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.
"Solved it" for a game just means "approximated it well enough that the average user won't notice".
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.
2 body orbits shouldn't be a problem. They are easily solvable. 3 body systems are the ones that are problematic.
Yeah, he says n-body problem in the video I linked above. I have no idea why I am saying 2 body problem.
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
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.
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
Problematic in a computer model or...? How does real space travel account for the gravitational pull of 3+ celestial bodies?
Roughly, that's why long distance missions need mid course correction burns.
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.
"Solved it" for a game just means "approximated it well enough that the average user won't notice".
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
2 body orbits shouldn't be a problem. They are easily solvable. 3 body systems are the ones that are problematic.
Yeah, he says n-body problem in the video I linked above. I have no idea why I am saying 2 body problem.
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
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.
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
Problematic in a computer model or...? How does real space travel account for the gravitational pull of 3+ celestial bodies?
Roughly, that's why long distance missions need mid course correction burns.