RocketRockington Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, cocoscacao said: I'm not sure if it can be solved analytically. Also, I doub't dV has anything to do with it. dV is constant (mostly). Only TWR changes, which effects how fast trajectory is changed between "engine ticks". It can absolutely be solved analytically. Have you never heard of Tsialovsky's rocket equation? That's one of the things it's for. But instead of using the change in mass from a full rocket stage to an empty rocket stage, when you're computing total dV, your using the mass of the rocket at time t0 vs the mass of the rocket at time t0+1 tick, based on the mass flow rate of your engines and their ISP, to derive dV (change in velocity) for one tick's worth of acceleration. And change in velocity is precisely what you want to know. Edited May 10, 2023 by RocketRockington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocoscacao Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 14 minutes ago, RocketRockington said: Have you never heard of Tsialovsky's rocket equation? Oh that's just great.... Now I'll spend even more time staring at computer screen, satisfying curiosity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyneira Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 11 minutes ago, RocketRockington said: It can absolutely be solved analytically. Have you never heard of Tsialovsky's rocket equation? That's one of the things it's for. But instead of using the change in mass from a full rocket stage to an empty rocket stage, when you're computing total dV, your using the mass of the rocket at time t0 vs the mass of the rocket at time t0+1 tick, based on the mass flow rate of your engines and their ISP, to derive dV (change in velocity) for one tick's worth of acceleration. And change in velocity is precisely what you want to know. I think what @cocoscacaomeant by "solved analytically" is a solution whose accuracy doesn't vary with the timestep size chosen. I'm not mathematically versed enough to know whether Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation would be sensitive to this, but it's not the only factor. The orbit you're on also factors into this and both need to be analytically solvable for the whole to be accurate at a high timestep : burnlength ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocoscacao Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 (edited) @Lyneira I haven't heard of it, but what you say is correct. I'll have to check it out first. Edited May 10, 2023 by cocoscacao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow71 Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 All you young whippersnappers and your math! Look at you ruining the game for all us old folk! Why, I oughta.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Lyneira said: I think what @cocoscacaomeant by "solved analytically" is a solution whose accuracy doesn't vary with the timestep size chosen. I'm not mathematically versed enough to know whether Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation would be sensitive to this, but it's not the only factor. The orbit you're on also factors into this and both need to be analytically solvable for the whole to be accurate at a high timestep : burnlength ratio. That's what I mean by 'solved analytically' as well. And why I was telling cocoscacao how to use the rocket equation to avoid issues with the time step. As for change in position while accelerating ( both due to gravity and due to the rockets acceleration) that is also solvable for a simple gravity field. It has to be solved numerically for n-body situations, but KSP2 doesn't do n-body, and I doubt it ever will - even when they do Rask and Rusk. Not just because you now have to build a totally different motion sim, but also because now you have to teach people new UI for examining their trajectory. Edited May 10, 2023 by RocketRockington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmi Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 14 hours ago, RocketRockington said: I love how you're comparing a game developed for 8 months (at that point) by 1.5 developers with no game dev experience, from scratch You seem to have serious problems with your memory (or you distort the history on purpose to fit your narrative) . It took over 3 years from the first public KSP1 version to 0.90 (a.k.a. Beta) - sepcifically from June 24th, 2011 to December 15th, 2014. And there were more than 1.5 developers (though likely significantly less than what IG has). I've purchased the game on November 17th, 2012, when it was on version 0.17.1, and 0.18 followed shortly after that which added docking, I also had interactions with pretty much all devs and Squad's QA leads as I was a somewhat active participant of experimentals at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, asmi said: You seem to have serious problems with your memory (or you distort the history on purpose to fit your narrative) . It took over 3 years from the first public KSP1 version to 0.90 (a.k.a. Beta) - sepcifically from June 24th, 2011 to December 15th, 2014. And there were more than 1.5 developers (though likely significantly less than what IG has). I've purchased the game on November 17th, 2012, when it was on version 0.17.1, and 0.18 followed shortly after that which added docking, I also had interactions with pretty much all devs and Squad's QA leads as I was a somewhat active participant of experimentals at the time. I looked up the time for version 0.9 not 0.90, no need to be so blatantly rude about a very simple mistake. Nonetheless, still less time and far less development investment than KSP2 has had. Also KSP 0.90 was far far more feature complete than KSP2 is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said: All you young whippersnappers and your math! Look at you ruining the game for all us old folk! Why, I oughta.... ‘Maths’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, Superfluous J said: I find it funny that people who think they've been lied to by the entire dev team for the past 4 years still want communication from the dev team, as if you'd believe anything at all they said. Cognitive dissonance is a staple of said people. [snip] Edited May 10, 2023 by Vanamonde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 This false division between lovers and haters of KSP2 is far more annoying than KSP2 bugs. The bottom line is that the team *asked* for feedback, and they are getting it. People wouldn't be here if they didn't hold out hope for KSP2 and even the most supportive can clearly see the shortcomings. There is no real division to make a big deal out of here. Tribal poo flinging is boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhawk Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 Thread locked for maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 Since this thread has been mostly just people attacking each other personally for days, it will remain closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts