![]() ![]() And it is realistic since most rockets have all their basic tasks fully automated and the pilot only needs to intervene when something goes wrong.Īnd perhaps have a system that creates random problems every now and then so that the player has to take over. an interestingly inaccurate taste.Originally posted by washu73:I think an autopilot system should be part of the basic game this time around. I don't use its auto dock, auto land, etc functions because I prefer to do those manually myself, but saying MJ does things badly is. Takes away a ton of tedium once you've manually flown your own rockets to orbit for thousands of launches over the years. MJ is a godsend after my 6k-ish hours in KSP 1. ) are just artificial limits in the "gamey" version (well, apart from WASM memory - the "cheaty" version is limited to whatever leftovers of real RAM KSP2 doesn't gobble up).ĭoes most of it badly? Please share whatever you're smoking. The rest (WASM memory, program size, in-game resource consumption. Which means the main difference between the "gamey" and the "cheaty" version is that the first ties WASM execution speed to in-game time and sets an artificial limit on WASM instructions per in-game second, while the second runs WASM asynchronously as fast as the real CPU allows. "cheaty" ascent guidance can be run on the "gamey" version as well (provided the simulated computer in the "gamey" version is powerful enough).Īnd I think we can even share a lot of the implementation - after all, if you're going to run WASM in a dotnet environment and want to have it portable across operating systems, you pretty much have to use wasmtime-dotnet (or do you know of any other portable dotnet embedded WASM runtime?). I think we should at least try to come up with a common host interface for both, so that the same WASM code that powers a e.g. I'm more interested in focusing on just making it easier to do optimization and control theory And if Sarbs tries to build MJ for KSP2 then I might jump in and help since I certainly would want to see it not fail. Other people could build MJ-like simple launchers on top of that (in languages other than C#).īut I don't even own KSP2 right now and I'm in watch and wait mode. Then I'd like to build a much better transfer planner/flyby finder/maneuver editor/executor, but focusing on expert use cases rather than novice. My thoughts though are that I'd rather build something so that WASM code built in other languages could run against KSP2 (kind of kRPC without the socket communication) along with a set of library code (lambert solvers, PIDs, optimization algorithms from alglib, etc) could be available to that framework "free of charge" along with sane right-handed vector/matrix/quaternion objects. There's obviously a high level of demand for KSP2 mods that do what MJ does for KSP1. ![]() The work I've done (nearly merged now) on extracting a lot of the code that I wrote into a more permissively licensed library IS really geared towards letting people copy battle tested code out of MJ and build mods. It attempts to do everything and does most of it badly. I'm somewhat unconvinced that MJ is the right way to go. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |