00:55 <_whitenotifier-cd19> [Principia] Erumaaro commented on issue #2297: Strange missing redistributable VC++ runtime error - https://git.io/Jeeft

10:17 <discord-_> e​gg. — https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia/issues/1737#issuecomment-369985618

10:18 <discord-_> e​gg. — timewarp ain't free

14:28 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Good point about cost of integrating the rest of the system. On the other hand, for major planetary bodies the “long term” answers are “known” ahead of time and can be precomputed for the next 2-10 mln years

14:29 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — And smaller ships don’t matter much.

14:31 <discord-_> e​gg. — > can be precomputed

14:31 <discord-_> e​gg. — sure, but that's not free

14:32 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Yes, I agree with that. And no rush running into interstellar until next 3-5 years passes 😃

14:33 <discord-_> e​gg. — > And smaller ships don’t matter much.

14:33 <discord-_> e​gg. — I mean, if I can just destroy all your ships when I feel like it's too much computational load, my job gets easier

14:35 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Let’s replace “destroy” with selective fallback to conic mode

14:36 <discord-_> e​gg. — let's not go there, it's a silly place

14:36 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — I know 😃

15:57 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — More scientific way of describing what happens at ultra-high warp (as 1 sec to 1000 years) to ships close to planets is probability cloud, not trajectory.

15:58 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Probability cloud of finding a ship at some location near planet, probability of it being destroyed.

16:00 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Because, well, satellite making earth orbit every 5 hours, on the timescale of 10000 years can be described as only probabilisticaly.

16:02 <IADRaptop> … this is not the sort of Hamiltonian I was eggspecting

16:03 <discord-_> n​eph. — More scientific? More stochastic.

16:05 <discord-_> e​gg. — this is not a very interesting point, it applies to sufficiently chaotic configurations (something something retrobop) under much shorter timescales, but KSP is a game, not a statistical analysis; it has to pick one thing out of the ensemble

16:09 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Well, my point is, it’s possible to make very good predictions on the state of the whole star system probabilistically, and select some actual materializations of those probabilities for the actual run. It’s a different integration engine, though. So no pressure to implement anything.

16:10 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Well, my point is, it’s possible to make very good predictions on the state of the whole star system probabilistically, and select some actual materializations of those probabilities for the actual run (ultra high warp). It’s a different integration engine, though. So no pressure to implement anything. (edited)

16:14 <discord-_> e​gg. — @Myshiko

16:14 <discord-_> e​gg. — > it’s possible to make very good predictions on the state of the whole star system probabilistically

16:14 <discord-_> e​gg. — That is not obvious at all.

16:15 <discord-_> e​gg. — To the contrary, very often the easiest way to figure what the ensemble will look like is going to propagate lots of individual states and look at how they are distributed. Things being unpredictable doesn't necessarily make it easier to construct a credible solution.

16:28 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — True. But, some estimates of Lapunov time for each ship gives us an idea, should we even bother.

16:29 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — If Lapunov time for the ship becomes too short for a warp time scale, it makes sense to declare ship lost.

16:30 <discord-_> e​gg. — it will not be fully predictable, but still there will be recognizable constraints; identifying and abiding by those constraints is hard

16:30 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Then the problem is reduced to only a few planetary bodies and stubborn stable ships

16:30 <discord-_> e​gg. — anyway

16:31 <discord-_> M​yshiko. — Agree, just thinking out loud, not calling for any action.

16:32 <discord-_> e​gg. — we have no plans to do anything with KSP2 anyway, so this discussion is rather pointless

17:26 <_whitenotifier-cd19> [Principia] scimas commented on issue #2239: The tolerance and steps settings are not preserved across scene changes - https://git.io/JeeZa

20:20 <_whitenotifier-cd19> [Principia] Breach-Candy commented on issue #2297: Strange missing redistributable VC++ runtime error - https://git.io/Jevsj