Page 62 of 70

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 10 Mar 2018 03:20
by JackDole
JLowe
How many stars? Can you say that?

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 10 Mar 2018 05:22
by JLowe
I'm not sure what you mean, how many stars can I click on before it crashes?  Almost exactly 30.  Last time it was 28.

I've tried clicking on a few, then waiting a while before clicking on another few, etc, but it always crashes once get close to 30.

I noticed the RAM used increases by ~10 for every star I click on.  The most RAM I've ever seen it use is about 1300 Mb.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 10 Mar 2018 06:03
by Mosfet
User Nahor apparently had the same issue, but there was no follow-up.

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post     Nahor wrote:
   (like the inability to explore randomly because the app crashes after selecting about ~30 stars)


Hm, 30 is the exact size of the planetary systems cache. It's strange what SE crashes while releasing it. Do you have some ships spawned in the game?

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 10 Mar 2018 12:52
by JLowe
Hmm, Nahor said he didn't have any ships spawned, but I do have one ship spawned(although never used). 

He said he has no mods but high res textures installed.  I do as well, but I moved the high res textures to another hard drive because they take up so much space, and I don't use them.

I don't know what the ship has to do with it but I'll try deleting it and see if that works.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 10 Mar 2018 12:56
by JLowe
Wow ok, that worked.  Whatever it was, destroying the ship seem to have worked, I have clicked on 50-60 stars so far and no crash.

Thanks for the help, that was an annoying bug.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 12 Mar 2018 19:46
by tornadotodd
POSSIBLY BIG BUG CONCERNING SPEED AND DISTANCE, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND PLEASE MORE THAN ONE PERSON CHECK MY OBSERVATIONS TO SEE IF I AM CORRECT, OR IF SOMEHOW IT'S A MISCALCULATION ON MY SIDE. EASY TO HELP AND CHECK MY OBSERVATION.!!!!!! I hope a number of people will test this. Thanks.


I Often like to leave the sun at the speed of light or make up little trips...Ok guys, I hope that I am somehow mistaken. I am no programmer, but if this is in fact a bug, it's a pretty big one in my opinion. Has anyone else attempted moon missions or to recreate the Apollo journey?? Kepler or in any other fashion??? I have attempted to recreate the Apollo 11 path, as close as possible, including burn times, and the correct TLI. I found that I am reaching the moon in what should be a 3 day journey in 1/6th the time, sometimes slightly longer, sometimes slightly shorter. But with MULTIPLE attempts, even simply using camera mode, I continue to get the same result.  Meaning that if I am correct(Which I hope I am not) the escape velocity mechanics from the Earth are realistic until you reach space, then it seems like 7 miles a second even, is more like 50000 miles per hour, or something. So if I am correct I don't know where the problem is but I would guess has to do with,,,, IDK I am not going to pretend to know either but if I am correct it sounds like a programming nightmare. So I hope I am not.. Will some of you please attempt the same scenarios?? You can let it run in your sleep... Be sure to use a ship that does not have main engines or strong thrusters and preferably, no thrusters or very weak like a satellite. You can accomplish this by using the cargo SE model until you get to TLI if you are going to simulate apollo or simply another ship and once you reach apollo speeds, build a satellite, or something with no main engines or strong thrusters. It will be moving at the same speed as what you launched with then simply delete what you launched with.... And pleas post your results. I have tried numerous ways, methods, even simple camera mode before posting. But I am beginning to worry that I may be right. Hopefully I am wrong, so that doesn't have to be fixed as Space Engineer is already busy with a lot, but this would be a major bug especially in our solar system and hugely take away from realism. Which is what SE is shooting for... The slowest after reaching escape velocity has been about 12 hours to the moon... I have used miles per second, as well as kilometers per second. Both having the same result as well... This has bugged me so much I have repeated this over and over for the last 3 days... If I slow down enough to make a true 3 day journey then I am unable to reach escape velocity. And at my current numbers actual speed to simulate the true mission would not much different than that needed to orbit the Earth. Whatever, I am not always right,,, please more than one person check my finding and work and post about this as If this is correct this needs attention on how to solve it or what could be the cause. And if so HOPEFULLY its not a nightmare reconfiguration fix for Space Engineer. I am no programmer but it does not sound easy. 

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 13 Mar 2018 07:44
by Mr. Abner
I haven't done the math or even researched the Apollo mission speeds, but isn't the Moon in Earth's gravity well? Meaning you do not need to achieve Earth escape velocity to reach the Moon?

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 13 Mar 2018 17:24
by tornadotodd
Mr. Abner wrote:
I haven't done the math or even researched the Apollo mission speeds, but isn't the Moon in Earth's gravity well? Meaning you do not need to achieve Earth escape velocity to reach the Moon?

Without doing so would result in a perpetual orbit of the Earth, and the speeds and burns whether accurate or even simple to get a general idea, does not seem to match. It seems accurate near earth, but a past that point 7 miles a second behaves more like 42 miles a second at 7 miles a second if that makes any sense. That's why I am asking other's to attempt the same thing. You do not need to totally recreate the Apollo flight to see what I am saying. Simply adjust for the moon at the lowest possible speed and be sure to do it in a way that you do not increase speed. I have tried it a number of ways, and continually make the trip MUCH faster than what it should be given the said distance and speed used. This is why I would like a few people to simply try it themselves instead of simply comment in order to see if I am correct or mistaken.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 13 Mar 2018 20:52
by Watsisname
tornadotodd, I might be mistaken, but I think this is related to something that's been noticed before where your ship velocity depends on your framerate.  It's definitely weird and needs to be looked into.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 14 Mar 2018 18:27
by Mr. Abner
Watsisname wrote:
tornadotodd, I might be mistaken, but I think this is related to something that's been noticed before where your ship velocity depends on your framerate.  It's definitely weird and needs to be looked into.

I thought this only affected the free-floating cameras, and not actual ships.

tornadotodd wrote:
Without doing so would result in a perpetual orbit of the Earth...


Well, yes. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth. One just needs an elliptical orbit to reach the Moon.

I looked up some numbers — not in-depth research, but I found some info on the Apollo 8 mission on Wikipedia. Started with a somewhat-circular parking orbit at about 185.2 km. Orbital velocity was 7.793 km/s. Orbital period was 88.7 minutes.

I parked a ship in Earth orbit at about 185 km. Circular orbit velocity reported by SE at that altitude was 7.79 km/s. Orbital period turned out to be 1hr 28min and some odd seconds. Pretty good so far.

Apollo 8 apparently reached a speed of 10.822 km/s after its transfer orbit burn. That is less than escape velocity.
So I burned (does anybody know the g-forces involved in a Saturn-IV stage burn?) prograde at about 1g. When I got 10.82 km/s, I checked my orbit. I looked a little off, so I burned a little more. I think I should have left it (I'll try it again later), because now my apoapsis was just past the Moons orbit. Turns out my orbital inclination was quite a bit off with the Moons.

Anyway... as you can see from the attached screenshot, I will reach said apoapsis in 5.745 days. I think I am going to scrub this mission, and try better alignment for a Moon intercept. I'm sure nearing the Moon will affect orbital parameters.

scr00720.png


Also, it would seem that Apollo 8 performed its Lunar orbit insertion burn at 2 days, 21 hours, 8 minutes into the mission.

Oh... another thing to keep in mind, along with the free-floating camera velocity being dependent on framerate, the free-floating cameras are not affected by gravity, but the ships are. As soon as I shut down the engine, I am decelerating. The free-floating cameras are moving in a straight line (more or less — I know they may be following a planet in orbit).

The mission continues:

scr00721.png


As you can see from the system clock, it is now some four and half hours after the first screen shot. The most notable thing is how much I have slowed down already, now only doing 3.14 km/s. I'm also some 68,121 km from the Earth (its center, rather), and was 6,800 km away in the first pic.

Still some five and a half days to apoapsis.

(Note: I did close down the program between posts, and the orbital parameters were slightly different when I fired it up again. Original apoapsis was 423,725.37 km and the period was 11.495 days. After I started it up again, the apoapsis changed to 424,051.75 km and the period 11.508 days. Not much of a change, but I guess that depends on how S.E. stores the parameters. None of these parameters changed, however, during the time it was running.)

One thing I have not checked is if the S.E. clock actually matches the real world clock. I never had any reason to doubt it, so I leave that for somebody else to check.

-Alex

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 15 Mar 2018 03:51
by tornadotodd
Watsisname wrote:
tornadotodd, I might be mistaken, but I think this is related to something that's been noticed before where your ship velocity depends on your framerate.  It's definitely weird and needs to be looked into.

Something like that would make sense. I left the sun on another experiment at the speed of light and the time to reach Earth was just about right on point if not perfect. Earth Orbit, entering Earth Orbit, even all the dynamics associated there with are as they should be. but once i go get away from the earth no how many times I try, with ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎, simple objects that have no engines and average the numbers my arrival time to the moon is much faster than should be. roughly 12 hours at correct speed give or take.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 15 Mar 2018 03:54
by tornadotodd
I attempted the scenario backward last night from the moon to the earth. This time I used an object without thrusters or engine, to set my orbital trajectory as close as possible. I slowed to about 4.5 miles a second and still am making the trip in under a day. 

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 15 Mar 2018 03:56
by tornadotodd
I can't make sense of it because like my sun simulation the time was accurate at the speed of light.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 15 Mar 2018 10:26
by Mr. Abner
tornadotodd wrote:
I attempted the scenario backward last night from the moon to the earth. This time I used an object without thrusters or engine, to set my orbital trajectory as close as possible. I slowed to about 4.5 miles a second and still am making the trip in under a day. 

Let's see a screen shot with the numbers.

I have no information on the velocity of their return flight, but it will be accelerating pretty much all the way home. I suspect 7.24 km/s is a little hot.

tornadotodd wrote:
I can't make sense of it because like my sun simulation the time was accurate at the speed of light.

If you set the free-floating camera moving with a high frame rate (ie, nothing taxing the video card in frame), then it will likely keep that speed all the way home through relatively featureless space. However, if you start the camera at a specific speed near Earth or the Moon, the frame rate may be lower and as a result, your speed will increase as the framerate increases when the object goes out of frame.

Also, the free-floating camera is not affected by gravity. As you can see from my post above, the ship has already slowed down from some 10.8 km/s to 3.14 km/s after traveling only some 60,000 km.

Troubleshooting and bug reports - SpaceEngine 0.9.8.0

Posted: 15 Mar 2018 15:36
by tornadotodd
Mr. Abner wrote:
tornadotodd wrote:
I attempted the scenario backward last night from the moon to the earth. This time I used an object without thrusters or engine, to set my orbital trajectory as close as possible. I slowed to about 4.5 miles a second and still am making the trip in under a day. 

Let's see a screen shot with the numbers.

I have no information on the velocity of their return flight, but it will be accelerating pretty much all the way home. I suspect 7.24 km/s is a little hot.

tornadotodd wrote:
I can't make sense of it because like my sun simulation the time was accurate at the speed of light.

If you set the free-floating camera moving with a high frame rate (ie, nothing taxing the video card in frame), then it will likely keep that speed all the way home through relatively featureless space. However, if you start the camera at a specific speed near Earth or the Moon, the frame rate may be lower and as a result, your speed will increase as the framerate increases when the object goes out of frame.

Also, the free-floating camera is not affected by gravity. As you can see from my post above, the ship has already slowed down from some 10.8 km/s to 3.14 km/s after traveling only some 60,000 km.

I am not using a free floating camera, and using the same math, am successful in other scenarios