Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

kerbalspaceprogram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 344 posts

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

kirrent wrote: post #258
dragonwriter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, did Gravity do something besides getting basic spaceflight wrong in visually compelling ways?

It wasn't only basic spaceflight. It was basic physics in general. Like when the two protagonists are somehow hanging off the ISS and Clooney has to let go because Bullock can't pull him in. It's a huge important moment plot wise and is really really dumb physics. I still don't even know what the filmmakers mistakenly thought could pull on them in that situation.

According to (IIRC) the film's science adviser, the intent of that scene is that they are still decelerating relative to the station on the chute they are snagged on, and Clooney's charscter believes that the line doesn't hace sufficient strength and may snap with both of them but will hold with just Bullock's character.

If that's not just a post hoc rationalization, the film certainly doesn't seem to convey that effectively, though.

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#262

Post by ouid »

waiseristy wrote: post #156
ouid wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interstellar had really bad orbital mechanics. You remember when they used the staged rocket to get off earth? Do you remember later, when they landed on that other planet with 1.5 times the mass of earth? Do you remember the machine that they used to leave that planet?

Remember when he let go of the spacecraft and fell into the black hole?

they were spinning, right?

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#263

Post by kbenson »

kstenerud wrote: post #132
Pharylon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gravity was a good movie. And for a movie set in space, it's pretty realistic...ish. But it's orbital physics are terrible. Just terrible. I mean, most movies don't even try. Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars don't deal with orbital physics at all. Gravity tries, and gets it all wrong.

That really is the crux of the issue here. When a movie gets something so essential to the plot wrong, you rightfully dislike the makers for being so damn lazy and not bothering to do their homework. When it's only tangentially related, we're far more forgiving. It can even get downright dangerous when policymakers start getting their ideas from them. For example, shows like "24" that have suspects giving up accurate…

> When a movie gets something so essential to the plot wrong, you rightfully dislike the makers for being so damn lazy and not bothering to do their homework.

Actually, that's when I feel compelled to give it a pass. We watch movies all the time that start on a ridiculous assertion. Allowing one major mistake I have to let go, but in the beginning and service of the plot as a whole is okay with me, as long as most of the rest is done well. Having something that just plain seems wrong but without any reason beyond laziness is what really gets me.

For example, without allowing for the core problems of orbital physics of the debris and the relative distance and speed if different space stations, there is no movie. I found the rest of the movie enjoyable enough that I allow for those mistakes in service of the whole (in a similar way that I allow for a lot more in a superhero movie).

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#264

Post by simonh »

ucarion wrote: post #155
milcron wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they were saying that Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian and The Expanse are all good examples.

I'm confused about this too. The Martian (at least the book) has good science throughout. But in Gravity , the space shrapnel is moving much faster than the ISS, yet has the same orbit as it. I don't think that's possible, from what KSP has taught me.

I don't think it has the same orbit, I think it has a crossing orbit inclined relative to that of the space station. Imagine a belt of debris, much like the rings of Saturn, with the ISS on an orbit that passes through the ring twice on each orbit, on opposite sides of the planet.

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#265

Post by mikeash »

_dingus wrote: post #159
mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? The movie shows them going from A to B, physics says going from A to B takes far more delta-v than the spacecraft would have, therefore it's a physics issue. It would be like a WWII movie showing a bomber taking off from NYC and bombing Berlin.

>It would be like a WWII movie showing a bomber taking off from NYC and bombing Berlin. NYC to Berlin is well within the originally required flight range of the B-29 (5,333mi at 400mph with a 2k lbs load). It wouldn't be an intelligent thing to do, but it isn't physically impossible.

I was thinking of a round-trip mission, but I always appreciate nitpickery. (And I learned just how much carrying a heavy bomb load affected the range of the B-29!)

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#266

Post by yellowapple »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #16

I hope this goes well. I would love to see a remake that retains the exact same gameplay with more modern graphics. Hopefully all the people who paid for the current in-development version are not left high and dry in terms of updates and bugfixes. I also have heard the rumors that the team was not treated well, and that the game was never really the focus of the company. I think it may have been a side project of on…

"I would love to see a remake that retains the exact same gameplay with more modern graphics."

Would a remake really be necessary for that? Sounds to me like it'd be more of an art asset replacement/upgrade (which was already in the works at one point, IIRC). Modders have already been pumping out all sorts of art assets with pretty high visual quality, and KSP's already on a modern engine (Unity 5).

The graphics are already pretty modern. Maybe not photorealistic, but KSP's more cartoony graphics are part of the charm anyway. If I wanted hyperrealism, I'd be playing Orbiter or installing that one spaceflight mod for X-Plane.

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#267

Post by TeMPOraL »

nsxwolf wrote: post #238
jpttsn wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're giving them too much credit. Happy that it didn't "unsuspend disbelief" for you, but it's too easy to make creative excuses for movie fridge logic.

Christopher Nolan seems like a pretty smart guy. It must have crossed his mind at some point. Plus, the ship's engines don't appear to use propellant - they use the standard sci fi "eeire blue glow" trope. Seems like antimatter is the best explanation to me.

> Christopher Nolan seems like a pretty smart guy. It must have crossed his mind at some point.

Also, he had Kip Thorne as an advisor. I remember criticism of the "slow-time planet" (including by Bad Astronomy) being shot down by Kip pointing out he actually calculated it as an edge-case solution for a specific rotating black hole.

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#268

Post by TeMPOraL »

dragonwriter wrote: post #261
kirrent wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't only basic spaceflight. It was basic physics in general. Like when the two protagonists are somehow hanging off the ISS and Clooney has to let go because Bullock can't pull him in. It's a huge important moment plot wise and is really really dumb physics. I still don't even know what the filmmakers mistakenly thought could pull on them in that situation.

According to (IIRC) the film's science adviser, the intent of that scene is that they are still decelerating relative to the station on the chute they are snagged on, and Clooney's charscter believes that the line doesn't hace sufficient strength and may snap with both of them but will hold with just Bullock's character. If that's not just a post hoc rationalization, the film certainly doesn't seem to convey that eff…

When watching I got an impression that in that scene, they were rotating, so it was inertia that was pulling them apart.

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#269

Post by aanm1988 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

KSP was possibly my best entertainment spending ever. It definitely is the best game for me in terms of costs / time played. If you haven't played it yet, do yourself a favour and buy it now. If you have a kid with even tangential interest in space, get a copy for them. Side effects of playing KSP include: - getting an intuitive feel for basic orbital mechanics - finding yourself reading up on actual math to better u…

Why would I want to play a game that turns me into a insufferably pedantic jerk who can't let people just enjoy a damn movie?

Re: Kerbal Space Program Acquired by Take-Two Interactive

#270

Post by bananaboy »

TylerE wrote: post #183
jimmaswell wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that hard to work with the GC in Unity to make the game smooth, especially if you do so from the beginning. https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials/topics/performance-optim...

How come no ones seem to do it then, or not do it well enough? Cities:Skylines has the same GC stutters.

It's easy to fall into the trap of doing things the simple way or the unity way. To avoid it you have to go out of your way a bit and apply the same rigour as if you were writing your own engine.
Post reply on HN