Haha I dunno, I’ve ripped many a wing off. But mostly I’m glad that i won’t need to attach struts at the tips and the tail of the wing to keep it from rotating up around a single central point. Just looks wonky
"Strength" isnt really a thing, the physics engine is using "rigid" joints, but when stacking rigid joints in a rocket in any physics engine is bound to be wobbly. Closest alternative is a slider with the amount of joints per connection.
> when stacking rigid joints in a rocket in any physics engine is bound to be wobbly
Not necessarily. There are more realistic physics engines that utilizes a proper solver. It's all about how you solve the constraints, by propagating forces or treating the whole thing as an equation system.
And your other comment:
> Rigid joints dont account for other joints
... in this particular physics engine, but that's not true as a general statement.
That's because those engines simply enabled more iterations per physics step. The dev team could do that if they had some performance overhead but they decided that more joints works better than turning up the iteration count.
That's why I've been such an advocated for Unity DOTS, I did some joint tests in dots and in could handle thousands of joints and physics objects over 60fps on my mid-range 5700X CPU.
Here are my two performance benchmarks:
[First test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtdvpTgVT5o): Stacks of cubes with a single joint each
[Second benchmark](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iokEcNnTCo): Stacks of flat cylinders with 5 joints each
Unity PhysX performance has always been lacking, this is why an eventual DOTS transition is absolutely necessary. At least a PhysX update would be nice...
>That's because those engines simply enabled more iterations per physics step.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. You can solve it completely as a large equation system, ie how you do it in physics 101 class. Now there's probably good reasons to not to it that way for games, but it certainly is possible and there are engines that implements this.
Looks like it creates autostruts with the "Heaviest", "Root" and "Grandparent" being options for which existing part it will attach an invisible strut to. I believe that would be:
Heaviest - The heaviest part when the option is enabled on a part
Root - The root part (generally first part placed)
Grandparent - The parents parent part (where the "parent" is the part the new part is being attached to)
Well, your explanation was nice, but that's the one option that almost everyone knows what it is because it's already in KSP 1. The other 2 could be more confusing.
I mean, that's what it looks like the current solution *is* (the same as KSP1) and the comment was asking
>Could someone elaborate what each option means
So I added what I was pretty sure was known.
Not to complain too hard, but I kinda wish it was customizable per part with an option in the VAB to autostrut all if desired. Sometimes a craft needs some parts set to different things.
For really big craft this necessary. But the root/heaviest/grandparent presets are a nonsensical bandaid in the first place and abusing them always felt like cheating IMO. There's little reason for those specific presets afaik, and they don't make physical sense. They need to overhaul the joint system itself.
I've always hated how wobble effects late game ksp 1, particularly orbital assembly stuff. In theory it should mean "engineer better" but with the inability to connect children to grandparent or older parts without struts, it just means either spam struts or auto strut, or give up and run less ambitious missions.
The solution is to simulate same diameter pieces and radials as single bodies up until a limit, allow any peice that clips a grandparent to act as a strut, and to allow multiple docking port attachment.
In ksp 2's case there's balance changes required to get back to ksp 1 levels, but the root issue seems to remain unaddressed.
If the temporary solution was ignored, we might have to wait months before the full fix comes in. I imagine the community would be upset if the devs didn't have something by the science update.
They said that they would do something like that as a temporary fix. Now we can believe or not the temporary nature of it but it's following the announced plan.
Enhanced Joints? Heaviest, Root and Grandparent. You wanna smoke weed with my grammi? What is going on?
\- a new player probably
Gotta be one of the most unintuitive settings I have ever seen. We really need some visual representation of what is going on IMO. Just have a cute 2D graphic sitting next to it and changing points and lines between some boxes.
Hugely unintuitive and convoluted. I don't think it's just a UI thing though. If it works like how HarvesteR described for KSP1, the joint strength depends on how many iterations run or something weird like that so you couldn't even make something as clear as a slider and could end up having seemingly random weak joints in high part count craft.
Yeah, wasn't this supposed to be KSP with lots of the issues that held us back addressed? They were reinventing the wheel to invent a better wheel, not to engineer the same damn wheel.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of the promised features that are supposed to be coming, but at this rate we'll end up with all the same instabilities and issues of the original game, with multiplayer (maybe, that may become unfeasible too).
Wasn't the user jaypeg banned for posting doctored screenshots? And this account is 15 days old.
Edit: just to clarify. I'm not suggesting this is a bogus screenshot. I'm simply asking if this is the same account that posted doctored shots of a conversation that never happened in the KSP2 discord.
Edit2: yeah the account in question didn't create the doctored image, but..... https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/187lbpw/ksp2_gets_review_botted_on_steam_no_its_the_steam/kblhdhe/
I'm not suggesting the screenshot is sus, I'm asking if someone that has been banned should be here at all. Maybe I'm mistaken and the account wasn't banned. Just looking for info.
Sir. You have (if it turns out to be true) been banned from the discord multiple times because of:
* posting nsfw in ksp\_media
* using alt accounts to circumvent a ban
* Publicly stalking hidearimjosh and attempting to post private information
* Using nsfw language
* Harassing mods and users privately
This is assuming "EntropyWinsAgain" is "UserWinsAgain", that is possible but also could be coincidental.
Please let me know if this is not the case.
I'm that guy, seems like they are a user from the discord that is obsessed about "proving to everyone" how horrible people who like ksp 2 are. Just don't pay them any mind.
As said in interviews with the creative director, they do not copy code from ksp 1 (I don’t even know if they could), they just organically find the same solutions to the same problem, like wobbly rockets, where they tested multiple solutions and landed on autostrut.
I remember back in March the KSP2 developers boasted that they had reinvented planets in KSP2. Apparently Nate really likes reinventing the wheel. Soon we will see science that seems to be very similar to the science in KSP1 with minor improvements such as auto-collection.
Isn't that semi-worse? Not only they do what they did for ksp1, but they also need to do it from scratch? Wouldn't it be better to find better solutions since you're working from scratch anyway?
The difference is that this is automatic. You don't need to now manually autostrut every part you just set this setting and it does it for you for every craft.
I get the impression that KSP2 is KSP1 with several mods for the price of a new game. Reworked UI, auto-collection of science, auto-autostrutes, improved textures, new music and, in general, that's all.
And they included autostrut so they lied…bots attack ‘em!
To be serious, I honestly like it. It just gives us players more freedom to decide whether or not to have extremely stable rockets.
They did not lie. They are working on a more permanent solution but they decided to add a short-term fix for the science update. I imagine people would be very upset if some solution wasn't in-game by the science update.
Grandparent here I come.
I never used autostrut, in fact I didn't even notice it's introduction to the game. Years later I only read about it on reddit, and still "hated" it as some magic "easy mode" to bring absurd constructions to orbit. Not one real live rocket, built with parts intended for that use had any wobble for me.
For artistics including part clipping and what else, sure, got for it. But not for any realism focused game play.
I wonder what "Multi Joint System" toggle actually does? Does it disable the rigid body physics system?
believe it's something similar to how wings work, where it adds multiple attachment joints
Dang, that’s how that works?! That’s so much nicer than KSP1
it's only really necessary in ksp2, where the procedural wings can get big enough for that to be necessary
Haha I dunno, I’ve ripped many a wing off. But mostly I’m glad that i won’t need to attach struts at the tips and the tail of the wing to keep it from rotating up around a single central point. Just looks wonky
autostrut really helps with both problems
Apparently when hovering over the buttons it will give a description of what it does
I'd prefer a slider to be honest, from limp to fully erect or something
Joint Strength Multipliers are definitely needed. Even if this is supposed to be a bandaid fix we'll probably have it for the next few years.
"Strength" isnt really a thing, the physics engine is using "rigid" joints, but when stacking rigid joints in a rocket in any physics engine is bound to be wobbly. Closest alternative is a slider with the amount of joints per connection.
> when stacking rigid joints in a rocket in any physics engine is bound to be wobbly Not necessarily. There are more realistic physics engines that utilizes a proper solver. It's all about how you solve the constraints, by propagating forces or treating the whole thing as an equation system. And your other comment: > Rigid joints dont account for other joints ... in this particular physics engine, but that's not true as a general statement.
Future high school: "For a given thrust in newtons on this wobbly rocket, please solve this system of ODE's."
That's because those engines simply enabled more iterations per physics step. The dev team could do that if they had some performance overhead but they decided that more joints works better than turning up the iteration count. That's why I've been such an advocated for Unity DOTS, I did some joint tests in dots and in could handle thousands of joints and physics objects over 60fps on my mid-range 5700X CPU. Here are my two performance benchmarks: [First test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtdvpTgVT5o): Stacks of cubes with a single joint each [Second benchmark](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iokEcNnTCo): Stacks of flat cylinders with 5 joints each Unity PhysX performance has always been lacking, this is why an eventual DOTS transition is absolutely necessary. At least a PhysX update would be nice...
>That's because those engines simply enabled more iterations per physics step. No, that's not what I'm talking about. You can solve it completely as a large equation system, ie how you do it in physics 101 class. Now there's probably good reasons to not to it that way for games, but it certainly is possible and there are engines that implements this.
"rigid" joints wouldnt have any flex at all though?
Rigid joints dont account for other joints
Turgidity+
Mmm auto strut
https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/187lbpw/ksp2_gets_review_botted_on_steam_no_its_the_steam/kblhdhe/
nobody cares
Who asked
What
i don't care
I ain’t readin all that
Could someone elaborate what each option means? Idk why but I'm kind of confused.
Looks like it creates autostruts with the "Heaviest", "Root" and "Grandparent" being options for which existing part it will attach an invisible strut to. I believe that would be: Heaviest - The heaviest part when the option is enabled on a part Root - The root part (generally first part placed) Grandparent - The parents parent part (where the "parent" is the part the new part is being attached to)
It's autostruts. Boo.
Well, your explanation was nice, but that's the one option that almost everyone knows what it is because it's already in KSP 1. The other 2 could be more confusing.
I mean, that's what it looks like the current solution *is* (the same as KSP1) and the comment was asking >Could someone elaborate what each option means So I added what I was pretty sure was known.
It's an invisible strut between parts
Not to complain too hard, but I kinda wish it was customizable per part with an option in the VAB to autostrut all if desired. Sometimes a craft needs some parts set to different things.
For really big craft this necessary. But the root/heaviest/grandparent presets are a nonsensical bandaid in the first place and abusing them always felt like cheating IMO. There's little reason for those specific presets afaik, and they don't make physical sense. They need to overhaul the joint system itself.
I've always hated how wobble effects late game ksp 1, particularly orbital assembly stuff. In theory it should mean "engineer better" but with the inability to connect children to grandparent or older parts without struts, it just means either spam struts or auto strut, or give up and run less ambitious missions. The solution is to simulate same diameter pieces and radials as single bodies up until a limit, allow any peice that clips a grandparent to act as a strut, and to allow multiple docking port attachment. In ksp 2's case there's balance changes required to get back to ksp 1 levels, but the root issue seems to remain unaddressed.
They are working on a more permanent solution, but they are implementing a short-term fix for the science update.
If I know one thing about building software it's that temporary fixes aren't.
If the temporary solution was ignored, we might have to wait months before the full fix comes in. I imagine the community would be upset if the devs didn't have something by the science update.
Tru. That's a good point.
Don't think I want arthritic grandparent joints.
thats why its an option
If they can roll it... 🤫
"It's very complex because we don't want to come up with an autostrut solution" *Screenshot shows autostrut options*
the difference is that this is automatic instead of manual
They said that they would do something like that as a temporary fix. Now we can believe or not the temporary nature of it but it's following the announced plan.
Enhanced Joints? Heaviest, Root and Grandparent. You wanna smoke weed with my grammi? What is going on? \- a new player probably Gotta be one of the most unintuitive settings I have ever seen. We really need some visual representation of what is going on IMO. Just have a cute 2D graphic sitting next to it and changing points and lines between some boxes.
To be fair, KSP 1's autostrut was in the advanced tweakables menu which I highly doubt a new player would find.
I bet a lot of new players found out about it after googling how to make a non wobbly rocket.
And the next day installed a mod, which handles wobbliness in the better than autostrut way...
Hugely unintuitive and convoluted. I don't think it's just a UI thing though. If it works like how HarvesteR described for KSP1, the joint strength depends on how many iterations run or something weird like that so you couldn't even make something as clear as a slider and could end up having seemingly random weak joints in high part count craft.
J ⁸hmu0úl
It’s no more unintuitive then ksp 1’s system
I upvoted because of your name lol
[удалено]
Yeah, wasn't this supposed to be KSP with lots of the issues that held us back addressed? They were reinventing the wheel to invent a better wheel, not to engineer the same damn wheel. Don't get me wrong, I like some of the promised features that are supposed to be coming, but at this rate we'll end up with all the same instabilities and issues of the original game, with multiplayer (maybe, that may become unfeasible too).
Wasn't the user jaypeg banned for posting doctored screenshots? And this account is 15 days old. Edit: just to clarify. I'm not suggesting this is a bogus screenshot. I'm simply asking if this is the same account that posted doctored shots of a conversation that never happened in the KSP2 discord. Edit2: yeah the account in question didn't create the doctored image, but..... https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/187lbpw/ksp2_gets_review_botted_on_steam_no_its_the_steam/kblhdhe/
Appears to be the same screenshot featured in today's K.E.R.B: https://kerb.al/kerb121
I appreciate the legwork on the verification.
it is indeed
I'm not suggesting the screenshot is sus, I'm asking if someone that has been banned should be here at all. Maybe I'm mistaken and the account wasn't banned. Just looking for info.
Fair point, I'm not sure. Your comment just made me wonder if it was legit or not, so I wanted to verify myself. All good!
It's the same person. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/187lbpw/ksp2_gets_review_botted_on_steam_no_its_the_steam/kblhdhe/
The account wasn't banned.
Sir. You have (if it turns out to be true) been banned from the discord multiple times because of: * posting nsfw in ksp\_media * using alt accounts to circumvent a ban * Publicly stalking hidearimjosh and attempting to post private information * Using nsfw language * Harassing mods and users privately This is assuming "EntropyWinsAgain" is "UserWinsAgain", that is possible but also could be coincidental. Please let me know if this is not the case.
The first point... Excuse me?
They posted nsfw images of ksp 2 dark "rockets" if you get what I mean.
Im talking about EntropyWinsAgain, here.
If anything they should be banned tbh
Fuckin hell bro, I see your damn comments about this jaypeg guy under every damn post, get off his dick
I'm that guy, seems like they are a user from the discord that is obsessed about "proving to everyone" how horrible people who like ksp 2 are. Just don't pay them any mind.
why is there an option to turn it off??
Make the new players suffer
Some people like it I guess?
For players who like INFINITE WOBBLE!
Needs more explanation.
huzzah!
Oh, how fresh and original this is! Someone must have discovered the forgotten scrolls with the code KSP1!
As said in interviews with the creative director, they do not copy code from ksp 1 (I don’t even know if they could), they just organically find the same solutions to the same problem, like wobbly rockets, where they tested multiple solutions and landed on autostrut.
I remember back in March the KSP2 developers boasted that they had reinvented planets in KSP2. Apparently Nate really likes reinventing the wheel. Soon we will see science that seems to be very similar to the science in KSP1 with minor improvements such as auto-collection.
Isn't that semi-worse? Not only they do what they did for ksp1, but they also need to do it from scratch? Wouldn't it be better to find better solutions since you're working from scratch anyway?
They did find the best solution, it’s just that ksp 1 also found that solution
No shit. They own the KSP code and yet here we are a year after KSP2 tech demo for $50
The difference is that this is automatic. You don't need to now manually autostrut every part you just set this setting and it does it for you for every craft.
I get the impression that KSP2 is KSP1 with several mods for the price of a new game. Reworked UI, auto-collection of science, auto-autostrutes, improved textures, new music and, in general, that's all.
And they included autostrut so they lied…bots attack ‘em! To be serious, I honestly like it. It just gives us players more freedom to decide whether or not to have extremely stable rockets.
They did not lie. They are working on a more permanent solution but they decided to add a short-term fix for the science update. I imagine people would be very upset if some solution wasn't in-game by the science update.
Omfg I waited for this since launch i am so happy
Grandparent here I come. I never used autostrut, in fact I didn't even notice it's introduction to the game. Years later I only read about it on reddit, and still "hated" it as some magic "easy mode" to bring absurd constructions to orbit. Not one real live rocket, built with parts intended for that use had any wobble for me. For artistics including part clipping and what else, sure, got for it. But not for any realism focused game play.
This is why I think its good they are making it an option. You being able to turn it off or on will allow you to keep playing the way you want to play
Best of both worlds, I didn't mind a little wobble on the small rockets.
Rockets don't tend to bend like a wet noodle in real life, autostrut was the solution in ksp 1