Suggestions! (new)

What did you draw?
User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby testtubegames » Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:08 pm

wtg62 wrote:Add an option in the visual settings menu that allows for customization of how much of a planets trajectory is predicted.

Ah, yes, that'll be so easy... and it's indeed something I'd like to add.

As for the predictions, it'd be pretty hard to calculate what *would* happen for any large-ish number of objects. It'd slow down the simulation a bunch, and right now, at least, the 'approximate' prediction seems to be working. I'll note that KSP has it pretty darn easy, with only a few massive objects.

Though when there are only a few objects on the screen, it *could* be possible. Not sure if it'd be worth the hassle of implementing predictions piecemeal, though. I'll put it in my 'ponder' box

exfret
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby exfret » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:41 pm

You could also have an option of "crazy accurate," "reasonably accurate," and "just a guess." Crazy accurate would be like KSP (I assume, but I've never played KSP), reasonably accurate would be KSP plus some simplifications/assumptions/rounding, and just a guess would be what the simulator does now (which I assume is plotting the trajectory based on everything's current position).
Nobody ever notices my signature. ):

A Random Player
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby A Random Player » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:14 pm

exfret wrote:You could also have an option of "crazy accurate," "reasonably accurate," and "just a guess." Crazy accurate would be like KSP (I assume, but I've never played KSP), reasonably accurate would be KSP plus some simplifications/assumptions/rounding, and just a guess would be what the simulator does now (which I assume is plotting the trajectory based on everything's current position).

Nope, KSP accurate would basically mean "wrong" in this sim, since its purpose is to use a 1-body approximation and GSim is n-body numerical. We already have the quality settings, so I guess we could add a "less accurate/faster" and a "more accurate/slower" presets. Custom is slightly daunting for beginners (but tutorials will help when they are added; ex. what's BH?)
$1 = 100¢ = (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2 = $0.01 = 1¢ [1]
Always check your units or you will have no money!

User avatar
wtg62
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:30 pm
Location: Texas, United States

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby wtg62 » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:05 am

testtubegames wrote:Ah, yes, that'll be so easy... and it's indeed something I'd like to add.

As for the predictions, it'd be pretty hard to calculate what *would* happen for any large-ish number of objects. It'd slow down the simulation a bunch, and right now, at least, the 'approximate' prediction seems to be working. I'll note that KSP has it pretty darn easy, with only a few massive objects.

Though when there are only a few objects on the screen, it *could* be possible. Not sure if it'd be worth the hassle of implementing predictions piecemeal, though. I'll put it in my 'ponder' box


If the game is paused, it would be easy for GSim predict trajectories like that.
So if paused, use KSP-like prediction. If unpaused, use current behavior.
Users could force the game to use the KSP style trajectory prediction via an option, regardless of the paused state.
This message has been brought to you by wtg62, duh!

exfret
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby exfret » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:33 pm

A Random Player wrote:ex. what's BH?


At first I thought you were talking to me... Maybe you should spell it out.
Nobody ever notices my signature. ):

User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby testtubegames » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:16 pm

exfret wrote:You could also have an option of "crazy accurate," "reasonably accurate," and "just a guess." Crazy accurate would be like KSP (I assume, but I've never played KSP), reasonably accurate would be KSP plus some simplifications/assumptions/rounding, and just a guess would be what the simulator does now (which I assume is plotting the trajectory based on everything's current position).

Interesting - agreed. Right now auto does this work for you, jumping between the accuracies depending on how many planets there are. But, indeed, 'custom' is daunting, so why not have a few presets people can choose from. I'll play around with this.

I'm also exploring tweaks to the orbit lines. I've been planning to add a setting with medium-length lines (that disappear after a set amount of time, so the planets have trails as they move). But, in doing so, I realized there are a bunch of ways to speed up the drawings. The simplest is just to draw points each time-step instead of full lines. I realized this could be a nice setting for either stylistic preference... or when you've got a bunch of stuff on the screen.
wtg62 wrote:If the game is paused, it would be easy for GSim predict trajectories like that.
So if paused, use KSP-like prediction. If unpaused, use current behavior.
Users could force the game to use the KSP style trajectory prediction via an option, regardless of the paused state.

I'll give it a shot and see how performance/accuracy fare. Paused vs. Unpaused would only help a little bit, though, since the sim would have to recalculate the prediction each moment, anyway. (Though of course you save on the fact that the sim doesn't have much else to do when it's paused). It'd have to recalculate, since any small change in velocity of your flung planet would affect the future.

AlternateGravity
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 5:45 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby AlternateGravity » Thu May 15, 2014 6:18 pm

Being able to adjust the number of dimensions would be nice. I would like to be able to see rather planets orbit the same way using varying inverse laws if the number of dimensions is different. In 4d it's possible to have a double rotation rather than just a single rotation so I want to see if that effects the orbit of planets when the same inverse laws are used.

Also I would like to be able to adjust the equation F=ma to see how changing the equation for inertia affects the behavior of a planet when the same inverse laws are used. For instance I would like to see how planets would behave if the equation F=ma^2 is used in place of F=ma.
Gravitons would be my favorite particle as their existence could prove extra dimensions.

User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby testtubegames » Thu May 15, 2014 11:02 pm

AlternateGravity wrote:Being able to adjust the number of dimensions would be nice. I would like to be able to see rather planets orbit the same way using varying inverse laws if the number of dimensions is different. In 4d it's possible to have a double rotation rather than just a single rotation so I want to see if that effects the orbit of planets when the same inverse laws are used.

Also I would like to be able to adjust the equation F=ma to see how changing the equation for inertia affects the behavior of a planet when the same inverse laws are used. For instance I would like to see how planets would behave if the equation F=ma^2 is used in place of F=ma.

Hey, aptly named AlternateGravity, welcome to the forums!

To your first point about different dimensions, I like that idea, since it *is* an interesting concept. By my understanding, if gravity were in a 2D world, it 'would' be 1/r, if it were in 4D it 'would' be 1/r^3. Now, this is the type of change you can already add into the simulation, of course. But I could see how explicitly adding a 'dimension' option might be fun... where if you select 2D, it'll multiply *whatever* force law you've input by r, say. For 4D it divides it by r.

The only issue that springs to mind is that, of course, the game is always gonna be a 2D slice of the world. I'd hate to get anyone's hopes up that they're about to see a game in 3D or even (gasp) 4D.

For the mass law, perhaps instead of changing F=ma, I could allow you to enter 'mass' as a variable into the Fgravity function? That would mean you don't have to juggle two different equations, and you should be able to explore what that world would look like.

A Random Player
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby A Random Player » Fri May 16, 2014 4:31 pm

testtubegames wrote:
AlternateGravity wrote:Being able to adjust the number of dimensions would be nice. I would like to be able to see rather planets orbit the same way using varying inverse laws if the number of dimensions is different. In 4d it's possible to have a double rotation rather than just a single rotation so I want to see if that effects the orbit of planets when the same inverse laws are used.

Also I would like to be able to adjust the equation F=ma to see how changing the equation for inertia affects the behavior of a planet when the same inverse laws are used. For instance I would like to see how planets would behave if the equation F=ma^2 is used in place of F=ma.

Hey, aptly named AlternateGravity, welcome to the forums!

To your first point about different dimensions, I like that idea, since it *is* an interesting concept. By my understanding, if gravity were in a 2D world, it 'would' be 1/r, if it were in 4D it 'would' be 1/r^3. Now, this is the type of change you can already add into the simulation, of course. But I could see how explicitly adding a 'dimension' option might be fun... where if you select 2D, it'll multiply *whatever* force law you've input by r, say. For 4D it divides it by r.

The only issue that springs to mind is that, of course, the game is always gonna be a 2D slice of the world. I'd hate to get anyone's hopes up that they're about to see a game in 3D or even (gasp) 4D.

For the mass law, perhaps instead of changing F=ma, I could allow you to enter 'mass' as a variable into the Fgravity function? That would mean you don't have to juggle two different equations, and you should be able to explore what that world would look like.

3D wouldn't be that hard (*cough* my 3d points *cough*) but its main problem would be difficulty to use. Right now you can just drag the screen and scroll to zoom, but when you have 3d, you'd have to add another axis of movement, and possible rotations.
$1 = 100¢ = (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2 = $0.01 = 1¢ [1]
Always check your units or you will have no money!

User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Suggestions! (new)

Postby testtubegames » Fri May 16, 2014 5:07 pm

A Random Player wrote:3D wouldn't be that hard (*cough* my 3d points *cough*) but its main problem would be difficulty to use. Right now you can just drag the screen and scroll to zoom, but when you have 3d, you'd have to add another axis of movement, and possible rotations.

Bingo. It wouldn't be that hard to build the game in 3D. But it would be a lot harder to play with and manipulate objects. I like how in 2D, the controls are so easy.


Return to “Gravity Simulator”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest