xzbobzx Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 You simply but one big star the the middle, and have smaller starsystems orbit around that big star.This kinda keeps it all it all not too far away, while still allowing a lot of variation in w/e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentMcConnell Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 What?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vexx32 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Y\'know... not to burst your bubble or anything, but that is exactly what will have to happen, unless Harv and the team want to go breaking the laws of physics. The Sun (Kerbol) is the 'star' about which everything orbits, and the other planets are presumably going to orbit around when they appear. Mind you... I would be interested to see some planets in arbitrary (i.e. elliptical and/or non-equatorial) orbits around Kerbol. It\'d be quite the challenge to get to them -- you\'d need to get your orbit to coincide with theirs so that you don\'t need the plane-change manouvre (it\'d cost too much fuel)... hmm...Anyways, basically, this goes without saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProdigy Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I need a translation here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico88 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Y\'know... not to burst your bubble or anything, but that is exactly what will have to happen, unless Harv and the team want to go breaking the laws of physics. The Sun (Kerbol) is the 'star' about which everything orbits, and the other planets are presumably going to orbit around when they appear. Mind you... I would be interested to see some planets in arbitrary (i.e. elliptical and/or non-equatorial) orbits around Kerbol. It\'d be quite the challenge to get to them -- you\'d need to get your orbit to coincide with theirs so that you don\'t need the plane-change manouvre (it\'d cost too much fuel)... hmm...Anyways, basically, this goes without saying.He is writing about a giant multiple starsystem, where there is a big star in the centre which is orbited by other stars with their own starsystems. Personaly, I am not fond of this idea. I never liked this concept in sci-fis either. Too unrealistic. Plus ruins the idea of the Solar system-Kerbol system similarity. Harv said they\'re planning to make an FTL drive to make interstellar travel faster. Although this method is unrealistic as well, I find it more plausible. I don\'t mind having binary or trinary systems in the game, but the Kerbol system should have only one star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo-not Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Basically, he is describing a galaxy with a big star, not a black hole, in the middle.Since I don\'t think we would be getting anything beyond a local star system cluster, if even that, we can keep the star systems stationary. It\'s not as if we\'re going to wait millions of years to travel between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vexx32 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Ah, fair enough. I misread OP\'s post a little also.One problem with that is that the central stars of smaller 'star-systems' would have to be too small to be remotely realistic, and the planets too small to be worth visiting.A proper galaxy layout could be possible though -- just stay well away from the black hole xD... but yeah, unless the FTL drive is insanely fast (even in the realm of FTL drives), it\'ll be too much a waste of time to travel between starsystems unless we can up the timewarp to the tune of about a million times :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluejayek Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Even now, for sun dives I wish we had about another factor of 10 for maximum time warp. Hopefully they add that when we get new planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephram Kerman Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 That kind of thing would give us all a new sense of the scale of the universe.I modded the BFE and uberfuel mods to be almost weightless. Burned until flame out. Set my time compression to maximum. That was a week ago. And we\'ve gone, let\'s see.... this || far? Dangit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xzbobzx Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 Let me explain, instead of a simply solar system with planets orbiting around a sun, you have suns (with planets) orbiting a bigger sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vexx32 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Why not just have it like a real galaxy and make it all orbit a black hole? There\'s no need to go breaking the laws of physics just to keep it all navigable -- a star big enough to keep stars of even 1 solar mass orbiting around it without significant gravitational pull on the central star would be immense... and at that size would probably implode and form a black hole anyway.My point is that sure, it could be done, but seeing as it\'s supposed to be a simulation of real-world physics (even if it is in a totally made-up universe) as best as Squad can manage, why would they make an immense 'center star' when it\'s not necessary... or even remotely realistic...But regardless, the distances will be immense no matter how you do it, massive solar system or proper galaxy or whatever. Unless Kerbin and the Mun are shrunk to a ridiculously small size, the central sun would need to be so far away reaching it would be practically impossible without a FTL drive anyway. Same goes for any other 'sub-star-systems'.I realise I\'m not explaining this very well... but basically, if we\'re going to have other stars we are able to travel to (and planets), they\'re going to need to be realistically distanced, or else they\'ll probably break the physics engine in some way (unless Harv decides to ignore gravitational interaction between stars and such).Tell you what, though, this got me thinking... to start with, we\'ll probably only have a local cluster of stars anyway. If the gravitational interactions are simulated to an extent, we can have star systems orbiting one another to an extent... hmm. I doubt they\'ll bother with making a whole entire galaxy, but it would be absolutely awesome if they made it procedurally-generated -- say, when you start up the game, the positions of stars are determined, as well as the number of stars, their mass and type, etc. This would give the game a fair loading time on first load, depending on how many stars it is able to generate. Kerbin, the Mun and Kerbol would be in a static place; a starting point. Then, as you approach a star system, say using a FTL drive, as you\'re warping towards it, the game uses this time (while your ship is 'on rails' in the limbo of space) to decide whether or not the star has planets, their size, the type of planet, their orbit, etc.Thus, a procedurally generated galaxy... no doubt we\'d have some oddities then. Perhaps the local cluster should be predetermined so we can share stuff about it, but beyond it it\'s all procedurally generated (for the explorers!).Anyway, back on topic, I don\'t think Squad will be willing to reduce a universe to one big solar system just for the sake of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentMcConnell Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Let me explain, instead of a simply solar system with planets orbiting around a sun, you have suns (with planets) orbiting a bigger sun.That\'s a horrible idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GroundHOG-2010 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 That\'s a horrible idea...For once, thats the most agreeable explanation that is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumHelper Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Instead of a huge sun, put a black hole in there and it\'ll be acceptable:)http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1102_051102_black_hole.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boolybooly Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I am wondering if unity can scale that much, or whether it is going to run into limits and will have to make sneaky transitions between star SOIs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misterspork Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Well, considering how long it takes for stars to orbit around the center of the galaxy, why not just make them stationary? It won\'t be much different from if we had them orbit a supermassive black hole, because it would take ages on maximum timewarp to see them move even a noticeable distance relative to Kerbol.And if we are going to have warp drive, and have persistence, we don\'t really need to make it easier to navigate, especially if the closest star will be within 0.4 light years if the scale continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boolybooly Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Personally I am not a fan of warp drive because I dont think physics will ever allow it in reality. I would prefer the skip ahead in the flght path method which HarvesteR mentioned was planned. However I can think of nothing finer than arriving in an unexplored star system with a colony ship, defrosting a few Kerbals and prospecting for locations and materials necessary to fuel, service and build a spaceship factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misterspork Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Personally I am not a fan of warp drive because I dont think physics will ever allow it in reality.There are already theories on how such a thing would work, I believe. And click to warp will be great, except for the fact that it doesn\'t actually make the trip shorter, and would skip a ton of time you could have been doing other missions in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico88 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Personally I am not a fan of warp drive because I dont think physics will ever allow it in reality. I would prefer the skip ahead in the flght path method which HarvesteR mentioned was planned. I agree on that, however, in the game\'s point of view it has to be done. Otherwise it\'d take a hell lot of time (probably tens of hours of gameplay) to get to another starsystem and the timeskip would screw up missions back home, especialy when life support is added. It\'d would be impossible to run different missions at the same time (Harv said that there\'d be a warning system which stops timeskip when something important happens in another mission, but this\'d make a stop at every second during an interstellar timeskip, which\'d be very annoying). If you think about it FTL is quite gamewise, although it\'d be nice to leave the option of slower than light interstellar travel for everyone\'s satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warshawski Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 He is writing about a giant multiple starsystem, where there is a big star in the centre which is orbited by other stars with their own starsystems. Personaly, I am not fond of this idea. I never liked this concept in sci-fis either. Too unrealistic.No sense does this make. There are multiple-star systems in reality, and it stands to reason that, with the many billions of such systems there probably are, that some of them have planets orbiting one or both stars. There is a smaller but still measurable chance of said planets being habitable.But, as much as I\'d like to see such a star-system in-game, it shouldn\'t be Kerbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richy teh space man Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I\'m thinking it would probably be better if the stars were static rather then orbiting, it sounds like a lot for a game engine to manage multiple star systems orbiting a central star, especially if you throw planets into the mix too..FTL sounds like it would work getting to the other systems..Lastly would there be any other aliens out there you could meet / war with too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluejayek Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I\'m thinking it would probably be better if the stars were static rather then orbiting, it sounds like a lot for a game engine to manage multiple star systems orbiting a central star, especially if you throw planets into the mix too..FTL sounds like it would work getting to the other systems..Lastly would there be any other aliens out there you could meet / war with too?What are peoples obsession with war in space? With a proper physics simulator, like KSP is, it really just would not work. Space is too big. Impossible to intercept a craft that is actively trying to avoid you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vexx32 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 ... without autopilot, that is And if you\'re close enough, it\'s possible. Getting that close would be a problem, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar15 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Oh a princess celestia avatar that\'s not a meme, first I ve seen on the forumsAnyway click to warp would be nice, but we could do other missions while it\'s warping to not waste time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts