What DON'T we want in KSP?

[chaos_forge]

Remember that interstellar travel is just an longer, unforgiving and more tedious interplanetary travel.

I disagree with this description. Specifically the unforgiving and tedious parts. However, I'm tired of arguing, so whatever. I'll be signing off at least for the moment, have a nice day y'all.

[AngelLestat]

May I have the last words before we go back to topic

Who put you guys in charge of the Fun-definition division?

touche! But I think the same when over and over I read someone saying that FTL needs to be in the game instead STL system becouse the fun come first.

So that was my answer to those.

The proponents of FTL seem to be functioning under the basic assumption that STL is somehow less fun than FTL. I for one think this is false. After all, most (if not all) of us would rather go to the effort of actually getting to Duna using orbital mechanics than just teleporting there. Why wouldn't the same argument apply to stars? STL, if it's well-done (such as a binary/more system), I think would be more fun than any proposed FTL system. Why would we want to add hypothetical science when the science we already have is so cool?

Yeah that is my stand.

This is probably the best argument against STL. However, I would argue that in sandbox it doesn't matter (you make all the rules anyways), and in career it's simply a matter of making it heavy/expensive enough to only be worth it for interstellar missions.

I answer this some post above yours. Beamed Sail is the exception.

It is a space game after all, so it would be stupid to not add more systems.

Agree.

--------------------------------------------------------

Last thoghts.

Why people that is pro FTL is so hard against on rail systems or physsics aproximations models? It seems a contradictions.

And if a binary system there is live.. Then you can said that is stable. There is no point to use real physsics to see if in billions of years will collapse..

[Serratus]

Last thoghts.

Why people that is pro FTL is so hard against on rail systems or physsics aproximations models? It seems a contradictions.

And if a binary system there is live.. Then you can said that is stable. There is no point to use real physsics to see if in billions of years will collapse..

Because we want realism where it counts, and fun when realism is boring.

And I don't understand what you want to say about binary system. I think You're under the impression that their collapse is a long process, and that planet orbits deteriorate very slowly (like a centimetre every 100 years). That is not the case. I such systems a single planet can go its entire "life" without ever moving on the same path twice. There is no approximation in binary star systems. Unless You approximate to a couple of billion kilometres. Even so-called "stable" orbits are just shortly prolonging the destruction. Binary systems can change in a time scale of 10 years - way to fast for game cycle. Again - we would need planets with changing, non-elliptic orbits, and an n-body physics. And Devs made it clear that each of those features isn't happening, period.

One last thing:

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha *evil laught* THE LAST WORD IS MINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

[John FX]

AFAIK it was never on the list (or maybe it was on the old one), and my link to Harv post explaining it no longer works (it's a link to old forum which idk how to access). Basically he clearly stated that he already has a working and tested mechanic of how and why warp drive works but also made it clear that the actual 'part' employing that mechanic won't be included in the game until there's somewhere to go. He then proceeded to explain in length how he made it, what problems did he encounter (kraken!) and how he managed to work around them.

Basically warp drive in KSP will be nothing more than game creating a "bubble" of space around the ship. The ship will be completely stationary in reference to the bubble, which will be the one being moved around the universe. It was done that way because in pre-kraken-dead times, accelerating to ftl speed would crash the ship. But this way the ship actually remains stationary - it's the bubble that's moving, and since from game engine perspective it's a solid object with no collision mesh and durability, kraken couldn't destroy it.

That's the short version as I remember it. Just keep in mind I might forgotten something.

PS. You may notice that this "bubble" technology sounds somewhat similar to how time warp works, doesn't it?

PPS. From this day on, I challenge everyone to refer to FTL in KSP as "Bubble technology".

So there is nothing official then, just your memory of an old thread which is now missing?

I would have thought with you being so sure and angry, you could have provide some link or official backup for your posts...

It`s hardly what I would call `definite, going to happen, official, get over it. period.` stuff.

More sort of `was mentioned in the past a long time ago on an old thread that nobody can find now and nothing has happened since` sort of stuff.

Of course if you can find some sort of link then that all changes.

[Kegereneku]

Last thoghts.

Why people that is pro FTL is so hard against on rail systems or physsics aproximations models? It seems a contradictions.

And if a binary system there is live.. Then you can said that is stable. There is no point to use real physsics to see if in billions of years will collapse..

I haven't seen anybody here against "on-rail systems or physsics approximation", even less "hard against".

There's no contradiction in wanting to eventually break monotony with FTL. Especially when devs and modder said that KSP would barely support further range because of limitation in the game engines.

Really "we" should be asking why some people are against FTL so hardly ? It's easy to just "dislike" the idea of FTL, but pretending it would make them sick ? Ruin KSP forever ? Please !

- It is fear that if there's other star system it would be chosen and be ridiculously easy ?

- Fear that they couldn't pretend anymore to play a "difficult realistic space simulator" ?

- Fear that it would unbalance the game to the point of making even maneuver-node useless ?

- Fear that it would somehow engage KSP on a downhill road to Cheesy-SF ?

Myself I DON'T even WANT FTL you know. But it sound like a funnier alternative.

What the hell would be so fun in an STL interstellar transfer ?

- Building in orbit framerate-killing rocket with a mass/fuel ratio of 1/100 and a peak acceleration of 0.5m/s ?

- Timewarping for hours ?

- Accelerating to 0.2C for days in physical warp ? timewarp for hours then decelerate for as long hoping you didn't overshoot ?

- Discover that you forgot to bring something and must start all over ?

- Have the game automatize most of it or allow you to build a new space center there ?

overpowering some engine and lessening distance won't do miracle.

You want Solar-sail or Beam-sail ? (like AngelLestat) See this or all he said page before.

[Serratus]

So there is nothing official then, just your memory of an old thread which is now missing?

I would have thought with you being so sure and angry, you could have provide some link or official backup for your posts...

It`s hardly what I would call `definite, going to happen, official, get over it. period.` stuff.

More sort of `was mentioned in the past a long time ago on an old thread that nobody can find now and nothing has happened since` sort of stuff.

Of course if you can find some sort of link then that all changes.

I'm not angry, just bored of this 2 years long discussion. If anything, my post was a rant. And You are right - I can no longer provide the link to that post, all that's left is my memory. But why does that make a difference? We're not arguing science here, where references to source materials would be really important. Neither do we take part in murder case in courtroom. I'm just passing on information that I've read long ago, that is hard to find now. Are You implying that I'm a liar? Firstly - what could I possibly gain from it? It's not like anything changes whether I told You or not. And secondly - let's try not to devolve this discussion into personal battle, shall we?

EDIT:

It would appear that this liar thing affected me much more than I initially wanted to admit. So in the interest of proving I'm not crazy or dishonest I decided to mine the web for any proof. Now IDK how to access the old forum archive so all I came up with is just other ppl (including Harv) talking about FTL as well as simply stating that they've read that same article I was talking about. It's not much but it's the best I can do until someone manages to get an official statement from the Dev team.

Here goes:

http://themittani.com/media/kerbal-space-program-qa-devs - in the "FULL Q&A" section

http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1213947&p=38647425&viewfull=1#post38647425

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/5495-Getting-Started - Tiberion writes about it

http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/11s7z5/all_important_information_from_damien_raynes/ - near the bottom of the list

Edited December 14, 2013 by Serratus

[AngelLestat]

Because we want realism where it counts, and fun when realism is boring.

And I don't understand what you want to say about binary system.

One last thing:

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha *evil laught* THE LAST WORD IS MINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

Heh, I guess we both was wrong about the last words.

What I meant to said about binary systems, is that the possibilities are many.

You cant said that a binary system is unstable, the only thing that you can say is that a particular binary system can be unstable.

You can have a dwarf star in a binary link with kerbol, its planets orbits can be a lot closer to the dwarf. So kerbol will no affect them.

I haven't seen anybody here against "on-rail systems or physsics approximation", even less "hard against".

Well it seems that you dint read all post in this topic. Some post back someone pro FTL said that is not possible add a binary system becouse we need n-body systems. Someone explain him how it may be possible (in the same way that we have now) and he complaints about reality

There's no contradiction in wanting to eventually break monotony with FTL. Especially when devs and modder said that KSP would barely support further range because of limitation in the game engines.

The only limitation is the will or knowledge to solve things.

Really "we" should be asking why some people are against FTL so hardly ? It's easy to just "dislike" the idea of FTL, but pretending it would make them sick ? Ruin KSP forever ? Please !

1- It is fear that if there's other star system it would be chosen and be ridiculously easy ?

2- Fear that they couldn't pretend anymore to play a "difficult realistic space simulator" ?

3- Fear that it would unbalance the game to the point of making even maneuver-node useless ?

4- Fear that it would somehow engage KSP on a downhill road to Cheesy-SF ?

1-2) it has nothing to do with difficulty.

3) Just see a FTL system in conjuction with normal rockets it will be crazy, but more crazy it will be the mechanic and theory excuse to balance a FTL system with normal chemical rockets.

4) I dont know what is that.

But you forgot the main reason.

5) If I want to play a space game with FTL, I can choose between all space games done so far. But if I want to play a game with real physsics and a possible STL design. Then I CANT.

Myself I DON'T even WANT FTL you know. But it sound like a funnier alternative.

What the hell would be so fun in an STL interstellar transfer ?

You want Solar-sail or Beam-sail ? (like AngelLestat) See this or all he said page before.

Many of your question are already answered in the same topic that you post. And before your post. If you choose ignore or misunderstudd them (maybe my fault), then lets see if with my next topic will help you to clarify that.

I can no longer provide the link to that post, all that's left is my memory.

Harvester in a begining had an idea to incorporate something like a FTL system.. But was just a comment and a thought when the game was in its infance.

Nobody makes a perfect proyect from the begining.

You start with a idea for a game, then brainstorming comes, you start to try things, of course not all the ideas that you had are good ones. When you analize them in deeply you may change of mind.

So stop talking about commets that was made or not. There is no commandments written in stone here that everybody needs to follow. Is a game in progress. The future will decide

Edited December 14, 2013 by AngelLestat

[Serratus]

What I meant to said about binary systems, is that the possibilities are many.

You cant said that a binary system is unstable, the only thing that you can say is that a particular binary system can be unstable.

I think we are not talking about the same definition of unstable... The system can be stable obviously, stars orbiting each other successfully for a long time. I'm talking about orbits of planets and other bodies in such system. And If second star is far enough that it doesn't affect first star planetary system - then it's also waaaay to far to be in orbit with one another. Hence - not a binary system any more

Well it seems that you dint read all post in this topic. Some post back someone pro FTL said that is not possible add a binary system because we need n-body systems. Someone explain him how it may be possible (in the same way that we have now) and he complaints about reality

I posted that - and I'm sticking to it. So far no one has came up with any solution to this problem, and certainly haven't "shown me" that it would be possible. [Edit] I should clarify - no solution that didn't ignore gravity and Unity engine limitations. [/edit]

The only limitation is the will or knowledge to solve things.

Or like, reality.

3) Just see a FTL system in conjuction with normal rockets it will be crazy, but more crazy it will be the mechanic and theory excuse to balance a FTL system with normal chemical rockets.

A couple of posts back I explain how it's supposed to work. Best thing about it? It completely doesn't affect balancing of parts It's a completely useless piece of junk when inside star SoI. Problem solved.

But you forgot the main reason.

5) If I want to play a space game with FTL, I can choose between all space games done so far. But if I want to play a game with real physsics and a possible STL design. Then I CANT.

Name one. Also - having FTL doesn't stop You from using STL. Just like having jet engines, didn't stop ppl from building rocket planes.

Harvester in a begining had an idea to incorporate something like a FTL system.. But was just a comment and a thought when the game was in its infance.

Nobody makes a perfect proyect from the begining.

This is from February 2013

http://themittani.com/media/kerbal-space-program-qa-devs

Edited December 14, 2013 by Serratus

[chaos_forge]

And If second star is far enough that it doesn't affect first star planetary system - then it's also waaaay to far to be in orbit with one another. Hence - not a binary system any more

Aha. I seem to have located your mistaken assumption. Stars are really big, and really heavy. Thus, their spheres of influence are really big. An example I've already used is Proxima Centauri. The separation between Proxima Centauri and Alpha Centauri AB (itself a binary star) is 0.2 ly, and their orbital period is on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years, but they are still in orbit. In my (admittedly under-informed) opinion, two stars that are 300 AU apart (10x the distance between Neptune and the sun) could plausibly have planets with stable orbits around them (at least in the scale of millions of years). In Kerbal distances, that would be approximately 30 AU, a distance that Voyager traveled in about 10 years using only chemical rockets. As soon as we admit STL drives with large amounts of Dv (*cough* Orion Drive *cough*), the prospect of traveling to another star goes from "daunting" to "feasible".

EDIT: From the wikipedia article on binary stars: "Binary stars may be found with any conceivable separation, from pairs orbiting so closely that they are practically in contact with each other, to pairs so distantly separated that their connection is indicated only by their common proper motion through space." Also, "It is estimated that 50–60% of binary stars are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges". Not bad odds at all, eh?

(also btw I'm back, I couldn't resist)

Edited December 14, 2013 by chaos_forge

[Serratus]

I was going to explain my points here. I was about half-way done, when I came across perfect example. Since a picture is - as they say - "worth a thousand words", here is an animation of a binary star system with planets and two moons. Before You watch it I want to remind You that a) celestial bodies in KSP have pre-set orbits that must be elliptical and unchanging; devs have explicitly stated that there will never be n-body gravity system implemented.

Also an article with another simulation involved:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/binary-star-systems-make-for-unstable-planets/

Now in the first video it quite quickly becomes apparent why binary stars prevent creation of stable orbits (NOT THAT THERE AREN'T ANY!!!) The second video shows how much those orbits would change in time. Also - in the first video, you can imagine that one of those moons is the ship. THAT is why binary stars would require n-body physics. It would also require overhaul of patched conics system we currently enjoy. Both not supported by Unity engine.

That's about it on my "mistaken assumptions".

Now to STL vs. FTL.

As soon as we admit STL drives with large amounts of Dv (*cough* Orion Drive *cough*), the prospect of traveling to another star goes from "daunting" to "feasible".

Orion drive was a project that produced no results so no one hast to admit anything. But let's say that we ignore physics such as fallout, radiation, deadly acceleration, heat ect. and implement this type of drive into the game. In what way are such means of travelling more realistic than warp drive? Because from where I'm standing it's pretty clear that warp drive is just as impossible as Orion drive, in current day and age. The difference is that Orion has been attempted and failed - proven to be useless, and warp drive hasn't been attempted yet. Does the failure of Orion concept somehow gives it credibility over untested warp hypothesis? By that logic we should all start building bird-like wings out of wood and paper like ppl in renaissance. After all they failed in spectacular ways too. Well, I don't think so. With FTL warp drive there's at least possibility and SOME support in current physics. With Orion there's engineering, medical and economical proof of complete and utter failure. Perhaps If someone quickly built and tested a warp drive (and then fail to get any results) ppl wouldn't be so against it in the game? Because I'm starting to think that's the problem. If FTL was something attempted in the past, it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. That's because everyone assumes that if it's in the future - it's sci-fy (a very dirty word apparently), but if it's in the past - it's alternative history OR conspiracy theory (which makes it all better cause it's totally not sci-fy right?).

Next on the list!

EDIT: From the wikipedia article on binary stars: "Binary stars may be found with any conceivable separation, from pairs orbiting so closely that they are practically in contact with each other, to pairs so distantly separated that their connection is indicated only by their common proper motion through space." Also, "It is estimated that 50–60% of binary stars are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges". Not bad odds at all, eh?

Not bad at all! Why wasn't this headline news?! Such a discovery! A momentous occasion of epic proportions to witness history being made! Oh.. wait...

It is estimated that

Ah.. so they didn't actually found any dissapoint...

50-60% of [binary stars] supporting habitable terrestrial planets

Whoa! Wait just a sec. So far we haven't found a single such "habitable" planet - in binary systems or otherwise! What is this? Election day? The person with bigger promises doesn't automatically win ppl!

within stable orbital ranges

Direct Your attention to video 1. Stable orbital range is so far away from barycentre, that Pluto seems to be on top of our sun in comparison.

Ok. Now I'm really tiered, it's around 1 AM here. I'm going to sleep now. Until next time (like tomorrow or something)! Adieu.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Serratus

[Aghanim]

Now to STL vs. FTL.

Orion drive was a project that produced no results so no one hast to admit anything. But let's say that we ignore physics such as fallout, radiation, deadly acceleration, heat ect. and implement this type of drive into the game. In what way are such means of travelling more realistic than warp drive? Because from where I'm standing it's pretty clear that warp drive is just as impossible as Orion drive, in current day and age. The difference is that Orion has been attempted and failed - proven to be useless, and warp drive hasn't been attempted yet. Does the failure of Orion concept somehow gives it credibility over untested warp hypothesis? By that logic we should all start building bird-like wings out of wood and paper like ppl in renaissance. After all they failed in spectacular ways too. Well, I don't think so. With FTL warp drive there's at least possibility and SOME support in current physics. With Orion there's engineering, medical and economical proof of complete and utter failure. Perhaps If someone quickly built and tested a warp drive (and then fail to get any results) ppl wouldn't be so against it in the game? Because I'm starting to think that's the problem. If FTL was something attempted in the past, it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. That's because everyone assumes that if it's in the future - it's sci-fy (a very dirty word apparently), but if it's in the past - it's alternative history OR conspiracy theory (which makes it all better cause it's totally not sci-fy right?).

Wait WHAT? Our great great.... wait wrong word

No one have ever tested Orion with real nukes, the

works.

If you started the drive in space you could ignore fallout

If you sprayed oil into the pusher plate it doesn't ablate

If there is insane acceleration add more dampener and mass

The core is that before we try Orion with real nukes, we still doesn't have enough evidence to prove that it is impossible

And for FTL: Interstellar warp drive is correctly balanced

[Skyler4856]

Orion drive was a project that produced no results so no one has to admit anything.

Scale versions of the Orion drive have been built

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

Read ALL of it!

Now i would prefer something like project longshot or VASIMIR but you're wrong when you say it produced no results. BY your logic VASIMIR hasn't produced results either...

[Seret]

Orion was the product of Cold War nuclear-fever, along with nuclear propulsion for aircraft, cars and trains. Nobody is going to build a spacecraft powered by nuclear bombs.

[zekes]

Procedural anything (parts)

On the contrary, I would love to make your own parts, that way KSP is taken to a whole new complexity/ art level.

What I DO NOT WANT is some form of politics panel, that would be stupid, like if you crash too many times the space center shuts down. There should be no losing in KSP.

[Sackboy338]

That's what sandbox mode is for.

[Seret]

There should be no losing in KSP.

+1

I don't envy the devs the job of trying to make Career Mode work with goals and rewards without losing the sandbox feel of the game. That's not easy.

[Bobnova]

There's still sandbox mode.

I would like a challenge like that. No revert (or maybe one revert), and penalties for failure? Yes please!

I already often play where I can't use revert, it makes it a lot more interesting. Suddenly it actually matters if you mess up.

[Kegereneku]

In Kerbal distances, that would be approximately 30 AU, a distance that Voyager traveled in about 10 years using only chemical rockets. As soon as we admit STL drives with large amounts of Dv (*cough* Orion Drive *cough*), the prospect of traveling to another star goes from "daunting" to "feasible".

Also, "It is estimated that 50–60% of binary stars are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges". Not bad odds at all, eh?

You are reaching...

- there's case were the two stars are so close that planets orbit both star at once.

- and case were the two stars are so far apart that planets can only orbit one of them closely.

At best we are talking of micro system, nothing that can accommodate our Solar system. I have yet to hear of a possible binary star system where both stars can retain large planetary system.

*Image

The case of Alpha Centauri is interesting, but so far we only detected one planet over-heated at 1500°K around star (.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/binary-star-systems-habitable-planets-alien-life_n_2853469.html

... But when the stars are farther apart, the planet's orbit is more likely to be unstable as it feels the tug of gravity stronger from first one star and then the other. When stars are spread out over a distance, orbiting planets would experience significant changes in temperature. With a large enough gap, planets would travel around only one star, with the possibility of occasionally entering the danger zone of the other.

"There are many regions around binary star systems where having a stable orbit simply isn't possible,..."

About the Orion Drive : it was only meant for short interplanetary travel.

What you want is an overpowered fusion-drive. I'm not in the mood to do the math right now but for a 0.2 ly transfer I'm pretty sure we are still talking of a mass ratio of 1/20 and more than 50 years of travel.

Now that I think about it : If we timewarp 100 years, maybe the Kerbun scientific will invent a genuine FTL drive.

Well it seems that you dint read all post in this topic. Some post back someone pro FTL said that is not possible add a binary system becouse we need n-body systems. Someone explain him how it may be possible (in the same way that we have now) and he complaints about reality

Well, apparently Serratus don't mind the way you said it, so nevermind.

But you forgot the main reason.

5) If I want to play a space game with FTL, I can choose between all space games done so far. But if I want to play a game with real physsics and a possible STL design. Then I CANT.

Then it would be (1) to (3) :

- You fear that it will "replace" STL as an interstellar-drive if another star system is ever introduced.

- You fear to not be able of pretend to play a "game with real physsics". But no, you aren't playing a simulator meant for "real physics" but a game mimicking it please accept it and move on.

- but worse, you act like it would somehow even make interplanetary-STL travel disappear.

That last one being what many of pro-FTL are feed up with. The inability of anti-FTL to even consider compromise.

Many of your question are already answered in the same topic that you post. And before your post. If you choose ignore or misunderstudd them (maybe my fault), then lets see if with my next topic will help you to clarify that.

No, actually you barely ever answered anything as you kept evading critic. It was so nonconstructive I shouldn't even talk to or about you again.

[Skyler4856]

No... but fusion powered spaceflight on the other hand

[OtherDalfite]

Multiplayer.

[tetryds]

Multiplayer.

Why not?

If you don't want multiplayer just play singleplayer.

[Torham234]

Why not?

If you don't want multiplayer just play singleplayer.

Because the proper implementation is going to take at least half a year, half a year that could be spend finishing up the career mode...

[zarniw00p]

Because the proper implementation is going to take at least half a year, half a year that could be spend finishing up the career mode...

or resources, or re-entry heat, or better aerodynamics, or more planets/solar systems, or...

[Serratus]

If there is insane acceleration add more dampener and mass

I can see a standard KSP dilemma here. "Not enough fuel -> add more fuel -> not enough thrust now -> add more engines -> not enough fuel again -> add more fuel...". Except this time it would be "too big acceleration -> add more mass -> now thrust is just like in standard rocket -> add another engine! -> acceleration is in 'stupid ranges' again! -> and so on"

Now i would prefer something like project longshot[...]

See, now we're talking. Of course this is just a short distance interstellar drive. Still I would like to see it in-game. VASIMIR - simply doesn't seem like a plausible alternative, purely because of all the logistics, and cost of fuel; that said, I don't want to start a discussion about plasma drives now because I don't know anything about them yet, aside from that wiki article.

Still - even addition of Longshot and VASIMIR to the game doesn't mean "no-FTL". Keep in mind that Longshot was supposed to reach Alpha Centauri in 100 y. At a scale factor of 0.1 that KSP universe is in, it would still take 10 in-game years. So conventional drives would be useful for going to the closest star (if You can afford to run KSP for two-three days straight), but anything further and You need FTL speeds. Or at least close-to-C speeds - then we get to Alpha Centauri equivalent in 0.437 years.

EDIT:

The problem the way I see it is that there's nothing stopping You from using those engines to transfer Kerbin-Jool much faster than with standard rockets. That affects balancing. The FTL drive the way HarvesteR talked about it, wouldn't affect balancing at all.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Serratus

[SkyHook]

Multiplayer. Oh wait...