KSP2 Does not follow the coriolis effect.

[ryleymcc]

An object above earth with no initial horizontal surface velocity (eg. A ball being dropped from a really high tower) should tend to move in the direction of earths rotation as the object falls. This is the coriolis effect. In KSP2, if an objet is dropped from some hight, the map trajectory will show that it should move according to the coriolis effect. However in the game, the object will fall directly to the ground. This seems like a pretty major oversight for a space simulation game.

 

[dmsilev]

(a) Not sure what this has to do with mods

(b) The Coriolis force is a fairly subtle effect and to see it with a rigid body falling straight down, you have to be awfully close to "straight down" with effectively zero starting velocity (otherwise you get swamped by your residual horizontal velocity). How are you testing? What exactly did you see? 

[Superfluous J]

I would like to see your simulation to determine what you're saying.

If you shoot a rocket into space, and then thrust it such that it has exactly 0 surface velocity (both horizontal and vertical) and then cut the engines, it will not (and should not) land on whatever land is directly beneath it. I don't know any other way to appreciably test this.

Note: I did not test this, but have done enough similar stuff to know it's true, barring very good evidence to the contrary.

[m4ti140]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:48 AM, ryleymcc said:

An object above earth with no initial horizontal surface velocity (eg. A ball being dropped from a really high tower) should tend to move in the direction of earths rotation as the object falls. This is the coriolis effect. In KSP2, if an objet is dropped from some hight, the map trajectory will show that it should move according to the coriolis effect. However in the game, the object will fall directly to the ground. This seems like a pretty major oversight for a space simulation game.

 

Where are you doing this? You do realize Coriolis force is not present at the equator? If you travel further north or south and leave your aircraft flying horizontally you will see that it will, in fact, fly along a curved trajectory and will not reach the pole if you set off heading directly North/South without corrections.

[Kerbart]

Launch for orbit in the 0° direction to get a 90° inclined orbit and let me know how that works out. BUT LAUNCH EXACTLY NORTH. Not 10-15° off of it to counter the Coriolis effect.

[Infinite Aerospace]

I mean it doesn't have proper physics either...that was the reason Principia was made for KSP1.

[Vanamonde]

Looks like this is a discussion of the game's physics? Moved to the Science sub. 

[magnemoe]

On 4/4/2024 at 3:09 AM, Kerbart said:

Launch for orbit in the 0° direction to get a 90° inclined orbit and let me know how that works out. BUT LAUNCH EXACTLY NORTH. Not 10-15° off of it to counter the Coriolis effect.

This, it's probably easier to see on an rapid rotating airless body.  Now one weird effect in KSP is that if you shoot an rocket straight up say 10 km it will come down west of launch point. 
This is probably simply that Up in orbital view counter the rotation. 

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Now one weird effect in KSP is that if you shoot an rocket straight up say 10 km it will come down west of launch point.

There is nothing weird about that.

The rocket starts with a Vhorizontal = to the horizontal speed on the surface of Kerbin. As it goes up (neglecting air friction), it keep that same Vh. But to stay above the same point it started at, it would actually need a bigger Vh, because the radius above the center of the planet is bigger the higher the rocket goes. So it drifts east, but not as fast as the surface is going east. Thus, relative to the surface, it falls behind by drifting west.