|
Post by whiteweasel on Jul 14, 2018 3:15:14 GMT
Stuck on dusk over triton. Trying to to finagle the extremely laggy maneuver node to get an encounter is beginning to get on my nerves. Not to mention, it's hard to plan anything out when my orbit is spaghetti'd all over the screen regardless of what reference object I have. Is there a fast and easy way to beat these missions? They are otherwise tedious and unfun.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 14, 2018 8:31:37 GMT
Actually, I think I had the most fun with Dusk over Triton so YMMV. This mission gives you a lot of flexibility in choosing your approach - you can go for crazy retrograde intercept without even injecting around Triton if you fine-tune your trajectories to be able to catch both fleets (works best with missiles and drones, probably fastest as you don't have to inject and play cat and mice with dodgy fleets, not sure if easiest, due to crazy velocities), you can inject around Triton and intercept either prograde or retrograde, you have enough mass budget to freely pick your fleet composition, etc. I also like missions that combine a lot of orbital physics with combat - they need more consideration in planning and ship design than just plinking some cans around an asteroid (something like Vesta Overkill, but with a lot of orbits in deep gravwells would be awesome).
Admittedly, the controls could use some work, as this mission is plagued with vanishing trajectory issue (trajectory projection resets to very short as you manipulate it, and you essentially have to tune it blind), but my general approach is to keep primary (Neptune in this case) as your frame of reference at first, and only switch to fine-tune injections and intercepts during final approach. Burning late is generally less efficient but the enemy here will try to dodge anyway and try to buy as much time as possible, so you won't avoid late burns. Not using primary as your frame of reference can be pretty damn confusing if the target is in inclined, eccentric or retrograde orbit, so it's often better to switch as late as possible.
Do note that Triton is orbiting retrograde and Nereid is already past its apoapsis and falling towards Neptune as you depart - if you want to inject around Triton at all, you need to split off Nereid and reverse your orbital direction ASAP.
Also note that, when facing an opponent that is unwilling to engage (but doesn't want to just flee), late intercept burns and superior acceleration are your friends.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 14, 2018 10:54:12 GMT
Also note that, when facing an opponent that is unwilling to engage (but doesn't want to just flee), late intercept burns and superior acceleration are your friends. Or vastly superior delta-v or droneswarms to run them out of propellant.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 14, 2018 11:46:02 GMT
Also note that, when facing an opponent that is unwilling to engage (but doesn't want to just flee), late intercept burns and superior acceleration are your friends. Or vastly superior delta-v or droneswarms to run them out of propellant. Against vastly superior delta-v they might still drag it out, drones tend to have good acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by whiteweasel on Jul 14, 2018 18:27:22 GMT
Is there any particular reason I get massive frame drops when I try to use the maneuver node on this mission? EDIT: I beat the mission, once I actually got the encounter, the battle was a curbstomp. Also I have a lot less frame drops, likely because I rebooted my computer.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jul 14, 2018 20:34:25 GMT
Is there any particular reason I get massive frame drops when I try to use the maneuver node on this mission? EDIT: I beat the mission, once I actually got the encounter, the battle was a curbstomp. Also I have a lot less frame drops, likely because I rebooted my computer. More celestial bodies cause more frame drops in the freefall trajectory calculation.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 15, 2018 9:24:53 GMT
I think it's understandable given that the game uses numerical n-bodies approximation rather than patched conics. More masses means more calculations.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 15, 2018 5:59:40 GMT
Don't want to start a childish argument, but... KSP Realism Overhaul(*1) with Principia(N body simulation), it simulate entire solar system every single second yet no significant frame drop(*2). Realism Overhaul guys and Principia guy doesn't even get paid to make this work. You can look at their GitHub to see how they make the performance significantly better. As you know, this game doesn't have a quality to be called as a sellable game. The only excuse is the reality it has, but it's beaten sometimes. You have to be critical on the game to let it grow, sometimes. *1. this video contains non-RO solar system, but with N body sims on. *2. Notice the fluctuation of the orbit. It's because of the instability of the L point, because non-RO planets has significantly less mass, to make it easier to get to orbit. A sub-decimal dV makes the entire orbit fluctuate a lot, and every single fluctuation is calculated by N body sim, but the frame hasn't dropped. *3. Just some eyecandies below to prove "You-can-make-it-beautiful-yet-super-realistic" argument. Again, this things are done by unpaid community.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 19, 2018 4:54:03 GMT
So, what should Qswitch do? Does he need to sift through their codes? I mean, we don't really have a lot of available skilled manpower in this field. Can you help? Btw, for n-body physics on planets, does the game has to simulate 200+ bodies' interactions for hundreds of in-game years foward/backward before loading the level, I wonder...
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 19, 2018 5:53:11 GMT
So, what should Qswitch do? Does he need to sift through their codes? I mean, we don't really have a lot of available skilled manpower in this field. Can you help? Btw, for n-body physics on planets, does the game has to simulate 200+ bodies' interactions for hundreds of in-game years foward/backward before loading the level, I wonder... I just think people should be more demanding. This can be a lot better. Being a little bit mod friendly would be the best Qswitch can do, considering he's a single guy. The other things would be done by community which would be doubled in short time. Afaik, there's tons of people playing KSP having enormous thirst on the module making this game has. They do calculation with their own software and bake their own polygon with realistic-yet-shining texture to see how their own design would work with the physics. And voila, here's a game that does the mess for you, and you only have to put in some parameters. They didn't converted yet only because this game is not mod friendly I guess. About the N-body sim mod Principia, it comes as a compiled program to fit each of your star system(stock and real solar system) and OS(Windows, Mac, Linux). The calculation would have been done when the mod has been compiled I guess. Yet still the bodies are not "on the rail" so you can push the planet out of their orbit with your hyper powered ship(theoretically). There's no "loading level", since it's a open world space. If you put several star systems in this game with some mod, the star systems exist at the same time with the proper distance. (Not supported by Principia so no N-body sim in this case sadly.)
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 19, 2018 6:12:46 GMT
Nobody here wants to put lots of unnecessary pressure on Qswitch.
Well, by looking at people here, I don't think they nearly care about having N-body physics for celestial bodies nor kool graphikz as much as its 'realism' and physics and maths. If this game is more popular, you might see more modders who's willing to mod the game. Now? No, not yet.
Go ask some modders if possible, see if they can do it.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 19, 2018 6:18:38 GMT
Well, by looking at people here, I don't think they nearly care about having N-body physics for celestial bodies nor kool graphikz as much as its 'realism' and physics and maths. If this game is more popular, you might see more modders who's willing to mod the game. Now? No, not yet. Go ask some modders if possible, see if they can do it. I played this game only for 1 week by now, and already heard more than 5 non-realistic glitches or limitation this game has, not mentioning unrealistic material behavior. Those thing can be solved by community effort, which can't be done now. The most important, I don't think this game is realistic enough. Just a step further than engineering math sandbox, everything is unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 19, 2018 6:19:22 GMT
Well, by looking at people here, I don't think they nearly care about having N-body physics for celestial bodies nor kool graphikz as much as its 'realism' and physics and maths. If this game is more popular, you might see more modders who's willing to mod the game. Now? No, not yet. Go ask some modders if possible, see if they can do it. I played this game only for 1 week by now, and already heard more than 5 non-realistic glitches or limitation this game has, not mentioning unrealistic material behavior. Those thing can be solved by community effort, which can't be done now. You should go to suggestion or technical support and say something about them.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 19, 2018 6:55:01 GMT
I played this game only for 1 week by now, and already heard more than 5 non-realistic glitches or limitation this game has, not mentioning unrealistic material behavior. Those thing can be solved by community effort, which can't be done now. You should go to suggestion or technical support and say something about them. This is what I'm saying. Things can be done better than now, but people playing it say do it as it was. I don't think Qswitch hasn't added critical point of coolant, radiating more heat than it can produce, generating power without reducing heat energy to be radiated. These problems came from a small fraction of this game: Nukethermal reactor. He must have known it, but he haven't had enough time or resources to solve it out. That's why we need mod friendliness and community effort, not technical support forum. Yes, I do agree with you that this thread is not for the subject, so I wouldn't say more if not asked.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 19, 2018 8:35:23 GMT
Well, by looking at people here, I don't think they nearly care about having N-body physics for celestial bodies nor kool graphikz as much as its 'realism' and physics and maths. I do because N-body physics is a kind of realism and physics and maths, besides, if I play a non-fantasy game set in space it might as well be actually set in space and actually non-fantasy.
I do care more about that stuff because engineering inaccuracies are a given as engineering is a finicky business, OTOH Newtonian mechanics is going to hold as long as we stay outside relativistic regime.
It's just that a lot of people have too much Vesta in their heads - shellshock probably .
Regarding accuracy issues, what I would absolutely love is CoADE going open-source, but it's not my decision to make (also do consider that almost *any* one person project code is likely to induce copious eye bleeding if unleashed on unsuspecting coding community).
Like I said, I will be picky when I can afford it - so far the count of space combat sims with aspirations to pedantic realism is 1.
|
|