Jump to content

Realism Overhaul

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

ferram4

ferram4

Posted
Posted

I think sending Minmus to Duna won't really make sense, particularly since this is a different solar system. It's not too difficult to justify bringing all the planets up to realistic sizes, but I do think it might be difficult to justify making Kerbin into "Earth-but-doesn't-look-like-Earth" and Duna into "Mars-but-doesn't-look-like-Mars."

I'd just cut the knot with the angular velocity / rotational period problem and set both at the same time; it certainly avoids the worst-case-scenario of strange things happening because the two aren't consistent and there are no sanity checks between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

1. Yeah. It's just there's something weird in having an iceball 1,350,877km or so away from Earthbin. And I was totally planning on changing the orbital parameters (SMA, ecc, inclination, etc) to be real-life, since that's the easiest way to pull appropriate orbits vs. sizes, rather than a fixed scale-factor, and I figured might as well replicate arrangement of bodies too, where possible.

(Good thing Canaveral is at the latitude it is, considering the moon's inclination...)

Is there some fixed scaling factor you'd suggest, for planets and/or orbits?

2. Yup, that's what I was planning. Just wondering at the interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
I think sending Minmus to Duna won't really make sense, particularly since this is a different solar system. It's not too difficult to justify bringing all the planets up to realistic sizes, but I do think it might be difficult to justify making Kerbin into "Earth-but-doesn't-look-like-Earth" and Duna into "Mars-but-doesn't-look-like-Mars."

I'd just cut the knot with the angular velocity / rotational period problem and set both at the same time; it certainly avoids the worst-case-scenario of strange things happening because the two aren't consistent and there are no sanity checks between them.

I agree, please leave Minmus orbiting Kerbin. If I ever get my real game back off the ground (so to speak) I want to be able to pick up my minmus mining operations again so I can finally do my grand Duna mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbeS

AbeS

Posted
Posted

I was thinking, wouldn't we need more time warp in a bigger Kerbol System? Is it possible to do that?

And, does changing the parameters of planets mess with the minimum altitude warp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
I was thinking, wouldn't we need more time warp in a bigger Kerbol System? Is it possible to do that?

And, does changing the parameters of planets mess with the minimum altitude warp?

Do we need faster time warp? Probably not? When you get into Kerbol's SOI it gets pretty damned fast. But maybe you're right dunno for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
asmi

asmi

Posted
Posted (edited)
1. Yeah. It's just there's something weird in having an iceball 1,350,877km or so away from Earthbin. And I was totally planning on changing the orbital parameters (SMA, ecc, inclination, etc) to be real-life, since that's the easiest way to pull appropriate orbits vs. sizes, rather than a fixed scale-factor, and I figured might as well replicate arrangement of bodies too, where possible.

(Good thing Canaveral is at the latitude it is, considering the moon's inclination...)

Remember that Earth rotational axis is tilted, and so Moon's inclination in regards to equatorial plane is not constant. I wonder if it's possible to tilt Kerbin's axis...

But I'd suggest to solve problems one by one, and not jumping on everything at once as it's the most sure way to not get them all solved. My few short tests have shown that orbital mechanics works just fine with whatever parameters we set in CelestialBody. It's graphics which could prove to be a problem.

If we'll succeed in rescaling terrain (and something tells me that we will :) ), it will look rather blurry and coarse as textures are covering specific spherical patches which are defined using lat/lng angular coordinates, and so their physical size is defined by the radius of the body. Theoretically quadtree could be extended beyond current max subdivision level of 10 (BTW Orbiter uses the same approach, and it uses levels up to 14, while my D3D11Client engine for Orbiter allowed for up to lvl 18, which gives <10meters precision for the bodies of Earth-like size - although there were FP precision issues to be solved to achieve that), but that would possibly require generating additional higher-res textures if we want it to look nice, AND implementing rather aggressive paging mechanism for textures as they simply would not fit within the confines of 32bit process address space. Well - I've solved this problem once already (for D3D11Client graphics engine for Orbiter), so I'm sure we'll find a way to solve it within Unity :)

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The task of the day is to get terrain to render at all according to the new size. Once that is done, we'll see what to do next.

Edited by asmi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbeS

AbeS

Posted
Posted
Wow, this looks very promising. Its good to see that there are people interested in realism. I just wish that squad would notice us more. :(

I think the problem would be that people like it the way it currently is, and wouldn't like it to get much harder. Maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhoark

rhoark

Posted
Posted

The distance at which terrain pops to low detail can go arbitrarily high.

It's part of the charm of KSP to have a second moon, though it could be fun for it to be in a much more inclined and elliptical orbit consistent with a captured body.

What is KIDS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

It seems that this Kerbin is scaled 1:1 with Earth. It might be preferable to use 64% scale, because that's roughly how Kerbals and every realistic mod out there is scaled. I wouldn't want to upscale the N1 to 1:1, because it wouldn't fit in the VAB very well. Currently, VAB is about 65m tall, which is just enough for the largest RL superboosters. That said, if it was possible to enlarge the VAB somewhat, and to automatically up the rescale factor for all parts, I'd be all for going 1:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
betaking

betaking

Posted
Posted

The thing with stretchy tanks is that they're very boring.

You will need several different types of stretchy tanks, differentiated mostly by structural characteristics, and only really "effective" for a limited range as they also will have drawbacks (a tank that's structually self supporting while empty will have a greater dry mass than a balloon tank, while the balloon tanks will be weaker/less structurally sound). Or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
asmi

asmi

Posted
Posted

Check PQCity. This component is responsible for setting things up on terrain. I'm on my way home, will pitch in in about 1 hour. Make sure your stuff is checked in so I won't have to do things you've already done :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DresCroffgrin

DresCroffgrin

Posted
Posted

As a user of pretty much every mod that the contributors to this thread make, I am loving the sight of this! I am an aerospace engineering student, so having a more realistic space game is awesome in my book :). If I see anything I think I can help with, I'll try to pitch in :). Keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Success! Holy smokes, success.

asmi: Code checked in. Note that you need to not be running remotetech, because it calculates distance to missions control before the planet is rescaled. That had me stumped before I remembered I was running RT.

Also, clicking on buildings in spaceport is hard as all get-out, but possible. Zoom out so they appear, then rotate to top view.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

All that to get 220kg into orbit. And that's WITH realistic TWRs and tank masses.

(NOTE: Go to gear and view album on imgur, then view full resolution. They're 2560x1600 so if you want to see all the info displays, you probably need to do that.)

The last two pics in the album show spaceport view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoriW

CoriW

Posted
Posted

Whoa, um, I'm subscribing to this thread... Keep up the good work everybody!

I've always wanted KSP to be more realistic, but just settled for the way it is and the way I thought it would always be... But after seeing this, whoa.

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