Modding, Expansions, and the' problem' with a procedural galaxy

[allmhuran]

I never made anything even remotely like your point about whether or not unrealistic FTL is okay for gameplay reasons. That's utterly irrelevant to my point, and if you thought it was relevant then you really don't get what I said.

What I said there was a response to Ruinsage. He brought up gameplay considerations. I said they weren't relevant to the question of whether having another solar system was possible. It seems you've fallen victim to the very source of your criticism of others.

What I was pointing out was that the claim that FTL is necessary for there to be a reason to have more than one fixed identical solar system is false in the first place because traveling between such systems in the *same campaign* is not the only reason someone might want more than one solar system to pick from.

What I'd like is the ability to start a NEW campaign and end up playing THAT campaign in a slightly different solar system than I had for the previous campaign. That's something that DOES require breaking free of the fixed one-solar-system-for-all limitation, but does NOT require any sort of FTL.

Go one page back in this thread.

Edited May 21, 2014 by allmhuran

[Dunbaratu]

Go one page back in this thread.

I did. The part where you effectively attributed the irrelevant side argument to me was with those two words "to wit" in your next post, the one on this page. Those two words imply "what follows is going to be a further detail on the thing I was just talking about, which was my defense of Steve's argument".... but then what followed was about whether or not FTL is good for gameplay reasons instead of what I was talking about, which sort of meant you were doing the same thing I was just complaining about.

Sorry for jumping down your throat. It was probably an unfortunate accidental phrasing on your part rather than what you meant to say, but those two words "to wit" really did look like you were attributing the topic that you followed it with to me.

[allmhuran]

Ah, I see the confusion. "To wit" as in "here, let's use some pure reason in response to this comment which asks how the two issues can be separate", the two issues being, as listed, (1) whether or not it is possible to create more solar systems and maintain commonality of experience (shown by you to be answered in the affirmative), and (2) how we might choose to integrate such systems, whether by travel within one campaign or just via different campaigns, or whatever other mechanism someone might propose, the answers to none of which would have an bearing on question 1.

Edited May 21, 2014 by allmhuran

[cantab]

And now I'm playing a game in which I can finally land on planets, something that I desired for years, only to hear that this game will remain tiny.

It's not tiny. Kerbin alone is bigger than India. Combined, all the current planets and moons (excluding Jool) are larger than the USA and Canada combined. In terms of pure area that dwarfs pretty much every game that's not Minecraft or a flight simulator.

The problem is at the moment there's not much of interest in that vast area. The current bodies really need fleshing out and improving the detail on. I'd like to be able to cross a small stream on Laythe, find an outcrop of layered rocks on Duna, and so on - and of course have the science system give me interesting results for doing so.

[Ruinsage]

Just want to let you know again that I feel the mental pain you are experiencing on reading these comments Steven, and to reassure you that you are not actually the last rational living person on the planet. To wit...

Issue 1: Can it be done?

Issue 2: Should it be done?

Given that the answer to the first is definitively "yes", and the answer to the second clearly varies by opinion between "yes", "no", and "maybe", then it is obvious that issue 1 and issue 2 are not identical, since if they were the same issue they must have the same answer.

Your opinion on whether "more solar systems" is a good idea for gameplay reasons has no relevance to the question of whether such is actually possible in the first place. I've already said I'm not convinced that more systems is, in fact, something that the devs should consider, but at the same time I feel compelled to support the purely logical aspect of what Steven is saying.

My point was not that should it be done is the same as could it be done, but rather that because there is no real reason to do it in the vanilla game, the discussion as to how to do it is pointless. I missed that the discussion had veered off to mainly discussing how one might implement a procedural solar system/galaxy, and instead made my comment based on the title of the discussion (the problem with a procedural galaxy).

I still maintain that SQUAD should not make a procedural solar system with a single seed that is used in vanilla, because there would be no reason to, other than to make it easier for modders. They would not be able to modify the solar system without having to do some rather complicated calculations (as opposed to simply changing the object in question), which would slow progress considerably whenever they worked on biomes, landscape, new objects, new science parts and so on. Not worth it for making it easier to mod.

[Dunbaratu]

My point was not that should it be done is the same as could it be done, but rather that because there is no real reason to do it in the vanilla game, the discussion as to how to do it is pointless.

Wrong, you jumped from "no FTL" to "no reason to do it in the vanilla game". Which does not follow, as previously explained.

I missed that the discussion had veered off to mainly discussing how one might implement a procedural solar system/galaxy, and instead made my comment based on the title of the discussion (the problem with a procedural galaxy).

It's only off-topic if your assumption that travel between them equals the only reason a player might have for wanting it in the game was true. Which it's not. As you're aware of that now, if you continue pretending you don't know that, you're not just mistaken but in fact actively lying. So please stop doing it.

I still maintain that SQUAD should not make a procedural solar system with a single seed that is used in vanilla, because there would be no reason to, other than to make it easier for modders. They would not be able to modify the solar system without having to do some rather complicated calculations (as opposed to simply changing the object in question), which would slow progress considerably whenever they worked on biomes, landscape, new objects, new science parts and so on. Not worth it for making it easier to mod.

It doesn't have to be *single* seed. It can be a configuration file with a set of lots of different seeds and settings for different parts of the system - a configuration file that people could alter. Conceptually there isn't really any difference between "Here's my one seed number that generates the interesting solar system I've been playing in" and "Here's the config file that generates the interesting solar system I've been playing in."

Edited May 22, 2014 by Steven Mading
misspelled quote tag

[Dunbaratu]

It's not tiny. Kerbin alone is bigger than India. Combined, all the current planets and moons (excluding Jool) are larger than the USA and Canada combined. In terms of pure area that dwarfs pretty much every game that's not Minecraft or a flight simulator.

The problem is at the moment there's not much of interest in that vast area. The current bodies really need fleshing out and improving the detail on. I'd like to be able to cross a small stream on Laythe, find an outcrop of layered rocks on Duna, and so on - and of course have the science system give me interesting results for doing so.

If I saw evidence that there were plans to add more interesting details to the existing worlds I'd consider this argument a good one. But update after update they keep the worlds very generic and empty (in fact if anything there's been a trend toward making the worlds MORE empty lately as former easter eggs get removed or hidden underneath the terrain). So if we can't get more interesting worlds by improving the ones we have, can we at least get a variety of configurations for how the worlds interreact with each other - by putting them in new and unique positons and orbits and the like.

[Ruinsage]

Wrong, you jumped from "no FTL" to "no reason to do it in the vanilla game". Which does not follow, as previously explained.

It's only off-topic if your assumption that travel between them equals the only reason a player might have for wanting it in the game was true. Which it's not. As you're aware of that now, if you continue pretending you don't know that, you're not just mistaken but in fact actively lying. So please stop doing it.

It doesn't have to be *single* seed. It can be a configuration file with a set of lots of different seeds and settings for different parts of the system - a configuration file that people could alter. Conceptually there isn't really any difference between "Here's my one seed number that generates the interesting solar system I've been playing in" and "Here's the config file that generates the interesting solar system I've been playing in."

Let's get one thing very clear

You do not tell me i'm wrong about what my own point is

You do not tell me that I am lying if I don't agree with you

Now let me explain my point, from the start, as you quite clearly do not get it

A return trip from kerbin to a different star system, if we assume you land anywhere when you get there, would require roughly 400.000 km/s of delta-V. That is an unfeasible amount. And yes, this is assuming there isn't FTL, which is a good assumption, as having FTL in ksp would be the single most misplaced and boring mechanic I could imagine.

Which is why I only mentioned this in my first post. It is not my main argument. The rest is true, regardless of whether or not you have FTl.

My argument is that once you go outside the solar system, what you do becomes a colonization effort, which is not within the scope of this game. Remember the old game "spore"? In the end, you had to colonize and manage the entire galaxy with a single ship, which was simply ridiculous. The entire game led up to the point where you would lead you species to colonize the galaxy, and it was a huge letdown, because the end was simply so much crap. Unless we get ships that can fly by themselves, colonization simply isn't a suitable mechanic for ksp. And this is my argument: Interstellar travel is not within the scope of KSP

Now for other reasons you would want to have procedural systems (of which, I have only found one):

Other campaigns

Which is exactly what SQUAD has stated that they don't want, because it would divide the community. Which I agree with, and don't really see any reason to continue debating. If you want to play in another system, get a mod.

And this point had not been made in this thread before my first post, so holding it against me that you have had a similar discussion about that instead of what I was trying to discuss, is moronic.

[KerbMav]

I offer a solution for one of your problems that opens up a completely different one though.

Solution:

FTL would be only available outside a stars SOI, so inside the SOI of the galactic center, which would have to be introduced to make other star systems in the same universe possible.

The new systems would be handcrafted like Kerbol's to offer equal gameplay for all players in a vanilla game. Additional systems could be modden in for personal flavor.

Problem:

Is the KSP universe (the numbers in its coordinate system) big enough to place another star system at a reasonable distance?

Which would not even be sufficient, as the two star systems would need enough space to rotate around the galactic center!

Suggestion:

Upon activating the FTL the vessel is moved into a new persistance file, that of the new system, in a very exotic orbit around its star.

The player would have to leave Kerbol's SOI to activate the FTL, the game moves the vessel into the new system's persistence file in the same save game folder and either offers to load the new system right away or the player gets to choose which system is loaded when he start the game the next time.

UT would have to be the same in both systems if return missions were to be possible and science to be transmitted back home, so time passes while you are playing in the new system - which opens up a kerb load of other problems, especially for players that use life support mods, but that is not my concern.

[Ruinsage]

snip

We already have timewarp for this. The problem with FTL is that it completely removes one of the major mechanics of the game, which is just dull.

[RedPine]

I'll get at least one argument out of the way, so that the debate can continue in a productive direction.

But there's already a mod for that... CORRECT! There is a Mod for that, but they have some limitations:

1. Mods that "add planets" actually consist of re-skinned, altered planets with modified gravity, atmospheres, and spin.

2. Mods can change terrain values but not the terrain mesh. As I understand it, this means hills are in the same spot and mods only change the height.

In order to let modders create new planets, Squad would need to de-obfuscate and simplify a huge amount of code. On the upside, if Squad did so, it would make it easier for Squad to add new planets, too.

[cantab]

The simpler solution to multiple star systems is to compress the interstellar distances more. Considering that in our own solar system Sedna at its furthest is still less than 1% of the way to the nearest star, this might be viable. Interstellar distances a hundred or even a thousand times closer than in the real world wouldn't be unreasonable and would bring the transfer times down, though I would would still want interstellar distances to seem large compared to interplanetary ones.

As for delta-V, the 400 km/s estimate is way too large. It looks like you've taken Kerbol's escape velocity and quadrupled it, but that's the speed you need at Kerbol's surface. From LKO you're looking at a little under 3 km/s to reach Kerbol escape velocity, as per this map http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/41652-A-more-accurate-delta-v-map

So a round trip to another star will run around 10-20 km/s, depending on how big the other star is and what (if any) planet you stop at. From a delta-V perspective, it's perfectly reasonable with the parts we have.

Indeed, noting that it doesn't take that much more dV to escape Kerbol than it does to encounter Eeloo, I realise my previous assumption that the game can't be balanced for both interplanetary and interstellar travel is wrong.

[Ruinsage]

So a round trip to another star will run around 10-20 km/s, depending on how big the other star is and what (if any) planet you stop at. From a delta-V perspective, it's perfectly reasonable with the parts we have.

If we assume a planet identical to Kerbin, it comes out to 19.960 Km/s of delta-V, which is considerably less than what i said, i admit, but still quite insane.

It's equal to lifting something into orbit, then building something that will get that into orbit, then again, and again. Have you seen the build wackjob did to get four orange fueltanks into LKO?

[allmhuran]

The theoreitcal maximum delta v of a rocket using LVN propulsion without staging during the burn is something like 16km/s (going from memory here), so 20-ish is a pretty significant build. Having said that, four orange tanks to orbit is pretty straightforward, one could even say "trivial" with the new ARM parts.

[Red Iron Crown]

What SOI would the ship be in when it's between the stars?

[LethalDose]

What SOI would the ship be in when it's between the stars?

It would probably be called "Interstellar" or "Galactic", and wouldn't have any gravity force on the vessel. Though I don't know if that would cause the physics engine to defecate in the sleeping furniture.

[cantab]

Possibly none, or one with zero or near-zero gravitating mass. ("Near zero" would keep the physics engine happy.) I think that would be a reasonable approximation, once you're far enough out that the gravity of the stars around you is tiny and you're basically going to coast in a straight line.

[Red Iron Crown]

I wonder if that would tempt the Kraken. I know that some of the original Kraken problems stemmed from the distances being so great when in Kerbol's SOI, the problem might reemerge at interstellar distances.

I'm filing "defecate in the sleeping furniture" in my collection of amusing euphemisms.

[allmhuran]

The problem of high altitude kraken attacks was solved, as I recall, by moving the origin of the world to the active vessel so that the numbers didn't get silly.

[Ruinsage]

So, having just build a rocket capable of the criteria I stated above as the minimal demand for an interstellar round trip, I'd say my own argument is looking a little thin right about now.

Then again, i did have to use an hour long ion burn for the return trip.. without which, it simply wouldn't be possible. (I used the ARM parts, and even they were struggling)

I'm sure you could build an elaborate asparagus design to get the whole thing off the ground if you didn't choose to make the last stage a painfully long ion burn, but really, if the devs are going to make interstellar travel a thing, they are going to have to make new parts.

That, or we will have to make some serious orbital construction to get there.

[allmhuran]

Meh, this has about 15 km/s using LVN's and it's carrying two pretty hefty landers. Removing one would probably put it over 20. Not saying it's practical, just that it's possible.

[Vaporized Steel]

I'm very much for interstellar travel in the future because I think it is fun. But I don't think I would desire that any further even although I think it would have a noticeable fun factor. As pointed out by the team KSP is based and always will be on actual real life physics and wont be invented on future/fiction capabilities.

Sadly you will need future/fiction capabilities to go interstellar. Even a interstellar encounter with the least of delta V will cost 10-20 thousand units of Delta V. There are no stock or IRL setups that can do this. And definetely cannot carry a sufficiently big ship. The trip will take thousands of years and sending your kerbalnauts in a MK-12 pod for that long is...........lost for words.....unrealistic.

Another thing is that when leaving the solar system the center of gravity that dominates your trajectory is not anymore bound by the sun. But by the galactic core and your trajectory around it. Only a handfull of the nearest star systems would be optimal to reach. Would you desire to get a encounter with a star at a more troublesome position in your own spiral arm for example then just the interstellar encounter could cost you 50km/s and another 50km/s to deaccelerate. Getting back (in the meaning of a return trip) would cost you ALOOT more. Just as with planets interstellar burns have launch windows. So if you reach another star eventually you would want to wait for the launch window to reoccur. Which could take hundred thousands up to hundred millions of years.

Another thing what we are not honest about (which we don't have to as interstellar travel is hypothetical fiction) is that forces of dark matter are at work. We don't know what that is. It might aswell be a physical element of it's own. Or add a complete new element of physics which would screw any interstellar travel attempt right through the window. If it's the intention of KSP to keep realism to their game and people are asking/demanding/requesting science to be added that's to be founded on science hypothesies in terms of future propulsion and interstellar navigation then I assure you that in 2 years KSP will be sold in the local Toy store with a PEGI 3+ sticker.

The only thing I want the KSP team to reconsider is to add a binary star system. A binary star system would not require the issues that I put forth including many issues others reported in the thread.

The 2 stars could be relatively close together but far enough to maintain stable planetary orbits.

There is no need to worry about the galactic center of mass.

The trip will just take a couple > few dozen years instead of thousands of years.

And there would be sufficient amounts of Delta V left over to get home.

Especially if the binary star has a atmospheric planet. So that you can then use it's gravitational slingshot and aerobrake to get anywhere in the system [Alert: Gargantuant heatshield needed]

Also I don't think it's squad intention to develop something only for a small group of players. Interstellar travel also doesn't reach most players as it would require lot's of building, patience, planning and experience compared to any other mission.

[cantab]

I'm very much for interstellar travel in the future because I think it is fun. But I don't think I would desire that any further even although I think it would have a noticeable fun factor. As pointed out by the team KSP is based and always will be on actual real life physics and wont be invented on future/fiction capabilities.

Sadly you will need future/fiction capabilities to go interstellar. Even a interstellar encounter with the least of delta V will cost 10-20 thousand units of Delta V. There are no stock or IRL setups that can do this. And definetely cannot carry a sufficiently big ship.

There've been stock Jool "landers". That takes around 30 km/s of delta-V to get from datum back into orbit, with enough thrust all the way, and that's not even counting what it took to get over to Jool in the first place. OK, by that point you're returning a probe core or a lawn chair, but going back is going back.

Relative stellar velocities is a fair point, in real life that would significantly up the delta-V requirements, but I think ignoring them for KSP wouldn't be unreasonable.

Actually thinking I might have a crack at a simulated interstellar mission now. Just establish an escape trajectory, then hyperedit onto an entry trajectory to simulate entering a new star system. (If I really wanted to be flashy I could copy the craft into a separate Alternis Kerbol save/install.)

[Ruinsage]

Meh, this has about 15 km/s using LVN's and it's carrying two pretty hefty landers. Removing one would probably put it over 20. Not saying it's practical, just that it's possible.

Except that can't land with 10km/s of delta-V left, which is what the challenge really is. Of course you can make something with a huge delta-V, that's just slapping fuel to the atomic engine, the problem is making something with 10km/s of delta-V, capable of getting off kerbin, and then lifting that off of kerbin, with 5.5 km/s of delta-V to spare.

[cantab]

You don't need to land the entire interstellar ship...