@SupremeDorian I figured that planet studio would be WAAAAY too much for a smartphone to run on the same app as a space simulator. Which then made me realize that if you’re trying to run 2 enormous apps at the same time, why not separate them? Hence the current form of it in SR2 could be just a planet and system viewer (sort of like a debug menu). I think the planet maker deserves its own app considering the ambitious idea behind it. At least then both the maker and the game can run on a mobile device without destroying RAM performance.
SimpleRockets 2 pros: nearly unlimited customization (at least after the suggestions functions for planet studio are released for mobile).
-Knowing every statistic known to rocket science
-easy to mod parts (including Tinker Panel) due to extensive use of XML
-a rocket scientist’s KSP(also a con if you’re looking for a lighthearted game like KSP for mobile; but the droonauts are a pretty goofy addition especially when they’re given the most swaggered names in the universe.)
Not sure if this’ll be too easy for players, but getting this to work around maneuver nodes so as to do a lunar transfer or target the launch pad so one stage of the craft could return to earth spacex style would make this 100x better. That way players wouldn’t have to multitask, and would be able to consistently get a lunar encounter or even a interplanetary encounter without input. The real challenge of that would be the programming itself, but looking at all the current functions a wait until <condition> Instruction specifies the craft’s properties and not necessarily where it is relative to planets. Even the Apollo space program used computers to program the maneuvers; the people at NASA had to do the calculations and input them into the flight computers.
I have a few suggestions for cars:
1. The Bloodhound SSC, for the sake of its rocket and jet being easy to make in game.
2. Ford GT40
3. A specialty- Ferrari 246 GT Dino (the coolest looking car ever made.)
4. Pick any from the Porsche Le Mans Series (360/1, 550, 718, 904, 906, 908, 910, 917, 936, 956, 962, 911GT1, or the 919. Either way they’re seriously impressive and deep in historical value.)
5. Cheap Builds: Volkswagen Beetle and the Willys Jeep.
@crowxe That’s a pointless proposition if he downloaded the RSS system and expected to be able to use REO, and was denied that because mods don’t work on iOS. There’s not a lot that can really help him aside from doing two things:
1. Make gigantic rockets
2. Use Methalox and some serious grade LRBs.
The truth is you really can’t change the ISP to get your craft in orbit around a much bigger planet, especially if you are putting ISP as your priority above thrust and burn time. If anything you have to ask yourself “How do I get enough Delta-V to achieve low orbit around a planet five times larger in radius?”. The short answer to that is to get the vehicle accelerating significantly above a TWR of 1 (where it will be continuously accelerating) without exceeding that TWR until you clear the atmosphere. That is why the first stage is so important and usually employed exactly like it is. Later stages which are fired in vacuum don’t need the additional TWR. That way, the amount of fuel used reduces significantly as you dial down the throttle while using the first stage and over time, the rocket uses more of its fuel towards surface velocity when it finally escapes the atmosphere on a relatively flat trajectory. Another important thing: make sure the gravity turn happens so that you are parallel to the horizon by the time you escape the atmosphere, which enhances that effect.
TDLR: Do not make the ISP your priority when launching into low orbit of any planet, especially when the planet’s gravity, like Earth’s, requires a lot of thrust firing over a long period of time to overcome falling back to the surface.
@Bmcclory Ironically that is likely the reason why NASA has failed to provide a suitable replacement; by continuing to use said engines they are finding extremely limited ways in which to use them. Even more doubtful that leftover Saturn V parts would be any better, but if we are ever going to see NASA beat out corporate space programs, we ought to vote Trump out, and somehow redistribute tax funding so NASA gets not all but a definite higher proportion of the government budget; just 50 billion of the 600 for military budget would suffice for a couple of dozen missions to different planetary system.
@Bmcclory That’s what I was thinking in that application, but when you scale it up to an airstrip, a vehicle would need a jet engine to move around a frictionless surface like a super thin fuel tank.
There have been Saturn V variants exceeding 600 feet in size... might want to tackle that after returning to making and finishing the German aggregat series rockets.
@pedro16797... which could be done by modifying the game from within its own environment. That could be done now thanks to Vizzy, eliminating the need to modify the source code.
I’m thinking there’s 2 solutions to this problem: a 2 craft and a 3 craft solution:
In the 2 craft solution, one craft can either be in space or on the ground which will serve as the trigger craft. Essentially this craft triggers step 1 and 2 from above, which will activate the launch vehicle’s sequence which will be timed as such that:
•The craft will launch x minutes after the activation program occurs
•The orbital sequence is straightforward: Make a gravity turn which puts in on a ideal trajectory, give it a standard Apoapsis such as 85-150km, and circularize, completing step 3.
-For step 3, however, a special requirement must be met: the Apoapsis or periapsis must be placed specifically in the prograde direction of Luna’s path, at roughly 30-40 degrees to the left of Luna. This will account for the timing mechanism needed to perform a prograde maneuver which will rendezvous with Luna Apollo style, fulfilling step 4.
-And the rest would be pretty straightforward. Just rely on timing of the periapsis and Apoapsis and the altitude of both.
Edit: on the 3 craft solution one craft in orbit would detect the Luna Launch window with some sort of programmable clock. A ground craft (eg. The radar) would store this data and when a spacecraft is on the launchpad it could send a signal to the radar unit which will indicate a craft ready for a lunar trip. Then the radar would receive the data from the satellite in orbit with the launch window and would launch the craft as soon as the conditions (that the craft exists and that a launch window is occurring) are met.
Edit 2: why not one craft? To reduce runtime lag. If all of these tasks were occurring on an actively operating craft (which might or might not be necessary if we can’t transmit information between craft yet) it would be bad on frame rate, as I found out while testing the Droosat launch vehicle which came out recently with 50+ satellites (and of course a monster program!) so outsourcing programs to be pre-run by other craft would simplify the craft actually going to Luna.
@Nethereal You’re right, it may not be that simple, however it’s like throwing a ball at a brick wall expecting it to hit something around a corner: if the developers design the game more strongly around Vizzy to work in this way then instead of directly programming XML which makes modding impossible for mobile, using Vizzy which is programmed by XML to modify a sandbox/game environment which is not directly part of Unity’s IP2LL (or whatever that policy is) would allow a mobile payer to modify the game without modifying the source code, as long as the current solar system isn’t part of the source code itself.
@crowxe This conversation was very interesting, but as for taking several hours for orbital decay to occur, that’s exactly what I did from a 60.2-60.8km orbit. If the flickering does in fact originate from a glitch, it might also be an inaccuracy in the precision which might be related to the glitch as a result of the inability of the orbital mechanics to interpret perfect circles (which you would think would have been considered in the game engine’s design).
@KitKart I suspect that too. Mojang created an add on installer for Minecraft, which essentially is similarly sized and with the same kind of sandbox environment, but for very different purposes and premises.
@plane918273645 Yeah but when you’re constrained to size Nozzle length and size outright can be limiting, so the other variables count especially if you don’t expect to get more than 2500 m/s like making a replica.
@PorkyClown3 Ah yes the long chain of people saying so-and-so rockets are fake because one specific detail was inaccurate. I’m not trying to be rude but it would be nice to work with the ideas even if they’re fake. In fact there’s a good number of diagrams depicting designs that never were constructed, but some were flown one way or another (ie. the Saturn V-2 was based off of one design with a small change to a sensor position onto another stage; was used in Skylab launch.)
@HorizonsTechnologies Even a year later, it is not; atmosphere starts between 58-59km now. This comment section might as well be outdated but I checked the current version.
Inglush plaez. It successfully static fired multiple times and helped streamline the process of fueling and venting Starship. It also highlighted a problem that caused one of the engines to fail.
@Pashog I had made a post like this at least 6 months ago. Doesn’t seem that easy to convert data from one game engine into another’s, but if there is an intermediate then it just might work.
Now in addition to this, we arrive to my critique of his current F/A-45A:
AG1 is mislabelled, a common theme on his aircraft by how, as Fox one. Yet when toggled, it launches no missiles at all. Why? Because upon moving slider 2 with that toggled, the rear engine vectoring kicks on. That hinge rotator he uses for the rear engine vectoring should be in AG2.
RCS should be off and center of mass should be balanced with the center of thrust. Remember, this is a VTOL aircraft, not a CTOL. If the thrust is not lifting the plane off the ground while balancing its entire mass, then the plane is likely to flip and crash, as it had for me while testing it. Also duly note that because the navball pointer starts at 90° upwards and to the north, when moving it to the prograde position, the RCS will blow on and possible cause damage to the rear elevons.
It seems this guy also uses the extended AG group modded command chips, but for some reason, the extra AG groups do not work. I suspected this is where the missiles went to.
Astonishingly, with the exception of IOS camera control, Planet Studio is now 60-80% functional as of 0.9.504! It’s beginning to seem possible to create or edit a planet.
@MansBestFriend I mean you’d technically want to do that for efficiency. But spending an hour trying to bounce a Drood by pushing up on both joystick controls to accelerate the Drood after jumping doesn’t sound nearly as fun as giving them a joyride behind a plane.
Also, see the photos on my latest craft post, (0.9.5) New plane Done Better!, and upvote if you like it. Not fishing for upvotes but figured using the plane I already made to demonstrate the most Bond thing since.. James Bond.
The joke was that at one point I couldn’t make links like that because of Chrome’s limitations, so I made this link like that so that it would not work, but I saw your comment on not spacing a part of it, and then it worked perfectly.
@HyperPatch The planets would be technically on rails. Spaceflight physics is in the game itself but mainly functions like KSP; you’re always going from one body’s sphere of influence to another. And so long as the bodies themselves aren’t complying to n body physics but 2 body, they are practically going to orbit one body while being completely unaffected by the other bodies. On rails.
But if you’re trying to have a game with spacecraft exceeding a thousand parts while using the Planet Maker to make completely wacky orbital systems... better off that either the entire game itself be closed to save the RAM for the Planet Maker while still in the game, or to have two completely different applications. For PC or Steam the package could be much simpler since you’d be installing any system you’d make into the main game anyway.
@AndrewGarrison this update is far beyond anything I expected for the next update to this game! I’ll hope to see an extremely rudimentary version of Planet Maker appear, even if it’s just a viewer for the planets and systems, but so long as there’s new content in the game itself to make things interesting, it’ll be well worth waiting for.
Anyways, does the changes in planter studio improve its current lackluster functionality on mobile? Or do we still have to dive into the xml files on the File app to make any changes?
The camera also doesn’t work either, so I was hoping that at least that could be fixed. Nothing has to be done to make it completely functional on mobile but at least the basic parts of it could be completed. Then again why not just have a separate app for making planets? The prototype of it can be in SR2 as a viewing console while the editing itself could be done in another app to improve RAM and multicore performance.
@SNSA there’s a reason math exists. I mean to say that Jundroo could think of the idea of wind like in SimplePlanes, but unlike that game’s 2 dimensional map, we’re talking about planets. Sure you could add some blanket wind that applies to the entire planet going east, but wouldn’t it be cool if they constructed a rudimentary weather system with Jet Streams (useful for aircraft, if you wanted a 350kph tailwind that is), clouds and other effects?
Why get flustered over “needless” math when it could be something interesting to add to the game? You wouldn’t even have to see it. It wouldn’t have to apply to all planets, and would differ depending on the fluctuating temperatures between different areas of certain planets.
@Insanity sure they are earth specific but so is the Newton (equal to the force required to accelerate one kg by one meter per second squared) which is also equal to an average sized apple (1N, or 1kg/9.8N). Aside from that the pascal is still an approved SI unit, and the bar is important for measuring air pressure especially if it can be said that different atmospheres on different planets have differing rates of pressure depending on their atmospheric density AND the temperature.
Air pressure in game would allow for weather and realistic water physics, for the added challenge, of course!
@SNSA atmosphere as a unit is definitely by all means an imperial measurement, but I could make an argument for bars.
Don’t understand?
A bar is a derivation of a unit derived from the ISU. By which I mean the pascal. So how is that a problem? It is still given the freedom to use to authors by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Meteorological society at large.
I really don’t have a choice but to use IOS. I could lie about why and say that I prefer the interface, but honestly, I just don’t have the money to buy even a low budget PC. It’s extremely annoying but I’m hoping that planet maker gets full iOS support in the near future!!
I was thinking more on behalf of a suggestion because literally redesigning the game’s physics wouldn’t be very easy to do; nonetheless possible with a mobile device! And air pressure greatly influences the effects of supersonic drag and lift effects, so it would be extremely difficult to model unless using the RSS sole system to get it to be 1:1.
I’m not sure at all how much denser Droo’s atmosphere is; if it is, then that would make drag after passing through 300 m/s a little funky.
You will have to understand how thrust works first. Remember that because it is constantly applying a force against the opposite direction (ie. Newton’s third law) it pushes the aircraft forwards if the thrust pushes backwards or upwards in the case of rotating the thrusters downwards. Because of that, you would have to point the jets or rockets downwards, then rotate the craft itself relative to its surface velocity (lock it’s pitch above 0 to slow the craft down when it is moving forward), and then decrease thrust a little before landing when you are hovering.
Currently noting in the IOS version that the planet studio is now able to move the camera, as well as select the celestial bodies. However no menu is up yet for modifying the celestial bodies. The perigee and apogee nodes are there but they are nonfunctional. It’s certainly a step forward!
@crowxe Long time coming for this reply: the issue was not the part of the perigee and apogee switching but the fact that they were doing it entirely while self-decaying below the Droodian Karman Line, despite the atmosphere clearly cutting off below it (at least during that version of this game we were discussing at the time.)
@OverFlow Not if you took all the ISS modules and arranged them into columns. The Saturn V-4(X)U was a set of 4 modified Saturn Vs (V-4S configuration) strapped together. Was rated at launching 527 tons (Doubtlessly more than the entire weight of the ISS) into Low Earth Orbit. Arguably the most powerful rocket ever conceived that was based on a flown design. The Sea Dragon and the second wave Nova rockets had similar if not better performance but they were only ever on paper.
Essentially, it’s the cursed idea of,” Uuuuuhhhhh, if that’s not enough payload then strap four of the damned things together and make it a giant castle of explosive fuels.”
@SupremeDorian I figured that planet studio would be WAAAAY too much for a smartphone to run on the same app as a space simulator. Which then made me realize that if you’re trying to run 2 enormous apps at the same time, why not separate them? Hence the current form of it in SR2 could be just a planet and system viewer (sort of like a debug menu). I think the planet maker deserves its own app considering the ambitious idea behind it. At least then both the maker and the game can run on a mobile device without destroying RAM performance.
+5 4.1 years agoSimpleRockets 2 pros: nearly unlimited customization (at least after the suggestions functions for planet studio are released for mobile).
+3 4.5 years ago-Knowing every statistic known to rocket science
-easy to mod parts (including Tinker Panel) due to extensive use of XML
-a rocket scientist’s KSP(also a con if you’re looking for a lighthearted game like KSP for mobile; but the droonauts are a pretty goofy addition especially when they’re given the most swaggered names in the universe.)
Not sure if this’ll be too easy for players, but getting this to work around maneuver nodes so as to do a lunar transfer or target the launch pad so one stage of the craft could return to earth spacex style would make this 100x better. That way players wouldn’t have to multitask, and would be able to consistently get a lunar encounter or even a interplanetary encounter without input. The real challenge of that would be the programming itself, but looking at all the current functions a wait until <condition> Instruction specifies the craft’s properties and not necessarily where it is relative to planets. Even the Apollo space program used computers to program the maneuvers; the people at NASA had to do the calculations and input them into the flight computers.
+2 5.0 years agoI have a few suggestions for cars:
+1 4.5 years ago1. The Bloodhound SSC, for the sake of its rocket and jet being easy to make in game.
2. Ford GT40
3. A specialty- Ferrari 246 GT Dino (the coolest looking car ever made.)
4. Pick any from the Porsche Le Mans Series (360/1, 550, 718, 904, 906, 908, 910, 917, 936, 956, 962, 911GT1, or the 919. Either way they’re seriously impressive and deep in historical value.)
5. Cheap Builds: Volkswagen Beetle and the Willys Jeep.
@crowxe That’s a pointless proposition if he downloaded the RSS system and expected to be able to use REO, and was denied that because mods don’t work on iOS. There’s not a lot that can really help him aside from doing two things:
+1 4.5 years ago1. Make gigantic rockets
2. Use Methalox and some serious grade LRBs.
The truth is you really can’t change the ISP to get your craft in orbit around a much bigger planet, especially if you are putting ISP as your priority above thrust and burn time. If anything you have to ask yourself “How do I get enough Delta-V to achieve low orbit around a planet five times larger in radius?”. The short answer to that is to get the vehicle accelerating significantly above a TWR of 1 (where it will be continuously accelerating) without exceeding that TWR until you clear the atmosphere. That is why the first stage is so important and usually employed exactly like it is. Later stages which are fired in vacuum don’t need the additional TWR. That way, the amount of fuel used reduces significantly as you dial down the throttle while using the first stage and over time, the rocket uses more of its fuel towards surface velocity when it finally escapes the atmosphere on a relatively flat trajectory. Another important thing: make sure the gravity turn happens so that you are parallel to the horizon by the time you escape the atmosphere, which enhances that effect.
TDLR: Do not make the ISP your priority when launching into low orbit of any planet, especially when the planet’s gravity, like Earth’s, requires a lot of thrust firing over a long period of time to overcome falling back to the surface.
+1 4.5 years ago@Bmcclory Ironically that is likely the reason why NASA has failed to provide a suitable replacement; by continuing to use said engines they are finding extremely limited ways in which to use them. Even more doubtful that leftover Saturn V parts would be any better, but if we are ever going to see NASA beat out corporate space programs, we ought to vote Trump out, and somehow redistribute tax funding so NASA gets not all but a definite higher proportion of the government budget; just 50 billion of the 600 for military budget would suffice for a couple of dozen missions to different planetary system.
+1 4.5 years ago@Bmcclory That’s what I was thinking in that application, but when you scale it up to an airstrip, a vehicle would need a jet engine to move around a frictionless surface like a super thin fuel tank.
+1 4.8 years agoAutomatic Interplanetary ships here we goooooo!!!!
+1 4.8 years agoThere have been Saturn V variants exceeding 600 feet in size... might want to tackle that after returning to making and finishing the German aggregat series rockets.
+1 4.9 years ago@pedro16797... which could be done by modifying the game from within its own environment. That could be done now thanks to Vizzy, eliminating the need to modify the source code.
+1 4.9 years agoI’m thinking there’s 2 solutions to this problem: a 2 craft and a 3 craft solution:
•The craft will launch x minutes after the activation program occurs
•The orbital sequence is straightforward: Make a gravity turn which puts in on a ideal trajectory, give it a standard Apoapsis such as 85-150km, and circularize, completing step 3.
-For step 3, however, a special requirement must be met: the Apoapsis or periapsis must be placed specifically in the prograde direction of Luna’s path, at roughly 30-40 degrees to the left of Luna. This will account for the timing mechanism needed to perform a prograde maneuver which will rendezvous with Luna Apollo style, fulfilling step 4.
-And the rest would be pretty straightforward. Just rely on timing of the periapsis and Apoapsis and the altitude of both.
Edit: on the 3 craft solution one craft in orbit would detect the Luna Launch window with some sort of programmable clock. A ground craft (eg. The radar) would store this data and when a spacecraft is on the launchpad it could send a signal to the radar unit which will indicate a craft ready for a lunar trip. Then the radar would receive the data from the satellite in orbit with the launch window and would launch the craft as soon as the conditions (that the craft exists and that a launch window is occurring) are met.
Edit 2: why not one craft? To reduce runtime lag. If all of these tasks were occurring on an actively operating craft (which might or might not be necessary if we can’t transmit information between craft yet) it would be bad on frame rate, as I found out while testing the Droosat launch vehicle which came out recently with 50+ satellites (and of course a monster program!) so outsourcing programs to be pre-run by other craft would simplify the craft actually going to Luna.
+1 4.9 years ago@Nethereal You’re right, it may not be that simple, however it’s like throwing a ball at a brick wall expecting it to hit something around a corner: if the developers design the game more strongly around Vizzy to work in this way then instead of directly programming XML which makes modding impossible for mobile, using Vizzy which is programmed by XML to modify a sandbox/game environment which is not directly part of Unity’s IP2LL (or whatever that policy is) would allow a mobile payer to modify the game without modifying the source code, as long as the current solar system isn’t part of the source code itself.
+1 4.9 years ago@crowxe This conversation was very interesting, but as for taking several hours for orbital decay to occur, that’s exactly what I did from a 60.2-60.8km orbit. If the flickering does in fact originate from a glitch, it might also be an inaccuracy in the precision which might be related to the glitch as a result of the inability of the orbital mechanics to interpret perfect circles (which you would think would have been considered in the game engine’s design).
+1 4.9 years ago@KitKart I suspect that too. Mojang created an add on installer for Minecraft, which essentially is similarly sized and with the same kind of sandbox environment, but for very different purposes and premises.
+1 5.0 years agoOk. Btw check out my thanksgiving challenge entry!
+1 5.0 years agohttps://www.simplerockets.com/c/XDCzNJ/A-4B-A9-V-2-Manned-Hans-Thanksgiving-Delivery-Vehicle
@plane918273645 Yeah but when you’re constrained to size Nozzle length and size outright can be limiting, so the other variables count especially if you don’t expect to get more than 2500 m/s like making a replica.
+1 5.0 years ago@PorkyClown3 Ah yes the long chain of people saying so-and-so rockets are fake because one specific detail was inaccurate. I’m not trying to be rude but it would be nice to work with the ideas even if they’re fake. In fact there’s a good number of diagrams depicting designs that never were constructed, but some were flown one way or another (ie. the Saturn V-2 was based off of one design with a small change to a sensor position onto another stage; was used in Skylab launch.)
+1 5.0 years ago@HorizonsTechnologies Even a year later, it is not; atmosphere starts between 58-59km now. This comment section might as well be outdated but I checked the current version.
3.1 years agoInglush plaez. It successfully static fired multiple times and helped streamline the process of fueling and venting Starship. It also highlighted a problem that caused one of the engines to fail.
3.8 years ago@Pashog I had made a post like this at least 6 months ago. Doesn’t seem that easy to convert data from one game engine into another’s, but if there is an intermediate then it just might work.
3.9 years ago@MansBestFriend From where? Orbit? Because the stock Drood does not have enough TWR to leave the surface of Droo.
4.1 years agoExactly what post?
4.1 years ago@MansBestFriend That’s one way. You’d need a rocket to do that though for longer ranges.
4.1 years agoNow in addition to this, we arrive to my critique of his current F/A-45A:
4.1 years agoAG1 is mislabelled, a common theme on his aircraft by how, as Fox one. Yet when toggled, it launches no missiles at all. Why? Because upon moving slider 2 with that toggled, the rear engine vectoring kicks on. That hinge rotator he uses for the rear engine vectoring should be in AG2.
RCS should be off and center of mass should be balanced with the center of thrust. Remember, this is a VTOL aircraft, not a CTOL. If the thrust is not lifting the plane off the ground while balancing its entire mass, then the plane is likely to flip and crash, as it had for me while testing it. Also duly note that because the navball pointer starts at 90° upwards and to the north, when moving it to the prograde position, the RCS will blow on and possible cause damage to the rear elevons.
It seems this guy also uses the extended AG group modded command chips, but for some reason, the extra AG groups do not work. I suspected this is where the missiles went to.
Astonishingly, with the exception of IOS camera control, Planet Studio is now 60-80% functional as of 0.9.504! It’s beginning to seem possible to create or edit a planet.
4.1 years agoSpeaking of WTF, the Drood I tested this with was William Theodore Friendly.
4.1 years ago@MansBestFriend I mean you’d technically want to do that for efficiency. But spending an hour trying to bounce a Drood by pushing up on both joystick controls to accelerate the Drood after jumping doesn’t sound nearly as fun as giving them a joyride behind a plane.
4.1 years ago@PointBreak yep.
4.1 years agoAlso, see the photos on my latest craft post,
4.1 years ago(0.9.5) New plane Done Better!, and upvote if you like it. Not fishing for upvotes but figured using the plane I already made to demonstrate the most Bond thing since.. James Bond.
@Chtite451SR2
The joke was that at one point I couldn’t make links like that because of Chrome’s limitations, so I made this link like that so that it would not work, but I saw your comment on not spacing a part of it, and then it worked perfectly.
So now it’s just a sarcastic joke.
4.1 years ago@Chtite451SR2 joke’s on you. It was a joke.
4.1 years ago@Chtite451SR2
[In Case Formatted Links Still Definitely Don’t Work]
4.1 years ago@Chtite451SR2
Satisfied?
That’s why satire has no boundaries.
4.1 years ago@HyperPatch The planets would be technically on rails. Spaceflight physics is in the game itself but mainly functions like KSP; you’re always going from one body’s sphere of influence to another. And so long as the bodies themselves aren’t complying to n body physics but 2 body, they are practically going to orbit one body while being completely unaffected by the other bodies. On rails.
But if you’re trying to have a game with spacecraft exceeding a thousand parts while using the Planet Maker to make completely wacky orbital systems... better off that either the entire game itself be closed to save the RAM for the Planet Maker while still in the game, or to have two completely different applications. For PC or Steam the package could be much simpler since you’d be installing any system you’d make into the main game anyway.
@AndrewGarrison this update is far beyond anything I expected for the next update to this game! I’ll hope to see an extremely rudimentary version of Planet Maker appear, even if it’s just a viewer for the planets and systems, but so long as there’s new content in the game itself to make things interesting, it’ll be well worth waiting for.
4.1 years agoThe good feels when you’re the fiftieth upvote.
Anyways, does the changes in planter studio improve its current lackluster functionality on mobile? Or do we still have to dive into the xml files on the File app to make any changes?
The camera also doesn’t work either, so I was hoping that at least that could be fixed. Nothing has to be done to make it completely functional on mobile but at least the basic parts of it could be completed. Then again why not just have a separate app for making planets? The prototype of it can be in SR2 as a viewing console while the editing itself could be done in another app to improve RAM and multicore performance.
4.1 years ago@HyperPatch Thank you for a straight answer regarding this. Hope 0.9.600 changes things enough.
4.1 years ago@SNSA there’s a reason math exists. I mean to say that Jundroo could think of the idea of wind like in SimplePlanes, but unlike that game’s 2 dimensional map, we’re talking about planets. Sure you could add some blanket wind that applies to the entire planet going east, but wouldn’t it be cool if they constructed a rudimentary weather system with Jet Streams (useful for aircraft, if you wanted a 350kph tailwind that is), clouds and other effects?
Why get flustered over “needless” math when it could be something interesting to add to the game? You wouldn’t even have to see it. It wouldn’t have to apply to all planets, and would differ depending on the fluctuating temperatures between different areas of certain planets.
4.1 years ago@Insanity sure they are earth specific but so is the Newton (equal to the force required to accelerate one kg by one meter per second squared) which is also equal to an average sized apple (1N, or 1kg/9.8N). Aside from that the pascal is still an approved SI unit, and the bar is important for measuring air pressure especially if it can be said that different atmospheres on different planets have differing rates of pressure depending on their atmospheric density AND the temperature.
Air pressure in game would allow for weather and realistic water physics, for the added challenge, of course!
4.1 years ago@SNSA atmosphere as a unit is definitely by all means an imperial measurement, but I could make an argument for bars.
Don’t understand?
A bar is a derivation of a unit derived from the ISU. By which I mean the pascal. So how is that a problem? It is still given the freedom to use to authors by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Meteorological society at large.
4.1 years ago@SNSA
What do you mean insane?
4.1 years agoI really don’t have a choice but to use IOS. I could lie about why and say that I prefer the interface, but honestly, I just don’t have the money to buy even a low budget PC. It’s extremely annoying but I’m hoping that planet maker gets full iOS support in the near future!!
4.1 years agoWhat happaned?
4.1 years ago@AnotherFireFox
I was thinking more on behalf of a suggestion because literally redesigning the game’s physics wouldn’t be very easy to do; nonetheless possible with a mobile device! And air pressure greatly influences the effects of supersonic drag and lift effects, so it would be extremely difficult to model unless using the RSS sole system to get it to be 1:1.
I’m not sure at all how much denser Droo’s atmosphere is; if it is, then that would make drag after passing through 300 m/s a little funky.
4.4 years agoFirst of all, Simple pedia .
And this other site from @sflanker makes it largely redundant.
4.4 years agoYou will have to understand how thrust works first. Remember that because it is constantly applying a force against the opposite direction (ie. Newton’s third law) it pushes the aircraft forwards if the thrust pushes backwards or upwards in the case of rotating the thrusters downwards. Because of that, you would have to point the jets or rockets downwards, then rotate the craft itself relative to its surface velocity (lock it’s pitch above 0 to slow the craft down when it is moving forward), and then decrease thrust a little before landing when you are hovering.
4.4 years agoCurrently noting in the IOS version that the planet studio is now able to move the camera, as well as select the celestial bodies. However no menu is up yet for modifying the celestial bodies. The perigee and apogee nodes are there but they are nonfunctional. It’s certainly a step forward!
4.5 years ago@crowxe Long time coming for this reply: the issue was not the part of the perigee and apogee switching but the fact that they were doing it entirely while self-decaying below the Droodian Karman Line, despite the atmosphere clearly cutting off below it (at least during that version of this game we were discussing at the time.)
4.5 years ago@OverFlow Not if you took all the ISS modules and arranged them into columns. The Saturn V-4(X)U was a set of 4 modified Saturn Vs (V-4S configuration) strapped together. Was rated at launching 527 tons (Doubtlessly more than the entire weight of the ISS) into Low Earth Orbit. Arguably the most powerful rocket ever conceived that was based on a flown design. The Sea Dragon and the second wave Nova rockets had similar if not better performance but they were only ever on paper.
Essentially, it’s the cursed idea of,” Uuuuuhhhhh, if that’s not enough payload then strap four of the damned things together and make it a giant castle of explosive fuels.”
4.5 years agoThe Saturn V-4(X)U with the entire International Space Station as the payload somehow folded up in a fairing.
4.5 years ago