What DON'T we want in KSP?

[AngelLestat]

I dint want to keep with this discussion, but damm... so many things to answer :S

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

Of course, me too, but you still dint not answer me the example that I give you!

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.

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.

I can name 200.

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

From the simulator category (of course KSP is in there), no one has STL. But like the 20% had FTL.

From all the other categories, the +90% had FTL, no one that I know had STL.

Is enought evidence??

This is from February 2013

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

Yes, you are right.. that is from FEBRUARY 2013!

I was going to explain my points here. I was about half-way done, when I came across perfect example.

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.

The logic that you use is all wrong.

Of course you can find examples of ustable particular binary systems. But one doest not discard the other like I told you in my previous post.

There are still a lot of possibilities where binary systems can be stable.

Your first example is nonsense in this case. we are talking about a distance to be interesting from the point of view of low speed ships.

In your example is about planets orbiting 2 (no so close) stars.

If those stars would be a lot more closely (lets said 0,1 AU or less) all those planets would not had any problem. Also if their distance is +200AU, then you dont have problems either. This distance can be less depending if they are dwarf stars or not. Also depends on their planetary axis inclination between each other.

One example.. Why jupiter can have a stable moon system, the same saturn, without being affeted by the sun or other planets?

And all this can be modeled with a low error in the same way that ksp is doing it. Using spheres of influence.

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.

With FTL warp drive there's at least possibility and SOME support in current physics.

First, orion drive is just one of many (and the most old) design for STL. Never was attempted.

So your logic said, if I cant lift 1 ton, then I will try to lift a mountain? (This is in the case where FTL is possible).

And almost all physsics rules point that is not.

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...

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

Lol, that is close to the logic of a religiuos preach.

We can simul things. That is the beauty of mathemathics. So most part of binary stars systems are stable. And sush a few cases are unstable.

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

Like all planets that we found.. Why is that? ah yes..

We can only find planets that are very close to the star or if they are big enought.

Also if there are many planets in the system, is a lot more difficult find a planet using the boucing effect.

But I am agree that Alpha A and B had a distance where is really hard that a planetary system like ours can exist.

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

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

2 - 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.

3- 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.

1- I said that? No.. I dint said that. So why you put words that I dint say? FTL remove all the logic and credibility from the game. That is the main reason. A STL drive is just 50 or 100 years ahead us. FTL (in case that is possible) is 1000 or 10000 years ahead.

2- Of course that mimics real physsics. What simulator it doesn´t?

3- If they want to add after STL a FTL drive for the fans. I dont care so much. I just would not use it. But a FTL drive is a lot easier to modder than a STL. In the STL, relativity effects needs to being had into account. The black box needs to be less black.

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.

This week if I find the time.

But my last suggestion was about procedural parts snapping between standard sizes to increase possible parts, shapes and increase by a lot the game performance in FPS and loading time.

I guess I can not had a better suggestion than that. And still, I dint see any answer or concern from the dev team.

So why to bother.

Edited December 15, 2013 by AngelLestat

[Serratus]

Yezzz... You really went to town on this one, didn't You?

I'll try to keep this short and answer in few points.

1. I'm not saying we shouldn't have STL. Just that we also should have FTL.

2. In contrast to Your claims of being able to name 200 games, I've counted 21 space simulators with realistic physics. Not one has FTL.

3. You don't seem to understand that the case about stability of binary stars is not black-or-white. All binary stars have "safe-zones". The problem is that (depending on the specific type of binary star) that safe-zone is either so close that the planet is almost melting, or so far that You can't even see the star it orbits from planet surface/low orbit (have You seen probes pictures of our sun from beyond Saturn?) or both. And 'NO' - "stable" orbital ranges are not really stable. They are just stable enough that no significant change will happen in one life-time. Key-word: significant! But those orbits are still changing.

4. Jupiter and Saturn moons are affected by our Suns gravity, which You would know if You looked at simulations based on observations of those moons orbits. Gravity doesn't just end at some point. It keeps on going into infinity.

5. February is very recent. Shock-horror, I know.

6. I have no idea what was that about lifting 1 ton/1 mountain. Rephrase, pleas.

7. This is not religious point of view. Yes we have simulations, and yes we use them to make predictions. But if a scientist would find out that You treat predictions as if they were facts, he would correct You. In this case facts would be statistics. And statistics show us that all binary stars, force unstable orbits on surrounding planets, but some of possible orbital ranges might be more stable than others.

8. Your answer to Kogereneku - We only found that one planet because this is the only orbital range in triple star system that would allow for a planet to exist for extended period of time. Extended - but not significant in cosmological terms. There are of course other safe orbital ranges around each of those stars, but very far out.

9. Of course we'll have STL drives before FTL. Warp drives were never considered in any other way, then as end-of-the-line technology to be added in late development after KSP universe grew too big to be traversed in practical time-scale without FTL travel.

Last thing, I must write about it, because You did get this right - the idea that we could have a binary system if the second star was very small and orbited Kerbol in a distant orbit. KSP could treat it as just another planet with its own SoI. It would have to be REALLY far out, and Jool would probably have to go, as would Moho or Eve (not sure where barycentre would end up), but it's possible. Then again, I was under the impression we wanted binary stars because it would be an awesome challenge to try to navigate in such unpredictable environment. If You want a second star around Kerbin just to look at it and orbit it a few times, then be my guest.

[Themohawkninja]

No warp drives, anything that lies in either pseudo-science, or things like the Alcubierre drive that are mathematically and physically sound, but need matter that hasn't been discovered yet to work (which is probably also part of pseudo-science).

Other than that, I am pretty much fine with whatever they want to put in the game.

[Kegereneku]

I said that? No.. I dint said that. So why you put words that I dint say?

Pay attention, you said :

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.

Since KSP use STL travel by default, fearing that adding (as in 1 + 1 = 2) a very limited FTL mechanism will negate the rest, can be interpreted as fearing it will unbalance the game (as in make it less fun than before).

Next. KSP isn't a realistic space simulator. Simulator aiming for realism don't voluntarily twist the physical property of something they could have made right for fun, just as they don't make up a fictional race of small crazy engineer for gaming purpose. Orbiter is a simulator that aim for realism. KSP is a video game, and as a video game it doesn't matter if it allow FTL in its made-up universe.

So at the end arguing against FTL on the basis of "realism" mean arguing against KSP as a whole for being a game.

Then you finally recognized that you care about FTL being chosen instead of STL by the devs. If you learned humility instead of trying to outsmart me we could have just skipped to that useful information. (btw : I disagree with your expectation over the rear-work necessary for both).

Now : for practical purpose I'm not going to address your Beam-sail idea, just conventional STL. In the mind of most STL interstellar travel would be a continuation of everything they've done until know except with bigger engine, the ability to zoom-out to another star, and hope the math/timewarp make it actually fun.

So we can postulate that the STL-travel option could be open by default if the devs ever add a new star system.

Meaning, that supposing SQUAD ever [complete the game then] make a new star system. SQUAD developing an interesting FTL gameplay could not bother you in any way. You would just be learning how ridiculously hard it is to reach another star system even with SQUAD shortening distance, making travel time irrelevant, warping reality for convenience, while people who do wanted FTL would have still have fun.

This would be win win.

The real question is whether or not anti-FTL can accept the idea of FTL being just as fun.

AngelLestat you stated your hope of playing a game without any form of FTL even if it obeyed our theoretical model of physics (which is quite young, not perfect and not absolute).

Myself I'm thinking to all those who wanted a game with Newtonian physic AND a FTL drive. Who are we to claim their idea is less fun that yours ?

This week if I find the time.

Don't rush yourself.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Kegereneku

[tetryds]

I'm not on the fear that FTL can unbalance the game.

But as mentioned above, if i want a FTL game i can just pick one out of 200.

KSP prizes for the physics, if not for the balancing factor, FTL must be avoided for the physics sake.

Everyone who plays and likes the game knows it, and that kind of travel would break the entire point of the game.

Even more as that technology has not even been proven possible, unlike the feasible Orion drive.

Just add a new timewarp multiplier to the game and you good to go for an interestellar travel.

[Kegereneku]

tetryds I don't think KSP adding a small FTL thingy to make possible-at-all to go to other star system will affect the game negatively.

Common people don't even know how KSP simplify the real physic already, and you now what isn't feasible either ? Humanity sending even a working probes on a one way trip to Alpha Centauri in the next 100 years, plus how long it will take to travel.

[Serratus]

But as mentioned above, if i want a FTL game i can just pick one out of 200.

As mentioned above - You can't. There aren't any.

KSP prizes for the physics, if not for the balancing factor, FTL must be avoided for the physics sake.

For the inaccurate, simplified Newtonian physics? Why?

Everyone who plays and likes the game knows it, and that kind of travel would break the entire point of the game.

I play the game and like it and I know that FTL travel would have no negative impact on the game. In fact it would open a realistic possibility of reaching another system. And while we're at it - what's the point of this game? I was under the impression the answer is "having fun". Am I getting this hopelessly wrong?

Even more as that technology has not even been proven possible, unlike the feasible Orion drive.

Are You trolling? Because I don't think there's anyone who seriously thinks Orion drive is possible IRL.

Just add a new timewarp multiplier to the game and you good to go for an interestellar travel.

You would need additional 3 time warp levels, and Unity has its own limitations you know.

[tetryds]

Relativistic physics being added to the game doesn't inflict that FTL drives would be possible, but the exact opposite.

[TimMartland]

FTL drives are a sci-fi concept. No one knows if we can and lots of very smart people say we can't KSP is, at its heart, a modernish rocket-science game with parts that are based in what we can feasibly achieve with what we humans possess. Although the game developers have had to sacrifice 100% flawless physics in order to make the game fun and playable without a degree in something, you can't just say 'it dosent completely match up to real life, so screw it lets break the known boundaries of physics!'. If more solar systems are added the devs probably should look into near-future or conceptual technology, but FTL is, for the moment, consigned to science fiction by space program's (If not theoretical physicists) and I strongly believe KSP should not turn itself into a sci-fi game with pseudo-scientific propulsion. I know the supporters of FTL will probably say that KSP contains many such physical improbabilities and is quite far from actual physics, but its like that for GAMEPLAY and is rooted in actual known technology.

There, essay over

[TimMartland]

Multiplayer.

Sorry, but multiplayer is not only confirmed, its coming within 6 months according to devs!

My personal opinion on it -YESSSS! MULTIPLAYER!! Finally!!!!

[Dartonal]

haha sabre engines are being added in .23 lol

[Dartonal]

I don't want to see inter stellar within solar system. Past eloo it would be fine

[LtHeckard]

I honestly don't want to see Reentry effects be implemented into the game.

[AngelLestat]

Yezzz... You really went to town on this one, didn't You?

2. In contrast to Your claims of being able to name 200 games, I've counted 21 space simulators with realistic physics. Not one has FTL.

Of course, for that reason is called realistic physics

But there is 1 o 2 that are from 90th. But yes, they dont count.. But all other categories still count.

3. You don't seem to understand that the case about stability of binary stars is not black-or-white. All binary stars have "safe-zones". The problem is that (depending on the specific type of binary star) that safe-zone is either so close that the planet is almost melting, or so far that You can't even see the star it orbits from planet surface/low orbit (have You seen probes pictures of our sun from beyond Saturn?) or both. And 'NO' - "stable" orbital ranges are not really stable. They are just stable enough that no significant change will happen in one life-time. Key-word: significant! But those orbits are still changing.

4. Jupiter and Saturn moons are affected by our Suns gravity, which You would know if You looked at simulations based on observations of those moons orbits. Gravity doesn't just end at some point. It keeps on going into infinity.

Yeah!! I guess I found the source of your concern.. You are misunderstudding something about gravity.

Gravity does not end, but after some distance it becomes insignificant. Is due to reverse square rule.

Lets make some examples.

Gravity from Earth at Earth surface: 9,8m/s2 = 1g

G from Sun at Sun surface: 27g

G from Sun at 1AU (earth orbit): 0,0006g

G from Sun at 10AU (saturn orbit): 0,000006g

G from Sun at 40AU (pluto orbit): 0,0000000125g

Of course, we at earth we can not measure that 0,0006g force from the sun, becouse we are in orbit around.

For those 2 reason, jupiter or saturn moons are in stable orbits. Becouse the moons are at the same orbit speed than saturn around the sun, and second becouse the pull from saturn at moons distance is a lot higher than the sun influence.

therefore, spheres of influence method gives results very close to the reality.

5. February is very recent. Shock-horror, I know.

The 18.4 standard demo version of the game was launch at February 2013, We can take that date like the coming out of the game in massive way. So this place this date like the origins of KSP. So no recent.

6. I have no idea what was that about lifting 1 ton/1 mountain. Rephrase, pleas.

You will understand it eventually.

8. We only found that one planet because this is the only orbital range in triple star system that would allow for a planet to exist for extended period of time.

Proxima centaury is very far from Alpha A and B, and is a dwarf, so their influence is NONE.

Alpha A is at 35au in distance from Alpha B.

So if you had a planet at earth distance (1au) orbiting one of them, then you will find that is a stable orbit. Due to the 2 reason that I explain above.

And the fact that we dint discover any planet at larger distance than 0,02 Au or not such small like earth, is becouse WE CANT!

Is our technology limit, not the Alpha system limit.

9. Of course we'll have STL drives before FTL. Warp drives were never considered in any other way, then as end-of-the-line technology to be added in late development after KSP universe grew too big to be traversed in practical time-scale without FTL travel.

I dont know if it can be the case.. but well..

Then again, I was under the impression we wanted binary stars because it would be an awesome challenge to try to navigate in such unpredictable environment. If You want a second star around Kerbin just to look at it and orbit it a few times, then be my guest.

I already answer this, but I want to add that is the same "unpredictable enviroment" that if you take kerbin with the mun. Or Kerbol and Jool.

Like you saw, Sphere of influence is enoght close to reality so we dont need to complait about it.

Pay attention, you said :

Since KSP use STL travel by default, fearing that adding (as in 1 + 1 = 2) a very limited FTL mechanism will negate the rest, can be interpreted as fearing it will unbalance the game (as in make it less fun than before).

When we compare STL to FTL, to the sake of discussion, we are talking about interestellar travel at 1%, 10% or 70% the speed of light. So is not by default in the game.

Next. KSP isn't a realistic space simulator. Simulator aiming for realism don't voluntarily twist the physical property of something they could have made right for fun, just as they don't make up a fictional race of small crazy engineer for gaming purpose. Orbiter is a simulator that aim for realism

.

I already answer this 4 post back with a link, please no lets go back to this. Both are simulators, one is focused at rocket construction, the other at piloting and instrumentation. KSP is in its infance so it lacks of a good aerodinamics system and other things. But is not on purpose.

Then you finally recognized that you care about FTL being chosen instead of STL by the devs. If you learned humility instead of trying to outsmart me we could have just skipped to that useful information. (btw : I disagree with your expectation over the rear-work necessary for both).

Sorry if I look like an ass.hole, but my low lv in english make me unable to show the politeness that I would like. Talking in spanish I would look like a totally different person. Really...

But if you had a f1 car race simulator, then at certain level you can make your car fly. It will not be kinda anoying if they remove you from the frame of reality where you was?

But well , I know your answer. Is not a simulator. Is a game.

Now : for practical purpose I'm not going to address your Beam-sail idea, just conventional STL. In the mind of most STL interstellar travel would be a continuation of everything they've done until know except with bigger engine, the ability to zoom-out to another star, and hope the math/timewarp make it actually fun.

So we can postulate that the STL-travel option could be open by default if the devs ever add a new star system.

Meaning, that supposing SQUAD ever [complete the game then] make a new star system. SQUAD developing an interesting FTL gameplay could not bother you in any way. You would just be learning how ridiculously hard it is to reach another star system even with SQUAD shortening distance, making travel time irrelevant, warping reality for convenience, while people who do wanted FTL would have still have fun.

This would be win win.

The real question is whether or not anti-FTL can accept the idea of FTL being just as fun.

AngelLestat you stated your hope of playing a game without any form of FTL even if it obeyed our theoretical model of physics (which is quite young, not perfect and not absolute).

Myself I'm thinking to all those who wanted a game with Newtonian physic AND a FTL drive. Who are we to claim their idea is less fun that yours ?

In case that they add another star system, I guess they will not had other choice than add both, just seeing how divide the opinions are.

After all, ones of the primary objetives its make mostly all happy and sell.

But it will depend on the reprisal actions from the anti-FTL terrorist group

[big_hairy_jimbo]

Sorry, this post is OPPOSITE to the thread title, but because it has been debated many times in this thread, I though I'd put my spin on it.

What I'm going to suggest is probably more in line with multiplayer, but is still a single player concept. (what does that mean???)

Well considering KSP is indeed a game of skill (no mods that is), a player may want to have a refuelling space station, but not the know how or patience to build one. Sure you could hack one in, but here is my idea. Perhaps on the KSP website, you have a section for the player to place a contract request for a given space mission. Other players could then bid to win the contract. The winner, would then be able to login to the original players KSP (exchange a one time key via Email or something) and be able to build and fly the mission. The contract requester would be able to watch in real time, as the whole mission unfolds. The vehicle placed in orbit, would of course have a logo on its side, revealing the player that built and launched the vehicle.

Wild idea I know, but it would allow for a more interesting contracting system in the game. Whether the contract is for REAL money, or game money, or simply the prestige of winning contracts and fulfilling the requirements by demonstrating your skill in KSP. Of course there would be a few players out there that dominate the contract business, but hey, that happens in real life too. Then of course you might have the kamikaze players too, so you would have to select contractors based on their credibility not just the lowest bid. Not sure how you could enforce the payment though, other than to lower someones credibility should they "grief", or if the contractee doesn't pay.

[Kegereneku]

Whatever AngelLestat,

If you are too self-centered to understand that KSP isn't made to satisfy your fantasy of a so-called "100% realist" game I can't discuss with you.

Everything show that KSP isn't built for "realism" but for entertainment (faking-realism). The game using closer approximation of physic than other game doesn't change that fact.

"Orbiter" is the best space simulator and yet : The devs created unrealistic Deltaglider, landing base on the Moon and Mars, as well as a menu to teleport you everywhere you want. Why ? Because the author is intelligent and know what mean "acceptable break from reality" as well as the distinction between reality and your wish.

This is why when we tell you "There no pseudo-realistic game with FTL" you were supposed to stop thinking only about yourself and understand that some people want KSP level of pseudo-realism and some FTL to either : spice things up, or make possible something that would otherwise be impossible : going to another star system without breaking the game balance.

But hey, I bet the ones arguing against-FTL never did the math to make STL possible ! You keep decreasing the odds with a Dwarf system less that 0.1 Kerbolian Ly away. In a few month you'll be suggesting to make the furthest gas giant a red-dwarf of 0.07 or 0.08 solar(kerbol) masses so you can actually go there and explore its moonplanet.

At which point we will be telling you (again) how many planets you have to eject of Kerbol orbit to let that star sit here.

I swear, the best way to make people accept the FTL break from reality is to show them what it really mean.

Last :

The Orion project is certainly possible. But it wouldn't be anywhere as efficient as those simplified paper tell you, and it was imagined for interplanetary travel not more.

What you want is a Nuclear Fusion Drive and if we make it no-FTL realist, the maximum speed it can bring you to regardless of the number of engine/fuel is 0.15 C, after you'll need antimatter.

[Wahgineer]

How to balance a warp drive, i.e.: a compromise

1: Warp drives can not work deep within a gravity well, if you try to use one there, it will either not work or explode. You will have to be most of the way out of the Kerbol system before the engine can run safely.

2: exotic matter fuel such as anti-matter is the only powerful enough reactant to generate the massive amounts of power to run the warp drive.

3: the warp drive can only go so far on a charge. Early missions will require that you bring antimatter storage tanks to recharge the warp drive. Later, you can bring a small (Albeit heavy) particle accelerator to slowly create small amounts of antimatter to recharge the ship.

4:Controls are locked while the ship is warping.

5: engine doesn't work in atmosphere

6: since the engine can't work deep in a gravity well, it can't be used for interplanetary travel.

7: the warp drive can only push so much mass at once. to push more mass, you'll have to either upgrade the warp drive or add another one.

NOW does the warp drive seem like a more viable and balanced option?

[John FX]

Any chance we could get back to the thread, which is What DON`T you want in KSP

You are not supposed to be arguing the case for what you DO want (I`m looking at YOU Pro FTL people)

That is threadjacking and you should start your own thread...

[victory143]

Deadly re-entry... Just no...

[peadar1987]

Deadly re-entry... Just no...

As an option, yes, but reentry heat is a huuuuuge part of spaceflight. People might as well complain that the lack of infinite fuel makes the game too hard!

[crazyewok]

Thats what sandbox mods for. Playing without restaint

[FlamedSteak]

As long as they're not nickel and dimeing us to death, then I'm good. I have no problems with legit DLC, but if they go all EA on us I'll be upset.

[-ELF-]

Micropayments or DLC's for real money.

NO. Big NO.

If any will arrive, I think I will not consider them as official part of the game, or just say its cheating and H4X...

I do really think I payed for this game. I have seen that it will then be updated for free until 1.0 version. I gave the money, held my word. So I expect developers to hold their word too.

[JiWint]

I wouldn't like to see any of the mods implented into the real game.

[vexx32]

;870827']Micropayments or DLC's for real money.

NO. Big NO.

If any will arrive' date=' I think I will not consider them as official part of the game, or just say its cheating and H4X...

I do really think I payed for this game. I have seen that it will then be updated for free until 1.0 version. I gave the money, held my word. So I expect developers to hold their word too.[/quote']

Eh, you've nothing to worry about there. The devs have stated previously that either there will be no DLC, or people that purchased the game prior to initial full release basically get any DLC as a free bonus.