Let's fix the water, shall we?

[quasarrgames]

I am NOT suggesting oceanic exploration here; i happily bought kerbal SPACE program, not kerbal WATER program. I am simply fed up with the water in this game! It's taken more ships of mine than i can count, and physically it makes less sense than the aerodynamics (a lot less). It would improve the game so much if water behaved more like, you know, water.

Since liquids are basically gases with a lot more density, let's just make there be an extra thick layer of atmosphere below sea level, so thick that it would be impossible to go over 30m/s no matter how hard you tried, and add a slight upward force so that parts would slowly rise to the top of the water at about 2m/s and float there.

What do you think?

Oh yeah, and what do you think the water is made of? My best guess would be that mixture of corn starch and water, but even that stuff doesn't violently devour anything that touches it.

[Kegereneku]

I wouldn't say no but for now that's mostly cosmetic, many people consider that improving the aerodynamic model for spaceplane should be a priority.

[Red Iron Crown]

Since liquids are basically gases with a lot more density,

Liquids are very different from gases. Gases have compressablility and variable volume; the volume of a given amount of liquid is relatively fixed and few compress well.

I can honestly say that the water physics don't affect me much in KSP, though I do not build boats of any type.

[regex]

Would be nice to have an overhaul of some sort, but the basic problem with the water, as I understand it, is that parts are destroyed when you exceed their impact tolerance speed, which means that you end up with silly boats using strange parts as the hull. You can go about this in two separate ways, as I see it:

1. Create a class of boat parts that have a high impact tolerance and buoyancy, along with lower "drag" in water (not sure if that's modelled by part) OR

2. Create a FAR-like system for water that deals with part "drag" in a proper manner.

I'd love to see #2, but in reality #1 would work just as well for stock and would be much easier to program, especially if you have to add in a "waterDrag" variable or something. In fact, you wouldn't even need a separate class of boat parts, just put in reasonable values for all the existing parts.

[m4v]

My issues with the water is that it looks awful, that all parts float in it (wtf?) and that is more dangerous to land in water than in solid ground.

[Sky_walker]

My issues with the water is that it looks awful, that all parts float in it (wtf?) and that is more dangerous to land in water than in solid ground.

That pretty much sums my feelings on a topic (it's quite surprising considering that Unity can generate really beautiful water - so it'd be cool to have as an optional setting for those running high-end PCs)

As for building ships or (lol) submarines.... well... I couldn't think of anything more niche. If anything - it can be added after the game is completed, cause TBH: I doubt more than 1% of players ever have done anything alike.

[Stratoroc]

I suspect my issues with water is that my computer is so slow slashdowns cause enough lag that physics calculations spike past impact tolerance, glad to know I'm not the only one who suffers.

I would love some physics wizardry so that ships that comfortably survive surface landings also handle splashdowns just fine.

for boats:

1) water drag is constant at all depths, since water is neigh incompressible. Water drag can simply be a constant multiplied by the air drag.

2) buoyancy should be a simple mass/volume parameter. The effective gravity force per part should be weight-bouncy, Calculate a center of buoyancy for stability purposes if a ship should tip on its side.

[Boomerang]

It would be cool to see an overhaul to the water physics, sure. Doesn't have to be a perfectly realistic model, but if it behaved even vaguely like water, rather than a stab of stone that goes 'splash', that would be pretty cool.

[frizzank]

At Squad I imagine a huge whiteboard somewhere with post-it notes stuck all over the place. Each one filled with all the things that need to be worked on before the official release. Then way in the bottom right hand corner is a hastily scribbled sticky with the words "Improve Water" hidden among the sea of work to be done...

[rynak]

Not to be the killjoy, i'm not sure if you folks got your priorities right:

1. You're asking them to make water MORE complex, BEFORE they fix its embarassing performance?

2. You're asking them to have proper water physics, while kerbals still randombly crash into planets by merely walking on them?

3. While rover physics require rather weird design decisions (or hacked parts) to behave like... wheeled vehicles on kerbin? You know, one of my modulemanager scripts has this in it:

// KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!PART[roverWheel2] {}

You cannot drive 10 metres with this thing, without calling the kraken - and this is the first stock wheel you get in the game. Problem?

4. Aerodynamics. Nuff said.

Long story short: Yes, i agree that "someday", water should get a very simple physics model, but saying that this discussion is premature, would be the understatement of the month.

Edited July 21, 2014 by rynak

[regex]

Long story short: Yes, i agree that "someday", water should get a very simple physics model, but saying that this discussion is premature, would be the understatement of the month.

This is about the water needing an overhaul; It'll happen when and if it happens, and the devs will set their own priority if it is to happen. In the meantime, kindly keep to yourself and/or support those threads that deal with your pet issues.

[KierBear44]

...with the words "Improve Water" hidden among the sea of work to be done...

Hmmm.. Improve Water... "Sea" of work.....

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!

[Talavar]

That is actually a perfect Fix for the water.. Just increase the atmospheric pressure to match the pressure of water. at 0 altitude and down.. Would have the same effect as flying into jool, you eventually float. Not much coding involved in it either..

[vexx32]

That is actually a perfect Fix for the water.. Just increase the atmospheric pressure to match the pressure of water. at 0 altitude and down.. Would have the same effect as flying into jool, you eventually float. Not much coding involved in it either..

Don't call perfect before you even tried it. For all we know, it could for all intents and purposes be almost exactly the same as present implementation.

[coolitic]

I agree water needs to be completely remade. Underwater exploration could be fun, but let's not rush to that and focus on more realistic water physics/optimization first.

[Capt Snuggler]

This is about the water needing an overhaul; It'll happen when and if it happens, and the devs will set their own priority if it is to happen.

exactly, no one said it was a priority.

personally, id like to see some work done to the water eventually and throw in one or two inflatable floaty parts and a propeller.

[Talavar]

Don't call perfect before you even tried it. For all we know, it could for all intents and purposes be almost exactly the same as present implementation.

.. I'm assuming this isn't the case since there is still an impact calculation on the water (which using the formula below negates such a need) However Steel girders tearing apart at 14 MS (28.6364 MPH) when hitting water seems a bit unrealistic. Gotta admit when you set a ship down in water, and it falls over and breaks apart, It kinda gets your goat. Let's not forget, Nasa drops fuel tanks into the ocean and they hit a lot harder than this without disintegrating, and go collect them afterwards. The calculation of (atmospheric pressure*(wind-drag*Velocity)) needs to be used on part stability other than just solar panels, Then you use the atmospheric pressure measurement for water. The problem takes care of itself. It's how I would have programmed it.

;Atmospheric pressure test

; Part check

If physicscheck = (desired number of loops) then

Hazardcheck = Atmopressure*(drag*DV)

if Hazardcheck>Tolerance then Gosub (partfailure)

;Joint test

If Hazardcheck>jointstrenght then Gosub (Partripsoff)

else continue

Smaller parts would have less jointstrength than large parts because the attachment point is larger.

in the same note though, smaller parts have less wind drag which makes up for it.

Tolerance is the parts ability to survive which would be set accordingly to how fragile the part is. Solar panels would disintegrate almost immediately if not folded shut, whereas a Giant steal girder would have a MUCH higher Tolerance.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Talavar

[John FX]

It would be nice to be able to impact water at the same speeds as land without parts being destroyed.

[LethalDose]

I agree that the water/liquid mechanics could use an overhaul, but it's not needed for "Scope complete".

[Sky_walker]

That is actually a perfect Fix for the water.. Just increase the atmospheric pressure to match the pressure of water. at 0 altitude and down.

There is no buoyancy in KSP (as in: atmospheric buoyancy) so your perfect fix would cause nothing more than everything sink down slowly (probably with added fire effect if you'd try to use engines to accelerate)

[chaos_forge]

Honestly I'd be fine with it if all squad ever did with the water was make it less dangerous to land in . . . maybe some kind of hack so you need to be going at twice a part's impact tolerance in order for it to be destroyed when it hits water

[Talavar]

There is no buoyancy in KSP (as in: atmospheric buoyancy) so your perfect fix would cause nothing more than everything sink down slowly (probably with added fire effect if you'd try to use engines to accelerate)

This is incorrect... Try flying into Jool, eventually, you just float.

[Karriz]

This is incorrect... Try flying into Jool, eventually, you just float.

It's probably not because of buoyancy, but because the atmosphere gets so thick that terminal velocity drops to zero.

[Talavar]

It's probably not because of buoyancy, but because the atmosphere gets so thick that terminal velocity drops to zero.

Which causes you to do what? Dunno if you missed the original post, but that was the exact point i was trying to make with giving water an atmospheric pressure for float calculations. Edited July 24, 2014 by Talavar

[Karriz]

Which causes you to do what? Dunno if you missed the original post, but that was the exact point i was trying to make with giving water an atmospheric pressure for float calculations.

Oh, yes, but I'm not sure what would happen if you landed a capsule on such a thick layer. It may not actually float, but instead go downwards for a while and then be stuck under the water, because nothing would force it back to the surface.

Buoyancy would instead apply an upwards force on the capsule and cause it to float on top of the sea.