this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
114 points (96.0% liked)

Games

16737 readers
475 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pensa@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I remember Scott Manley asked someone important on the dev team of ksp2 how they approached the 2 body problem. They guy gave a vague answer that they had solved it. If that were true they would have a Nobel Prize but they don't. So then and there I decided that KSP2 will not get my money. Which sucks because I have put a little over 2000 hours into KSP1.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Solved it" for a game just means "approximated it well enough that the average user won't notice".

[–] pensa@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think that was the way he portrayed it. He made it seem like they really solved the 2 body problem. Scott Manley even made a comment about how grand that was. I really wish I could find the video to better show what I mean.

edit: here is one of him recalling it. https://youtu.be/vu22bFtZgKg?feature=shared&t=2294

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

2 body orbits shouldn't be a problem. They are easily solvable. 3 body systems are the ones that are problematic.

[–] pensa@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, he says n-body problem in the video I linked above. I have no idea why I am saying 2 body problem.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Funnily enough, there is an n-body mod for ksp1, which makes interplanet interactions more realistic (in fact, the mod has to slightly change the default system to stop the moons of Jool from slingshotting each other out) and allows advanced maneuvers like ballistic capture and lagrange points

[–] Chailles@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And as someone who couldn't even land on the Mun without crashing, I downloaded that mod and unsurprisingly found things even harder since it disables the standard maneuvers.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

It is not a beginner's mod, the fact that its most often used with packs like RP-1 should say how hard it is

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Problematic in a computer model or...? How does real space travel account for the gravitational pull of 3+ celestial bodies?

[–] pensa@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Roughly, that's why long distance missions need mid course correction burns.