than you don't want that—so what's the point of publishing those specs early?

You're going to need more than that, buing what is the minimum hardware requirements will lead to disappointed customers. So they'll need recommended requirements as well. Which will not be for a $10,000 rig (anything runs smooth on that), but rather "what is the least you need to run the game smoothly" or people won't buy the game "because I can't afford the hardware." (it works both ways).

Well, what is smoothly? Under what circumstances? That's probably another answer EA will bring — by the time the 1.0 launch comes around,  Intercept—and us—will have a much better idea on what is needed for that.

I for one am not going to spend money on hardware without having the faintest idea what the actual game will look like, and what realistic minimum hardware requirements (from both a performance and a cost perspective) are. Certainly not going to spend money purely based on some lofty specs on the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rmaine

rmaine

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

It’d give me time to order another gaming laptop if mine won’t cut the mustard?

I notice several people seem to be taking the above comment seriously. Apparently someone's humor detector has failed; I grant the possibility that it is mine. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jacob Kerman

Jacob Kerman

Posted
Posted (edited)

[snip]

If you are worried about specs, wait three hours after launch, and then I can guarantee that there will be reviews.

[snip]

 

(Also, it's being released on the newest consoles, and it's already stated it should run smoothly on them. Anybody have an idea on what you can do to see bare minimum specs?;))

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...