Fixing the water, how to.

[Talavar]

Not sure how it currently is set, but I have an Idea.

Set water a specific atmosheric pressure. then use this.

Quick and dirty basic so everyone can understand.

;Atmospheric pressure test

; Part check

If physics check time = (number of set loops) then

Hazardcheck = Atmopressure*(drag*DV)

if Hazardcheck>Tolerance then Gosub (partfailure)

;Joint test

If Hazardcheck>jointstrenght then Gosub (Partripsoff)

If atmopressure>part boyancy then Gosub (partfloats)

else continue

this takes care of parts in the atmosphere as well when in water.

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 steel girder would have a MUCH higher Tolerance.

This could also take care of the collision with water, which seems there is a calculation that runs when the ship part is ASL.

however if this is already the current system, then the Water Atmospheric pressure is too great, as hitting the water at 14 MS (28.6364MPH) is too disasterous. However, I'm assuming this isnt implemented, because parts just aren't ripping off yet in the atmosphere. (Except solar panels being destroyed)

Edited July 22, 2014 by Talavar

[Red Iron Crown]

So you want water to behave like a dense gas instead of a liquid?

[Talavar]

So you want water to behave like a dense gas instead of a liquid?

You have to realize that water has the same basis as gas for pressure just denser. So basically, yes. It would solve all calculations.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Talavar

[Red Iron Crown]

That's a huge oversimplification. I mean it's true that both gases and liquids have pressures, but treating water as a gas ignores that water is basically uncompressible, or that displacement hulls have a natural maximum speed based on waterline length, or how hull planing works, or any of the other myriad effects that occur in liquids and not gases. Treating water as a denser gas doesn't come close to "solving all calculations" for a reasonably accurate simulation. It is a quick and dirty hack (though that might be appropriate given the relative unimportance of water in KSP).

[Talavar]

You have to keep in mind that Part calculation doesn't seem to take into account how much parts (face) is exposed to the wind. So actually, none of that really matters for the (physics) simplistics of KSP's engine.wind resistance of part facing might add too much physics calculations to the game per loop, and could bog down most typical users system almost to non-usability. So for this, I believe it would be perfect.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Talavar

[Talavar]

Also, keep in mind that the reason most liquids are near uncompressable is because of the fact that they ARE so dense compaired to gas, So once again, I think it would be fantastic.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think you will find that most players are actually somewhat to very dissatisfied with KSP's simplistic aerodynamic model, and would very much like a drag model that is shape and facing based rather than mass based. Witness the popularity of mods like NEAR and FAR.

That said, treating water with the same dynamics as the atmosphere model might be a better approximation than what we have now, without the additional development time of implementing a proper hydrodynamic model.

Honestly, though, I find it difficult to imagine that a game about space exploration is made substantially worse by having a poor model of water behavior.

[Talavar]

It's not so much the behavior of water for playing in it. but rather its all about the landing. Parts seem to get destroyed too easily.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Sounds like a good idea in principle, while i agree that the KSP water leaves a lot to be desired it is not totally unmanageable, you just have to build stuff that works with the boundaries it presents, I personally have no real trouble anymore as the pic below testifies to, and I'm sure that other things need sorting out before the water, after all I wonder how many players have spent that much time in it, apart from splashdowns it likely has no interest to a vast majority of players

[Kaptain]

water never destroyed anything I didn't want it too, if I planned on being in the water. I wouldn't land a huge plane in the water, and I have made stock amphibious planes, not even VTOL.

My biggest issue with the water is its appearance, Water just looks like no one wanted to make it and slapped a half ass texture on it lol. Not even any reflections. Splashes and sound could be a lot better too.

The Structural Panels make great pontoons. just gotta angle them right so the plane can lift out of the water and not drag down into it. and keep them well beneath your fuselage.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Kaptain

[Talavar]

My biggest issue with the water is its appearance, Water just looks like no one wanted to make it and slapped a half ass texture on it lol. Not even any reflections. Splashes and sound could be a lot better too.

Gotta agree with this one. The water is pretty bland. The only thing I REALLY hate about the texturing is that you can see how repeating it is. I know its a pain, but masking with 2 layers could be a decent fix for this.

[xcorps]

I wouldn't care if the water jumped 200 feet up and smashed my return ship in the nose with a crumbling brick as long as it looked good doing it. TES 3 Morrowind was released in 2002 and the water in it looks 10 babillion times better.

The water, it needs more pretty.

[Mitchz95]

I thought this was going to be about fixing water lag. Which I am in favor of.

Never put much effort into building boats, so this doesn't really affect me too much. I support anything that makes the game better, but I think they should generally prioritize space features rather than Kerbin's.