Is there a Center of Mass, Lift, Buoyancy, and Thrust display in that game?

[Neyna]

Hello,

before buying it i would like to know if there are a Center of Mass, Lift, Buoyancy, and Thrust display in that game.

Thanks :)

[Mondo Topless]

There is a CoG and the propulsion items have thrust indication arrows you can compare to the CoG but there is no hard numbers displayed that show AMOUNTS of thrust or angular torque induced by the thrust.

[Zulban]

Mondo's post is in review, but unless the new update added more the only displays are center of mass.
E: so yes, what he said

[Neyna]

Thanks for your answers. Anything about lift?

[Rodhern]

If you compare to something like Kerbal Space Program (I don't know if you are), then this game will most like be a massive disappointment to you. The Stormworks physics are quite cartoonish.

[Neyna]

Originally posted by Rodhern:

If you compare to something like Kerbal Space Program (I don't know if you are), then this game will most like be a massive disappointment to you. The Stormworks physics are quite cartoonish.

Yes in KSP those centers are very usefull (in builder or during simulation).
Thanks for your answer it helped me a lot to make a decision. I will wait for a sale so.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Originally posted by Rodhern:

If you compare to something like Kerbal Space Program (I don't know if you are), then this game will most like be a massive disappointment to you. The Stormworks physics are quite cartoonish.

So are Kerbal's, until you install FAR, then they're still cartoonish but at least you have a decent lift model.
And this is from someone who visited every little solar body before the route calculator was in

[Neyna]

I know KSP physic sim is not perfect but it's still pretty good. And as you say lift model is pretty good. And every indicator is coherent.
I love building planes (and everything that can fly) and designing by trial and errors is not my fun in a video game. My fun is to see how thngs behave in a simulated world and how developpers made it work in real time (what they chose to implement or not). Maybe because i am a software developper myself :) (now i am project manager but i still do some coding sometimes ^^)
I was building drones IRL 15 years ago before it was mainstream (and made lot of small robots or autonomous very small cars) so if i want to have real challenges that need trial and errors, i make real things.
I use physics game to prototype ideas very quickly too, things that IRL would be too long or just impossible. And i dont want to lose my time finding center of lift that can be easily computed in a game since you use a physics engine ....

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Well, look at it this way, Kerbal has a decently good liftmodel once FAR mod is installed, and very functional orbital mechanics.

Stormworks has a good buoyancy model and very robust overall physics model, even though it is lacking in flight model and has no orbital mechanics.

Stormworks' focus is a bit different :P

Hey, and i also really don't miss attaching struts to literally every single part of my rocket because it would wobble and wiggle about because PhysX just can't keep 2 blocks stuck together properly.

[Neyna]

Thanks for your answer.
I'll try this game on sale because i know not having indicators will really bother me but it seems good. I came here because a friend told me this game has PID in stock game.
And to me, a game that has PID in stock game had to be at least a good game because of all the things it implies about the game design.

Originally posted by Ra-Ra-Rasputin:

Hey, and i also really don't miss attaching struts to literally every single part of my rocket because it would wobble and wiggle about because PhysX just can't keep 2 blocks stuck together properly.

I think they made a lot of progress on that issue but it's not fully solved. I still have to put struts too. (tried to play with auto struts, and different strut values but ....)
That's why in an ideal world, devs would build their own physics engine with just what they need inside for it to be time efficient and close to reality but it's a MOUNTAIN of work. I made a small one myself for fun because i love physics but ..... lot of work for poor results. But at least i learnt a lot.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

The problem is that physics engines are mainly written with as-close-to-machine-code-as-possible.
That's very specialized coding that only a tiny minority of programmers can even read or understand.

They also take actual years to make functional and error free, as much as a game

[Neyna]

You can write physics engine with CUDA now, it's very efficient. You dont need assembly programming there and it's very close to machine code and very readable.
And i think the future of physics engine is on the GPU (just look at PhysX)

Originally posted by Ra-Ra-Rasputin:

They also take actual years to make functional and error free, as much as a game

That's why i said "ideal world" and "MOUNTAIN of work"

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Yeah, but CUDA is platform-dependant (or rather, GPU dependant), you can get tech demos that way, but unless you have an open implementation, or open enough you risk alienating a good chunk of the playerbase, something that most people won't want to do.

[Neyna]

Indeed it's GPU dependant but you have OpenCL if you want to support all cards.

[Aven]

No, there is no easy way to view lift, buoyancy, or thrust in the builder. Compared to KSP, yes, this may seem like it offers less feedback for building. However, this is only a surface problem. You have every tool available to give you any information you need.

Take something like a quad copter as an example. In KSP, building something with four seperate points of lift requires a precise center of gravity to keep the craft flying stable. In Stormworks, it's no problem. You can add a few tilt sensors, connect them to a microcontroller with PID's managing the throttle of your rotors, and then the hard part of keeping the quad copter flying stable is already done, leaving you to simply fly the thing.

In my opinion, Stormworks is a better game than KSP for building and engineering solutions to problems. It may not give you the data you need in the builder, but the data is there. You just need to attach the appropriate sensors, displays, and controllers to get it.

[Neyna]

Thanks for your answer.
Indeed that works for multicopters but not for planes

Originally posted by Aven:

In my opinion, Stormworks is a better game than KSP for building and engineering solutions to problems. It may not give you the data you need in the builder, but the data is there. You just need to attach the appropriate sensors, displays, and controllers to get it.

From what i see about Stormworks for engineering i agree. For building i have serious doubts.

Thanks again now i have my answers :)