We really need the ability to construct semi-static bases

[Entelin]

I think we all would like better physics processing, building bigger and bigger things for me is a real draw, but one that inevitably succums to grinding the fps to a halt.

Though I would certainly love multi core physics, for the most part, what we have is *enough* for most spacecraft. It is far, far from enough if you want to make bases anywhere. True for space stations as well.

I propose that once a construction is sufficiently at rest, you be given the ability to disable physics on it. On such an object, it would be impossible to apply forces or damage of any kind. Any object that became attached to said object would inherit this property. This would allow the construction of large, functional, space stations and bases without a major impact on fps. You could of course switch this off should you wish to apply some forces, fire the engines, change the orientation, etc.

In a perfect world, sure, everything would have physics all the time, and some of you may complain "but its unrealistic!", well, the kerbal space port has no physics as well and I see no complaints about that. Such an option opens up the ability to make a lot of things we simply cannot realistically make at present, or in the very least makes creating such things more enjoyable by virtue of them running at relatively normal speed.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Entelin

[Camacha]

I agree, we should have physics on the space port

I think those have been disabled for compelling reasons, which do not arise on other bases.

[Nuke]

i would do this, except i would not have buildings made out of parts, instead i would have dedicated building kits, that can be placed on the surface of a planet and then deployed. once the deploy animation runs its course the part would then be made static and would be part of the planet from that point on (it may be possible to demolish or dismantle so it can be reused but that is not a requirement). think of it as the way extraplanetary launchpads work, minus the slowness amd instability that comes from the completed base.

[Sirrobert]

I'm afraid that building kits would prevent alot of creative building though.

Atleast if I understand correct that it'd result in a prefab structure.

Maybe design the base as a base, and than have it turn into a building kit?

[Accelerando]

Indeed, like you land a base kit along with other parts, assembled as usual in VAB, and then a menu lets you convert the assembly to a base. Or the building kit itself could be a "wrapper" for a building you assemble from parts, packing up into compact form for launch, then unfolding or inflating to the shape you created once on-site.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think this is a bad idea for space stations, it would mean you could crash any size craft into it at any speed without damaging the station or changing its orbit. On a surface it's a bit better, still indestructible but we wouldn't worry about orbit changes.

Might be better to have static station parts welded together, that would reduce the part count and physics load while still allowing orbit changes and damage.

It will be interesting to see how much performance improves when Squad starts doing serious optimization, these workarounds may become unnecessary. Though I suppose people will just build bigger bases and stations until they reach the new performance limit.

[Ravenchant]

Any object that became attached to said object would inherit this property.

What if you want to dock rovers to it? Completely agree with the option to disable physics, but "updating" when attaching stuff should be done manually.

[6.forty]

Unity already lets objects "fall asleep" automatically, so either KSP is preventing it in some way or the framerate issues are being caused by something else besides physics.

[Entelin]

I think this is a bad idea for space stations, it would mean you could crash any size craft into it at any speed without damaging the station or changing its orbit.

Yeah, it would, but at least you could have a large functional space station that you could actually use and play with. You wouldn't be obligated to use it of course, it would be a switch that you could toggle. I would love to make an asteroid base for example, but after the first couple ships the whole thing would get laggy to the point that it just wouldn't be fun anymore, let alone visiting it with yet another ship.

[Entelin]

What if you want to dock rovers to it? Completely agree with the option to disable physics, but "updating" when attaching stuff should be done manually.

Currently when something is docked it becomes part of the structure. This wouldn't change, but since what you are docking with would be physics-less, the rover would need to become (at least while its part of the structure) physics-less as well. But you could still right click the port, undock, and then your rover/ship would be back to normal.

Theres no question that having something like this would loose some fidelity if used. However one would only use it when things got bad enough that it would just simply no longer be practical to use without it. I personally want to do some base building, it's just not doable with the way physics works right now.

[Entelin]

Unity already lets objects "fall asleep" automatically, so either KSP is preventing it in some way or the framerate issues are being caused by something else besides physics.

That would certainly be an improvement, however imagine you had a 4000 part asteroid base, the moment you applied forces to it (like docking), the whole game would basically just break as the whole thing wakes up. But yes, you are very much correct, the physics engine has features already to do all this stuff, it shouldn't be a mater of a huge amount of work. It does this already in fact when time warping.

[vger]

I think this is a bad idea for space stations, it would mean you could crash any size craft into it at any speed without damaging the station or changing its orbit. On a surface it's a bit better, still indestructible but we wouldn't worry about orbit changes.

Might be better to have static station parts welded together, that would reduce the part count and physics load while still allowing orbit changes and damage.

It will be interesting to see how much performance improves when Squad starts doing serious optimization, these workarounds may become unnecessary. Though I suppose people will just build bigger bases and stations until they reach the new performance limit.

In the case of stations, would it really be an issue to only have the physics kick in at the point of collision? A space station that isn't accelerating or experiencing drag, shouldn't really need any physics calculations anyhow. It's up there, it's stable. If another craft hits it, then do the calculations.

But yeah, things may get a lot better. If the 'do not suggest' list is up to date, those of us with multi-core processors aren't even experiencing a performance boost from it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, it would, but at least you could have a large functional space station that you could actually use and play with. You wouldn't be obligated to use it of course, it would be a switch that you could toggle. I would love to make an asteroid base for example, but after the first couple ships the whole thing would get laggy to the point that it just wouldn't be fun anymore, let alone visiting it with yet another ship.

I believe lag is entirely dependent on part count, and an asteroid is a single part AFAIK. An asteroid base shouldn't be any laggier than a space station of similar part count. We'll have to wait and see to be sure.

In the case of stations, would it really be an issue to only have the physics kick in at the point of collision? A space station that isn't accelerating or experiencing drag, shouldn't really need any physics calculations anyhow. It's up there, it's stable. If another craft hits it, then do the calculations.

I'm not 100% sure, but IIRC there are sometimes unintended effects when coming off rails and out of timewarp, which isn't so bad when it's just a single ship but might be disastrous if it's two ships in close proximity or touching. Not sure if those effects are caused by the time compression going away or the physics kicking in, but I suspect it's the latter.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[vger]

I'm not 100% sure, but IIRC there are sometimes unintended effects when coming off rails and out of timewarp, which isn't so bad when it's just a single ship but might be disastrous if it's two ships in close proximity or touching. Not sure if those effects are caused by the time compression going away or the physics kicking in, but I suspect it's the latter.

Is that the same thing that happens on the launchpad? You have a stable vessel floating slightly above it, but you can't start the engines until it 'drops' and you can start seeing the physics acting on it. In the case of very poor designs, sometimes it will fall apart just from sitting there, but then during one of the reverts it will do fine. I'm guessing that's the kind of issues you're talking about. My example is with gravity though. In space I doubt anything particularly crazy would happen.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think it's the same thing. On bigger ships, when you come out of warp they sometimes shake themselves apart. What I think is happening is that the on rails system treats the craft as a single part on a single orbit but when coming out of warp, the physics engine calculates an orbit for each part, sometimes giving them vectors that aren't precisely aligned and the whole thing starts wobbling. I think this is also why orbital info shakes around a bit when physics are going but instantly stabilizes when warping.

I very much could be wrong about this, I don't know a whole lot in the way of the inner workings of KSP.

[vger]

I think it's the same thing. On bigger ships, when you come out of warp they sometimes shake themselves apart. What I think is happening is that the on rails system treats the craft as a single part on a single orbit but when coming out of warp, the physics engine calculates an orbit for each part, sometimes giving them vectors that aren't precisely aligned and the whole thing starts wobbling. I think this is also why orbital info shakes around a bit when physics are going but instantly stabilizes when warping.

I wonder if the problem could be solved simply by not activating physics for each part all at the same time. I'm going to take a wild guess that this is currently how it happens, which would have the undesired effect of hitting the vessel with a lot more stress than it needs to, creating a nasty 'resonance' going through the whole thing. If you could do it a piece at a time, using the hierarchy tree (which I'm sure the game has), the effects should be much less destructive.

Anyway though, this is going too far into speculative territory now.

[Red Iron Crown]

I know Kerbal Joint Reinforcement does something to smooth out the physics transition when coming out of warp, not sure what the method is exactly, though. Perhaps the same technique could be used to smooth out bringing a station off rails.