raptop changed the topic of #principia to: READ THE FAQ: http://goo.gl/gMZF9H; The current version is Gateaux. We currently target 1.8.1, 1.9.1, and 1.10.1. <scott_manley> anyone that doubts the wisdom of retrograde bop needs to get the hell out | https://xkcd.com/323/ | <egg> calculating the influence of lamont on Pluto is a bit silly… | <egg> also 4e16 m * 2^-52 is uncomfortably large
Jesin has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Jesin has joined #principia
<discord-> (​experimentalshells?). — because stock doesn't even model rotation during warp.
egg|laptop|egg has joined #principia
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
Mike` has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
egg|laptop|egg has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<discord-> e​gg. — @XKdiver stock KSP does not, in fact, have intermediate axis instability, at least not remotely correctly; if you spin the parallelepipedic rover body along its intermediate axis in stock, it will (incorrectly) remain stable.
<discord-> e​gg. — On multi-part vessels you can observe a crude approximation of it, because while the rigid body dynamics of PhysX are incorrect, the behaviour for point masses is correct, and you can recover rigid body dynamics by adding point masses together.
Jesin has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Jesin has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Raidernick has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Raidernick has joined #principia
egg|laptop|egg has joined #principia
<discord-> l​amont. — ah right you've explained that before
<discord-> l​amont. — still this does work in stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aktlvl26z0&t=11s
<discord-> l​amont. — (which is most likely the question)
<discord-> P​aculino. — isn't that from the tumbling resulting from the explosions?
<discord-> e​gg. — @lamont yeah, it works because it is multipart; it is very likely highly inaccurate though (and anything single-part simply does not exhibit it)
<discord-> e​gg. — @Paculino no.
<discord-> P​aculino. — oh
<discord-> e​gg. — this is just what things shaped like that do, but KSP simulates that very poorly (ultimately because PhysX is bad at this)
<discord-> e​gg. — (and obviously KSP does not do anything in time warp)
<discord-> P​aculino. — How much worse is the rigid-body approximation than one not assuming rigidity, for most things in ksp?
<discord-> e​gg. — which rigid-body approximation
<discord-> B​utcher. — It's a cool effect one of my interplanetary probes exhibited it quite unexpectedly, it would flip every couple of days.