Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SciMan

  1. I'm not expecting miracles. I'm not even expecting new features. All I want is a game that doesn't do things that drive me to stop playing it. Right now: Game has a bug where sometimes it will suck all the fuel out of your upper stage for who knows what reason. Makes me not want to play. Game has a bug where if you use ANY engine plates, but especially the 5m ones, your rocket turns into a noodle. Makes me not want to play. Game has a bug where instead of a decoupler detaching the spent stage behind your engine, it'll detach the engine you connected it to from the rest of your rocket (unhelpfully including the spent stage, which remains firmly connected). Makes me not want to play. Game has a bug where if you use any form of landing gear on your craft, and deploy it, your trajectory goes from a nice circular orbit to... well not that. Usually suborbital. Makes me not want to play. I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say. I could probably use up the rest of the character count describing bugs I've encountered that make me not want to play. All I want is for things to work as I expect them to work. Even if that's different from how they work in KSP 1. I want decouplers to decouple the thing they're supposed to decouple. I want fuel flow to go where it's supposed to go. I want engine plates to be some of the strongest parts you can make a rocket out of, not some of the weakest. I want landing gear that don't act like a single-physics-tick kraken drive (even if that means they act like a regular kraken drive). We were supposed to SLAY the Kraken, not LAY the kraken.
  2. I don't think what we got on launch day is even a game that deserves the name "KSP" with any number after it, not even as the next version of KSP 1. Not only is there an incredible amount missing BEYOND what was put in the roadmap as "explicitly not present on release", there's loads of basic functionality missing that nobody ever said wouldn't be in the game (non impulsive burn planner, optimized resource calculations, etc). No. Not only that. Instead, the features we DO have are basically like someone was given a bunch of "shiny graphics" aka 3d models and textures and UI assets, and then given 6 months to assemble some sort of space flight simulator sandbox game out of it. As expected given that particular context, only 10% of the things are working in any way consistently, and it's only the most critical things (UI navigation.... and that's about it, and even then sometimes not even that). What is needed is a ground-up reboot from the beginning again, but you can keep the art assets. Start over, this one's no good. Or if you don't start over, consider doing some basic functionality testing and not letting features out the door if they don't work. And I don't mean "they worked once, that's good, send it". I mean detailed "we tried really hard to break it (we even invited Danny2462 and SWDennis and EJ_SA) and it doesn't break" kind of testing. (EJ breaks things in a way that he gets more functionality out of them than was intended, but the other two break things in the "destroy the universe or divide by zero" kind of way). That kind of testing is what I feel like I'm doing when I fire up KSP 2 right now. But I stopped playing it because I don't feel like I'm even giving feedback that would be relevant to what they might be working on now, because they probably cut off this branch as "release".... right when they announced the release date. It does feel like no useful coding work on basic functionality has been done since then. It's kinda hard to keep playing a game when it's not acting like a game. And KSP 2 is not acting like a game. It's acting like "version 0.001 build 3" of a tech demo that was never intended to be a finished game in the first place. And that just kinda drives a knife into the goodwill I had for Private Division and Take-Two. I don't hold Intercept Games accountable for this. This has "publisher said push it out the door or you get no more money" written all over it, and it's always sad to see a game die like that. Management always thinks it knows how long coding the game is going to take, and is ALWAYS wrong about it (because it always takes longer). Marketing always fails to keep expectations in check. Those are two constants in game development at least at the current time. Knowing those two things, the fate of KSP 2's release should have been known since it was announced. And then the pandemic happened, combined with the transfer from Star Theory to Intercept Games, and it all just got even worse. There was OBVIOUSLY critical knowledge lost during that transfer, and the whole work from home thing just doesn't work when you need to talk to someone face to face to make them understand just how important something is or isn't, or how much you really don't have done but can't say because it makes you look like you're not doing anything useful (those are all problems that can be solved but not easily if you're expected to "look like you're doing something" no matter if you're doing something or not). Point is, either PD or TT Interactive said "Don't care, didn't ask, light this candle or I'm gonna tear it down around your ears" and Star Theory just basically didn't have a choice in the matter but to say "Alright, here's that train wreck you ordered" and that's exactly what we got. We got a train wreck of a game. And that's being generous, because we only got 25% of a locomotive, and 10% of 1 freight car. I already played more than 2 hours, so I'm no longer eligible for a refund. But if I had needed the money I spent on KSP 2 for something else that same day, I would have had ZERO problems asking for a very much deserved refund. IMO they have a lot of nerve charging any money at all for this game in the state it's in right now. But what do I want? I don't want the downfall of Intercept Games, or Take-Two Interactive, or Private Division. No. I want this game to become a case study in how to make a bad release of a game, so that the whole video game industry can finally learn that it's been doing things the wrong, stupid way for over 10 years now (or at least the AAA gaming industry has), and finally start releasing games that are FULL GAMES ON RELEASE again. Day one DLC doesn't matter to me. Neither does day one patches. What matters, is that the game is playable upon release. KSP 2 is not currently in a state I would call playable. I keep playing it for a short time here and there to check if anything's changed, and every time I do that, I encounter some kind of bug (often the same "rocket is too wobbly, build smaller and don't go anywhere other than LKO" bug) that just frustrates me so much I stop playing for at least that day if not more. I don't really mind having the game run at 5 FPS with my RTX 3070 Ti GPU and i7-9700k CPU running at 4.6 Ghz (overclocked from the stock speed of 3.6 Ghz), with my 32 GB of DDR4-3200mhz ram. I can make the game lag that much with a rocket that has only 50 parts. Yes that level of performance is unacceptable, considering that it took over 500 parts to get that level of lag in KSP1, on my previous system that wasn't even close to as good as the one I'm using now. But I've played KSP (and other famously low FPS and/or unoptimized games) for so long that 5 FPS is something I can still play in. Right now I'm looking at KSP 2 like a disappointed father looks at their kid. It's the "I'm not angry, but this is unacceptable, and you need to do better, now take a moment to think about what you've done that got you here" look. I'm sure you know the feelings that look gives you. I know I do. It's true. Given the circumstances, I'm not angry at Intercept Games. But it is undeniable that they need to do better. In fact, once they iron out a lot of the bugs, they need to basically do a second launch campaign for this game, because everyone saw the state the game is in right now and went "Nope, not playing that until it gets better". Like I said, they should only do that 2nd launch campaign once they get it into a state where it's performing adequately and rockets aren't falling apart for no reason or turning into noodles because you used the "wrong" part. Oh and about those noodle rockets: Wobbly rockets need to be exterminated. It's no longer "cute" and "oh lol kerbal" when you have an interplanetary mission to Jool sitting on the pad, you go to launch it, and it folds in half and explodes on the way up. "You just need to use more struts" you say. Guess what, tried that, no change. Well, OK, this time it folded 90 degrees and then exploded. So it bent less, but it still exploded. I've made rockets that have literally half the part count made up by struts and only struts (no other structural parts), and they STILL bend and explode. In fact, sometimes putting more struts on them makes them explode SOONER. There have to be other ways of introducing a structural consideration into the design requirements that don't involve the rocket flexing like it's made of a pool noodle and not SOLID METAL TANKS AND BEAMS AND THINGS THAT GENERALLY DON'T BEND. We don't even have the ability to control what auto-strutting is happening, if there is even any of that happening at all. What ever happened to that Physics LOD thing I was hearing about? That made it sound like it would make rockets LESS wobbly, not more. Another feature that couldn't make it to release day?
  3. And this right here is why the NERV in KSP 1 is as bad as it is. Cut the weight of the NERV by a ton or two, or double the thrust, or both, and then we're talking about an engine worth considering. Why is the NERV so bad in KSP1? Well it's quite simple. Harvester saw the power of the atom, and said "there's no way this thing can be this good.... *edit* and now it's not". He didn't want the NERV to be the "never use anything other than this in orbit" engine that it rightfully should be according to physics (assuming lack of better tech), so they gave it an absurdly low thrust, high dry mass, and made it use ONLY liquid fuel (back when we didn't have properly large fuel tanks for JUST Liquid Fuel, and you couldn't even drain the oxidizer out of regular rocket fuel tanks, meaning the NERV not only was rendered "not overpowered", it was in fact rendered "Why are you using this boat-anchor?", aka worse than the thud was considered for most of KSP1's life. This instead of being the king of interplanetary transfers it was supposed to be. Just goes to show you, don't let a person who thinks they know rockets because they play with firecrackers tell you the specifications of your interplanetary spaceship drive system, because they're basically apples and uranium, not just apples and oranges.
  4. I can attach a craft file to help reproduce this bug, if it helps. I managed to make a rocket that SHOULD be able to put a large lander nearly anywhere in the Kerbol system, but I can't even get it off the ground because the dang "wobbly rockets syndrome" makes it not work. Seems like it happens any time I use the 5m Engine Plate (rocket turns into a noodle, no amount of struts will stop it from being a noodle because that's how Unity joints work apparently, basically this bug would have been hidden if the wobbly rockets wasn't a thing). If I could find out how to extract my craft files from the game, this is where I'd be putting the hyperlink. Just so we're clear, I'm saying that BOTH the "wobbly rockets" AND this bug that I reported need to be done away with entirely. And now for a (for me) short rant on wobbly rockets and what exactly that phenomena is (bug?, feature?, other?, etc.).
  5. I'm not sure if this was put in intentionally, or it's something not working right, but either way this is a horrible way to tell the player that their rocket broke. I'm not given the option to continue my flight, meanwhile all the thrusters on my rocket shut off and the camera freezes in place and my rocket sails off into the distance. So, on my large rockets (over 750 tons launch mass), guess what happens. I reinforce the rocket's core with a mesh of struts placed on short truss segments so that it shouldn't fall apart. And that's where the trouble starts. It shouldn't fall apart right? Wrong, game says "nope this breaks no matter how many struts you add" I've tried adding literally hundreds of struts on the same dang joint that reliably breaks when launching my rocket (not too far into ascent, but after Max Q), and yet.... it just breaks. So, on large rockets (the kind you'd need to build to go interstellar or even interplanetary), the struts are effectively useless. Why are they useless? Well instead of reinforcing the rocket and making it able to take more strain, even with hundreds of struts between two in-line fuel tanks (where the rocket always breaks), the rocket still wobbles just as much as it did with zero struts. And that means the struts break. And that's where the bug comes in. See, whenever any single structural link on the craft fails for any reason other than "part of a staging event, using a decoupler or stack separator (haven't checked docking ports yet)", the game goes "oh no, your rocket must have entirely destroyed itself, leaving nothing behind, so we'll just take away control from you, shut off all the engines (I think, the effects stop anyways), and give you the "you failed, try again?" screen". I'd much prefer it if I could see WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENS WHEN THAT PART FAILS. Does the vessel keep going? and make it to orbit despite losing a few parts on the way up (as is long-time KSP 1 tradition)? Does the single failure cause a cascade of further failures? With the game in its current state, I won't ever be able to tell if that happens, because all the game tells me about is the first failure, and worse than that it actively takes control away from me. Please, never take control away from the player like that unless ALL the control points on the vessel have been destroyed. And if that's the case, check nearby vessels to see if they have usable control points, and switch to the first one of those that is found. EDIT: Oh yeah, I should probably include all the data about my system just so we're all on the same page: Game version: KSP 2 (Steam) version v0. OS: Windows 10, up to date as far as windows update itself is concerned. CPU: Intel Core i7-9700k, stock clock 3.6 Ghz, overclocked to 4.6 Ghz (water cooled, and this CPU has never given me a single hiccup with respect to blue-screens or anything of the sort) GPU: Asus ROG Strix 3070 Ti, 8GB VRAM RAM: 32 GB 3200 MHz G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR 4 (2x 16gb sticks), on XMP timings 3200mhz CAS 14-14-14-34 Drive the game is installed on: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB NVMe M.2 Solid State Drive Expected behavior: When a structural failure happens on a vessel that is not the result of a decoupling event (such as decouplers, stack separators, and docking ports), the game should continue to allow you to control your craft so you can see if you can still get where you were going despite the failure. Observed behavior: When a structural failure happens on a vessel that is not the result of a decoupling event, control of the vessel is lost, the camera freezes in place relative to the world (meaning your vessel goes sailing off-screen), and you are presented with the "try again, revert to VAB, revert to launch or load a save" screen. This is incredibly frustrating when you've spent over an hour designing a craft to get to Jool and are prevented from doing so by the failure of a single strut on the launch vessel (a strut that might not have even been needed). Steps to replicate: Build a rocket as follows: Start with a 5m (XL) probe core, attach a 5m (XL) nosecone on the front of the probe core, and on the rear of the probe core attach one of the longest 5m (XL) methalox fuel tanks. Now stack a tiny truss segment on the bottom node of the fuel tank (second smallest is the easiest one for building purposes), and then another of the longest 5m (XL) methalox tanks. To reinforce this obvious week point in the rocket stack, use 8x symmetry to put struts between the 2 fuel tanks in the gap created by the truss segment. Then on the bottom XL fuel tank, radially attach 4 of the shortest 3.75m (Lg) fuel tanks, near the bottom of the XL fuel tank, followed by attaching a 3.75m nosecone on the front of these radially attached fuel tanks, and a Mammoth II engine on the bottom attach node of these radially attached Lg fuel tanks. Add launch clamps if you think you want them, it shouldn't make a difference. Now it comes time to truly reproduce the bug. Launch the rocket. and I usually a gravity turn at 1750m altitude, and observe as at least one strut breaks despite your best efforts. No matter what structural link fails first, when it fails, you should immediately notice that visually the engines cut off, the camera stops tracking the vessel, and you are immediately presented with the "interesting quote about failures being part of the process" screen that is supposed to happen when you crash a rocket. However, you'll notice that you didn't crash a rocket. You had a single structural failure on the rocket, that was probably able to be recovered from, were it not for the game saying "nope you don't get to control this anymore". The theoretical workaround would be to enable "unbreakable joints" however that would only work if I could open the developer options, which I can not figure out how to do, so there are effectively zero workarounds. And if you consider using cheats to not be a viable workaround, there in fact ARE literally zero workarounds other than "hope you built your craft strong enough without struts", which the game is woefully lacking in information on how to do that (I've been going on info from my KSP 1 play time). No mods installed, as I don't know of any for KSP 2.
  6. If I had not yet upgraded my GPU to what it is now, I'd be in the "waiting to see if I can run it" camp. However, my CPU is an i7-9700k running at 4.6GHz all-core, I have 32GB of DDR4-3200mhz (cl 14-14-14-34, which is better than most 3200mhz ddr4), and I have an RTX 3070 Ti (that I'm pretty sure I bought off a scalper, but I prefer that to the option of giving NewEgg my money). No question that I'll be able to run the game on day 1. And so my plan is to attempt to run the game, on day one. I have other games I can play if that doesn't work out, but I won't be as happy playing those. However, I do have MANY questions about if I'll be able to run the game at native resolution on my 4k 144hz monitor that I just got for Christmas. Actually on second thought, I don't have many questions. I will almost certainly not be able to maintain a reasonable framerate at those resolutions. However 4K gaming is on the rise, and I would be SHOCKED if the game had problems running at 4K other than the obvious framerate issues. If not, I'll still be able to get up to 144 fps at 1080p no problem, and I've played many games like that before. In fact, due to issues with DPI scaling, I run KSP 1 at 1080p, because I already need glasses to see correctly, and I don't like having to look at tiny text in the MechJeb info windows (I've messed with UI scaling both in MechJeb and in KSP's settings, and I haven't been able to fix the tiny text on the Map view orbit info you get when you hover over the AP or Pe or the An/Dn, so I just stick with 1080p where everything's nice and readable). I just hope that this game supports things like DLSS, that way I might be able to run the game at an "internal" resolution of 1080p but then have it DLSS upscale it to 4K to better display on my monitor. KSP 2 would also be a good candidate to use RTX features (for instance to simulate the back-scatter lighting caused by light hitting the terrain first and then being scattered on to the craft, and from there to the camera), but it should be fully fleshed out without the RTX features of course. I sure hope that's not why they require a minimum spec of an RTX 2060.
  7. Just putting this out there, above and beyond what I've already said, the system requirements for a new game are the WORST time to find out that you can't play it. Not being able to afford the game itself is one thing, maybe you can find a friend that will buy it for you. But to expect a friend to buy you a literal $350 video card just so you can play the game, that's asking far and away too much from your friends. Don't treat your friends as a bank, and if you're forced to borrow money from them, pay them back as if your life depended on it. Your life may not in fact depend on it, but your friendship with that friend (and potentially other friends of yours) may very well depend on it. Anyways, back on topic. KSP 2 needs testing with older high-spec GPUs. GTX 1660, GTX 1080, heck even throw a 980 or 970 in there. I personally want to know how this game performs with a GTX 970, because I still have my old PC that had two of those, and if my current GPU ever has a hardware fault I'd like to know I can still play KSP 2 at (much) reduced settings.
  8. I don't think that these system requirements were agreed upon by a group of people that truly had the right information on the market they are trying to sell to. I have a GPU that's better than the minimum by quite a lot, in fact it's near the recommended specs. But MANY do not. Many that make amazing constructions in KSP 1, just don't have a system that can meet that minimum requirement. Not many people have 20xx series cards. Let alone 30xx or 40xx series cards. Why? Simple. Those cards cost a lot of money. Money is the one thing that basically nobody has right now, because we're spending it all trying to pay for food and fuel to keep a car running so we can go get food and get to our jobs. A fancy GPU is in the economic goods category of "luxury goods". Same with a flagship smartphone. Or a VR headset, gold watch, diamond ring, etc. All of it is stuff that you don't technically need to live a happy and healthy life. And right now, people are re-prioritizing their spending to focus on "needs" over "wants", because of the state of the economy and the continuing shortages of things. Additionally a game that needs an RTX 3080 to run at 1440p... isn't by necessity a modern game. Look at New World and what it was doing to 3090 cards (it was melting them) simply because of something like the main menu not having a sane framerate cap on it (so the card would just crank out frames needlessly as fast as it possibly could, and I mean thousands of them per second as the main menu is a simple thing to render, and that's even if you had vsync on which theoretically SHOULD stop that). That and many other things wrong with that game basically killed it and now you never hear anyone talking about it on videos that get lots of views. I don't want that to happen to KSP 2. I think most people would accept it as fact (or a very small logical leap from facts) that the pandemic put a freeze on not just video game development but also the budget people have for upgrading their PC's. That means that even a 2060 makes these system requirements seem a bit... out of touch with reality (and I mean that as in "as out of touch with reality as the head of the now bankrupt PC building company "Artesain builds" was). The reality is that this game isn't being released initially on PS5 and Xbox series S|X. The reality is that most of us are stuck with 5-7+ year old machines, and the GPU shortages didn't matter to the majority of us because none of us could afford those "new but you can't have them because they're sold out" GPUs were still far too expensive even AT MSRP, regardless of whatever the prices had become due to rampant scalping and just high demand but low supply. I'm not coming in here with nothing but complaints tho. I have solutions. Get a system that has a GTX 1080 in it but meets the CPU requirements. And see if it gives good enough performance at 1080p and 1440p. If that doesn't work, bump the resolution down to 900p or even 720p. I started playing KSP on a 900p LCD screen way back when, and those are still very affordable (and you can even get reasonably sized very high refresh rate panels at that resolution for not a lot of money, probably). I have a 4k 144hz monitor. I'm not expecting KSP2 to be able to run at that resolution with just my RTX 3070 Ti. I'm no fool. But even if no optimizations are made, further testing with even lower spec hardware configurations needs to be done simply to prevent people from panicking and swearing that they'll never afford hardware that can reliably play the game. PS5 and XBox Series S|X aren't even "cheap" consoles like the PS4 and XBox One were. People wanted consoles that could game at 4k60 or 1080p120, and they got them. But that makes them cost more. And right now, everyone's counting pennies. So please, test KSP 2 on a few "penny pinching" machines, if only to figure out that no you can't push the requirements any lower. Even if it takes making the game "look like crap", people care more about being able to RUN the game than they care about it looking good. If it has to be degraded to the point that it looks like VANILLA KSP 1, so be it. IMO the name of the game is reducing the cost of that minimum-spec GPU, to the point that someone could feasibly afford it with one week's work at a part time job in the US working federal minimum wage. If you can do that, 99% of the people interested in KSP 2 will likely already have the GPU needed.
  9. I remember seeing something a while back about the terrain for KSP 2. FOUND IT: Yes, it's an unlisted video, yes I found the link on Reddit, but think about it like this. If this is the "test scene for asset review" as the tiny disclaimer subtitle says, why do you think we'd be getting anything less than what's shown? Sure, they'll probably reduce the RESOLUTION of the textures used a little bit to help it run on consoles within the given VRAM limit, but I can't see them toning down the amount of polygons of the surface scatter (not when you're close up anyways, terrain LOD's can load lower res meshes right along side lower res textures, and that's a good thing). But my point is this: Why would they even put that video on YouTube at all if they didn't want to aim for that level of detail in the finished game? And as far as why all those screenshots in the OP looked low-res and similar to KSP 1, well I have an explanation for that as well: The game's not done yet. Specifically, the terrain scatters aren't done for all the planets. On launch, I'd expect they have good high res terrain scatters for (as shown in the video I just linked) Gilly, the Mun, and Pol at the very least. However, we might also get Duna and/or Ike. Remember, the re-do on the Mun's texture and geometry for KSP 1 was one of the last things they put in the game before everyone started working on KSP 2 (and easter eggs hinting at KSP 2). So as far as what I'm expecting from KSP 2's surface scatters, I'm expecting something similar to what you get from Parallax 2's AMAZING physics-enabled surface scatter (if a bit toned down to make it easier to actually navigate the surfaces of the various planets given "normal" wheels and not "wheels made of robotics parts and grip pads" like you seem to need when navigating the terrain you get with Parallax 2). Similar "high visual fidelity and accurate collision modeling" as Parallax 2 at least. Physics-enabled ground scatter for sure (maybe able to be turned off as a difficulty option, but I don't really think we're gonna get that option with how the surface scatter looks). I also remember them doing a video or article where they went into greater detail on how they're making all these "sites of interest" that will cover all the planets (eventually, they might not be all in there on day 1 that we can even play the game in any form). I expect we will have more than enough interesting planets to visit to sate our desire to explore the solar system until they put in the stuff on the next step of the roadmap. I also don't think the roadmap steps will take even 6 months for each one to run its course. Depending on how difficult each roadmap step is (from both a "coding" and an "game art asset creation" point of view, certain roadmap items lean more on one or the other of those pillars), and how much they have ready beforehand for each roadmap step, they could take as little as 3 months to complete a step on the roadmap (so that they can gather adequate feedback from players and testers), or 6+ months (if they don't have much finished on that particular roadmap's goals), but I expect they're working on all of them a little at a time so that they can maintain a coherent gameplay experience. I'm sticking with my estimate that most roadmap steps will take from 3 to 6 months to complete per each goal. OK maybe the first roadmap step gets completed quick because "Yep, it's a game, and it works pretty well and isn't a buggy mess like we feared it might be, so let's move forward" or something like that. But the major point I'm making is that even if the game is a little bit bland when it releases into EA on Feb 24th, I'm sure that as roadmap goals get completed we'll get a more and more complete solar system (and eventually multiple solar systems). Bottom line is, I have no concerns about the level of terrain detail in KSP 2. I'm sure it's gonna be fantastic. And if it's not, well the planets of KSP 2 are supposed to be easier to mod than KSP 1 right? So the mods can fix it (or the mods can get rolled into the base game, just like was done with some select mods in KSP 1).
  10. Right, you seem to have misunderstood my concept. I meant you DO get separate shield parts that perform separate functions. What I meant was that in the VAB parts list, there would only be one "Shielding" part, which would have a lot of customization options on it (procedural options of many kinds), one of those options would be to change it between "Heat Shield", "Debris Shield", and "Radiation Shield". When you select one of those options, the part would (probably drastically) change its appearance to suit its selected function. So it would look like an ablative (or not) heat shield for the Heat Shielding option. It would look like a Whipple Shield for the Debris Shielding option. And it would look like a relatively thick plate of Tungsten for the Radiation Shielding option. Obviously, because the Radiation shielding option is made of Tungsten, it would ALSO make a VERY good heat shield, provided that you ALSO need the radiation shielding in any case (otherwise it's a poor choice because it's so much heavier than a "normal" heat shield). Tungsten is still Tungsten, and Tungsten is widely known as the metal with the highest known melting point (Carbon beats it out, but Carbon is not a metal, so Carbon might be chosen for a non-ablative "just a heat shield" heat shield). When would you need both radiation and heat shielding? Well eventually the game is supposed to be giving us a bunch of high tech sci-fi engines, and one thing I know about high-tech sci-fi engines is that they tend to spew a lot of radiation, so you're gonna need the radiation shield. But hopefully those high tech sci-fi engines include a few that can be used from sea level of Kerbin (or even Eve), and that means you need the radiation shield, you can probably easily get enough delta-V out of the engines to make an SSTO, and that means you need the heat shield so you can land the SSTO again. And if you're asking yourself "Why land the SSTO?", I have an answer. I don't think it's a good idea to be mass-producing these high tech engines that must cost absolutely absurd amounts of money (so much money that KSP 2 isn't even featuring a money mechanic because EVERYTHING is too expensive and making money to support launching them distracts from the core experience), so why would you want to only use them once? It seems incredibly wasteful to just dispose of them after a single mission, and even if money is no object the engines still have a cost in the materials used to construct them so it's still wasteful to only use them once. And you SHOULD be able to move LARGE amounts of cargo to orbit with these high tech sci-fi engines that spew radiation (depending on the size of the radiation shield you need of course). Additionally, with the routine mission automation feature that's eventually going to be put in the game (I forget where specifically on the roadmap that is at the moment, but it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion), the rate you can fly these SSTO rockets to resupply your very first Orbital VAB that's probably in Kerbin orbit is determined directly by how quickly they can be turned around, re-fueled, get a new payload, moved to the launch pad, and launched again. Meaning you might not need all that many of them to support an impressive rate of resource transfer.
  11. Why don't we save ourselves the extra words and posts on the useless things and just say it's so far down on the priority list that it's right at the core of the planet? Oh right, that's where turning KSP into an MMO is.
  12. I mean, the mun arches were already "unrealistic" in that arches like that can't be formed by geological activity on a moon that is devoid of atmosphere, therefore their status as "easter egg" and not "evidence of how the Mun might have had an atmosphere or even hydrosphere at one point". So I guess I'm saying that the mun arches were already "non-canon" in a way in what little we know of the KSP "lore", meaning that if they changed them a little bit to celebrate the nearing release of KSP 2, that's not going to change anything about how KSP 1's "Lore" works.
  13. Those ram-scoops (especially the ones based on magnetic fields and low-density plasma) do make a very good braking system when attempting to stop at the destination end of an interstellar journey. All stars have a stellar wind comprised of mostly ionized protons and high velocity electrons, and the intensity of the stellar wind increases with increasing stellar mass and increasing stellar temperature. So all you need to bring for most of the braking phase of the interstellar journey (unless you're traveling to a brown dwarf) is something that can generate a large magnetic field in front of the craft, which is... probably something you were already carrying to protect you from interstellar debris (along with some method of ionizing the incoming interstellar media). But yes, for the coast phase of an interstellar journey (if there is one), you'll need some form of debris shielding. For the sake of simplifying the GAME, KSP 2 could very easily have ONE part that does both "heat-shield" and "interstellar debris shield" and "radiation shadow shield" all at once, with the variant you select designating the type of shielding it provides (or maybe multiple types, most common combination that would be needed is radiation shadow shield and heat shield at the same time). Because the more functions you can cram into one physics-enabled part, the better the game is gonna run. And I'm sure we all want to get 60FPS or more at 4K resolution with the game looking fantastic and the ship we're guiding consisting of thousands of parts, right? We can get all that, except that last one barring some revolution in how KSP/Unity calculates physics. Which means cramming multiple functions into one part is a good idea. And even if we COULD get all those things I mentioned, it's still a good idea, because that means we have more parts left over to do OTHER things on the vessel. Last I checked, landers usually take up at least 10 parts, science landers take like 50 parts or more, and if you want a "do anything at this kind of planet" lander, that's gonna be almost 100 parts. An interstellar mothership is gonna need to be made up of a lot of parts (probably over 1000), and that's even if the mothership is the kind that can spit out an Orbital VAB and still have enough resources left over to construct a bunch of landers to build at least a starter colony.
  14. Where's the option in the poll for "they're not putting a new planet in the game"? Because that's my vote that I'm writing in. Why do I think that? This is based on baseless speculation. A logical argument like proposing the addition of another planet to the Kerbol solar system may be logically self consistent, but if the foundational assumptions of the argument are wrong the whole thing is rendered invalid anyways. And I think the foundational assumption of "I heard someone say somewhere it's gonna do the thing" is not a sound foundation for any kind of logic. Especially since nobody's quoting sources. I'm also relatively if we DO quote sources I'm betting it's gonna be @Vl3d or another person that is NOT A DEVELOPER on the forums who has earned a reputation of not keeping their expectations in check, and the source quoted will be just them stating things they'd like to see as if they ARE ALREADY CONFIRMED (when they're not), rather than staying grounded on the facts that we KNOW and CAN ACTUALLY CONFIRM about what is and what is not going to be in KSP 2. Sorry if that ends this topic, but hey. This is not just an unknown, it's an unknown unknown. We don't even know the extent of the things we don't know about KSP 2. So it's useless to go off on a long speculative argument when the whole foundation of the argument is based on a lack of knowledge. EDIT: Put in shorter terms, as far as the soundness of the logic expressed so far in favor of a new planet in the Kerbol system, and what evidence there is to base that on, everyone in favor of it so far is basically trying to build a skyscraper (a very long and detailed logical argument) on a known patch of quicksand (we KNOW we don't know anything about the subject in question).
  15. Building on what @K^2 said, not only is a custom loop fun to build, but these days with the extremely high power dissipation of some brands of modern components (something like 250w for CPU and 600 w for GPU maximum thermal design power, respectively), a custom loop is practically the only way to get enough radiator area to keep temperatures down low enough so that the chips don't start their "oh I'm getting too hot I better start down-clocking" strategy that they use to get these high potential speeds while also being backwards compatible with older sockets and coolers (especially in the CPU market). Basically, if I paid for a top of the line CPU or GPU, I don't want any chance of it thermal throttling. And that means I choose a case that has great airflow, I choose to go with a custom water cooling loop to keep the heat under control, and to keep the noise down I pick high quality Noctua fans and intelligently set my fan curves and water pump speed profile so that they're not constantly changing speed. Yes, all of that costs time and money. But right now I'm sitting on a nice stable, quiet, and cool machine, my i7-9700k and RTX 3070 Ti have never gotten above 70C under sustained heavy load (3DMark Time Spy extreme stress test, run 5 times in a row with each run consisting of 20 runs of the benchmark proper, all at 4k resolution to take most advantage of the GPU). Yes, I realize I'm CPU bottlenecked, and I'm planning on an upgrade to fix that. But that's gonna be expensive, cause I'm aiming for an i9-13900kf CPU, a high-spec motherboard to go with it, and fast DDR5 ram to tie it all together. I'm awaiting further news about AIB partner's takes on the AMD 7900 XTX GPU to see if that's a worthy upgrade from my 3070 Ti as well, even tho I haven't even had this card all that long.
  16. I was more referring to glass-fiber resin composite, not fiberglass insulation. Same material, but used in a structural context not a thermal context.
  17. I mean I've got a custom loop for my system, but that's because I wanted to put BOTH the CPU and GPU on the water cooling at the same time. Plus I don't trust the tiny little pump they put on the CPU block that AIO's have to not fail within a year or two. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of AIO's being an easily approachable solution to water cooling, I just don't trust the particular implementation of all the AIO's on the market (the pump being so tiny and... "value optimized" specifically). They have a use case, just it doesn't cover MY use case since if I was going to use an AIO to cover both my CPU and GPU, well, I'd need 2 AIO's and at that point it becomes easier (if not always cheaper) to just use a custom loop in the first place right from the start. Plus there's the serviceability part of the custom loop, if any single part has a problem, I don't have to replace the WHOLE LOOP, I can just replace the FEW parts that actually have issues, which means that a custom loop is more expensive to INITIALLY set up, but it's cheaper to keep going over time and from computer build to computer build (since you can easily transfer the parts between systems).
  18. The truth about methane not being used in jet engines IRL is that the statement is not as universally true as you might think. In fact, it's only true if you only consider the "jet engines" that are attached to things that move, be that on land sea or air (gas turbines have been used for propulsion of all 3 types of vehicles, the M-1 Abrams uses a "jet engine" aka gas turbine, aircraft use jet engines, and even some fast ships use gas turbines to drive the propellers). If you look at stationary jet engines (more commonly and more correctly called "gas turbines"), however, the situation changes drastically. Look at just the stationary "jet engines" (like I said, and will entirely switch over to from here on out, gas turbines) you'll find that they're nearly universally fueled by, drum-roll please, Methane. Liquid methane, gaseous methane, it's still the same stuff. Of course, in this context it's more often referred to as "natural gas" but that's just methane with impurities, so it's still the same stuff. This is true in the same way that "Jet fuel" is the same as "Kerosene" is the same as "RP-1", at least on a gross overview level. In the case of the US Military, this is leveraged to simplify logistics, the US military fuels everything on JP-4, yes even the HMMVWs and M-1 Abrams run on JP-4 aka "a military standard for jet fuel". Point is, gas turbines used for power generation or on oil rigs to push natural gas into pipelines, they all run on METHANE! The only problem left to solve for using it on aircraft is a storage problem, not a "how do you make the engines run on this stuff" problem, and since the fuel tanks in KSP 2 will hold Methane, it wraps that up quite nicely.
  19. I can think of 4 (maybe 5) categories of options to choose from: Base Material, Construction method, Insulation type, and Surface Finish. The one that I'm thinking might be optional is "Bulkhead type", and that category would only show up if you selected more than one resource to go in the tank (options would be something like "Common Bulkhead" and "Intertank", but I can easily see this whole category becoming a sub-category to the Construction Method category). Base Material is the closest to what OP wants. You'd be able to choose between things like Stainless Steel, Aluminum alloy, Al-Li alloy, Fiberglass composite (IDK why no rocket ever used that as a fuel tank material, it's stronger than aluminum mass-for-mass, but not quite as strong as carbon fiber), Carbon fiber composite, Titanium alloys, maybe even Nickel Super-Alloys (like Inconel) if you need to contain hot high pressure and potentially oxidizing gases in a tank rather than a rocket engine for some unknown reason. Construction method is where you'd choose between options like "Sheet metal tank with internal ribs (the one you'd start off with)", "Isogrid (hex/triangle grid, strong and light)", "Orthogrid" (same as isogrid, but with squares instead of hex/triangle), "COPV" (for low temperature high pressure gases or RCS propellants, only shows up if you selected a composite base material), "Bladder tank" (RCS propellants and monopropellants only (if there's a difference)), "Balloon tank" (probably only available for stainless steel), and maybe "SRB Casing" (if we get modular (not procedural) SRB's), as well as "Structural tube", which would be a heavier option that can't hold any resources but is hollow and has a higher impact tolerance (material permitting, it would have a higher heat tolerance as well). Insulation type would be things like "Foam (Pre-cast)" (starter cryogenic tank insulation, foam insulation panels cast to the correct shape before being applied to the tank in tiles and retained with fasteners), "SOFI" (spray on foam insulation, higher tech, slightly lighter because it's just stuck on there rather than needing fasteners, and more insulating launch vehicle cryogenic tank insulation based on that used by Shuttle/SLS), "Multi-Layer-Insulation" (the gold foil stuff you see on satellites, better than foam of any kind in vacuum, but useless if there's a significant atmosphere), and things of that nature. Surface finish would have options like "Bare" (lowest mass option, might have penalties for insulation or tank durability), "Painted" (required if you want to put fancy designs on the side of the tank, and maybe useful to mitigate exposure to the elements), "TUFROC" (ablative paint that increases the maximum skin temperature of the part, at least until it's all burned away), and maybe even "TPS Tile" (basically shuttle heat shield tiles, with options for White (lower temperature) and Black (higher temperature) tiles, the tile option would be a non-ablative heat shield option usually used for spaceplanes if they have a base material incompatible with high internal temperatures (like most aluminum alloys). Surface Finish is how you'd apply heat shielding to spaceplane parts without them having to create dedicated "airplane only" parts for the game that would be ignored by most people. IMO this would greatly deepen the game by allowing the player to make many more design trade-offs. For instance, do you want to make your spaceplane with a Titanium internal skeleton so that you can save money on the heat shield system by only using TUFROC, or do you want to spend more money on the heat shield system by covering it in TPS Tile and saving weight by switching to an Aluminum Alloy internal structure (like the Shuttle did)? Do you want to use Carbon Composite, Internally Braced, Common Bulkhead tanks with SOFI and Bare surface for the upper stage of your Hydrolox launch vehicle, or do you want to build a Centaur-like stage that uses Stainless Steel Balloon tanks with a Common Bulkhead and SOFI insulation with Bare surface There are a lot of possibilities here, and that should mean that there are enough options to allow someone who knows what they're doing to pick the options that optimize the fuel tank to whatever task they have in mind for it. As for that "A person that knows what they're doing" disclaimer, don't let that make you think the idea isn't bad, the game could easily have a little tool tip that pops up when you hover over any of the options in any of the categories that has a short text blurb that describes why this option is different from the other ones, as well as out-and-out saying what each option is best suited for.
  20. Well if you're confidant, I'm even more confidant. i7-9700k, 32GB DDR4 3200mhz (cl14-14-14-34), RTX 3070 Ti. I should be able to run this game at least 60fps 4k resolution. What I'm less confidant about is if my current 40" 4k 60hz monitor will last until then, I've got a couple columns of backlight LEDs that are either not working or operating at incredibly reduced output, and if I leave the monitor on too long another column starts flickering. I know it's not the LCD itself, because all things are just as clear as ever, it's just darker than it should be in spots. I already have the replacement picked out, it's actually an upgrade, because instead of being just 4k 60hz, this new one is 4k 144hz maximum, but it's EXPENSIVE at $1k ($1,000) USD. Thankfully it's christmas time, and I'm asking for "something green" this year because I don't expect any one gift I get to be able to offset the cost of this monitor I want, but if I can pile all the gifts together, I might be able to tip the scale enough to balance out the price of that monitor.
  21. There really wasn't a need to necro this thread just for that, but in any case I don't think part failure belongs in KSP 2. I'm like Einstein. I think "God should not play dice". I accept quantum physics, but when it comes to game mechanics that are based on deterministic things, the result should not have any randomness in it, ESPECIALLY if that randomness has been added "artificially". IRL, things either break or they don't. They're either operating within acceptable limits, or they're not. You go outside of acceptable limits, and the thing breaks immediately. To be clear, I'm referencing that things can be operated at "more than 100%" for a certain amount of time and still be within operating parameters. If the engine is properly manufactured and it explodes when it was "within operating parameters", then the numbers associated with defining the operating parameters need adjustment, or you need to make changes to the engine to make it actually meet the operating parameters. Rocket engines should be similar. The Merlin engine that SpaceX uses on the Falcon 9 for example. The first version was originally a very modest rocket engine. Now after many upgrades, and updates to the allowable operating parameters to reflect the changes made to the engine, it's RELIABLY capable of being reused at least 10 times while simultaneously outputting like 150% more thrust than the design was originally certified at. That's IRL. Now let's talk KSP. In KSP, rocket engines could be rated to provide 100% thrust forever, and more than 100% thrust for a specific amount of time (say 105% thrust for 10 minutes or so). There can even be several ratings, say 105% for 10 minutes, 110% for 3 minutes, 120% for 30 seconds, that kind of thing. Technology advances could increase the amount of thrust that is considered "100%", or alternatively allow the engine to operate at above 100% for longer periods of time. So for an expendable rocket launching to equatorial orbit from KSC you'd set the engine at 105% and never have a failure ever, because you did the math and stayed within the operating parameters. Recovering a vessel at a colony or orbital VAB or KSC would reset the timer, because you could handwave that they refurbish or service the engines during the time they're stored at KSC or wherever. You go over that time limit, the engine explodes. That's it. That's all there is to it. No reduced thrust, no ISP loss, the engine just has a RUD. If there are other engines too close to the one that exploded, they might suffer a RUD of their own as well because of being damaged by the explosion of the first one (just like the N-1 did). Stay within the operating parameters, and nothing goes wrong. You did it right, and so you're rewarded. RANDOM part failures don't reward you for doing it right. Instead, they sometimes punish you even tho you did it right. We don't need to simulate the extensive testing and certification process for a new rocket engine, that's not for KSP that's for "Rocket engine development simulator" which is a whole separate game.
  22. Hmm. You know, there's this thing that's a lot like an SRB, but it uses the power of the Atom. It's called a "Fizzer" over on Atomic Rockets (search the word, and don't choose the option that's talking about a gas core nuclear thermal rocket) That's basically an SRB, but also sort of a nuclear thermal rocket. Use some of THOSE to get to DebDeb and it shouldn't be that hard at all. But the G forces from lighting these "nuclear candles" might turn the crew into goo (if you even send a crew). Or you know, just use an Orion drive (which isn't technically an interstellar drive system, it's more of a torch drive if anything, and even then it doesn't quite have the performance for that category). EDIT: Propellant is lithium HYDRIDE. Make VERY sure that's what you're using, not lithium DEUTERIDE, or else you're gonna have a real "lightbulb moment" and I mean the lightbulb will be an uncontrolled unconfined fusion reaction consuming the entirety of the craft and payload in the blink of an eye. But I suppose you might be able to turn that to your advantage if you dope your lithium hydride with a SMALL amount of lithium deuteride, in order to increase ISP.
  23. This is something that PC Factorio is FANTASTIC at, using it's built in mod manager. KSP 2 could be equally as good, with the right kind of built-in mod manager. EDIT: Oh yeah and Factorio is a game that uses LOTS of Lua, literally every mod uses Lua code in it to do everything, there is no such thing as a custom compiled DLL for a factorio mod. And Factorio will run on literally a potato computer, and run well at that. And it's got a lot of things going on.
  24. Ok maybe Intercept can have SOME leeway with the specific statistics of the engines, but I hope we don't see things like a vacuum Hydrolox engine having worse specific impulse than a vacuum Methalox engine. Hopefully we also don't see a nuclear thermal engine that needs radiators while it's producing thrust, when if anything it should need the radiators when it's NOT producing thrust (the opposite of the current KSP 1 LV-N Nerv), and even then only if it produces electricity when it's not producing thrust (a bimodal NTR). Because while the KSP 1 LV-N is "an attempt" at an LV-N, it's so unrealistic in every aspect other than the vacuum specific impulse, maybe the thrust, and maybe the weight (but even then it's too heavy) to me that I just can't suspend my disbelief. Point is, if they put something in the game, it should at least nod its head to reality, instead of flaunting it for the sake of "but this doesn't make the game fun in my opinion" like the LV-N does. The LV-N SHOULD be the engine of choice in space, bar none, except for tiny craft where the ion engine is a better choice. If you have the tech for it, there's literally no reason aside from a phobia of all things nuclear (don't tell them about background radiation) to not use a nuclear thermal rocket IRL.
  • Create New...