Jump to content

cubinator

Members
  • Posts

    4,397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cubinator

  1. I think they should just make the deltaV bar red to indicate where the fuel is projected to run out, and put a little "/!\" sign by that spot. Especially when the game fails to determine that my full tanks have any deltaV at all as soon as I toggle engine groups.
  2. Made plans to be in the center of the Moon's shadow in April. Now for the cloud gamble to play out....
  3. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | RAM: 24.0 GB 1. Send a rocket on a suborbital trajectory. 2. Pass apoapsis and watch the time indicator. It will read "AP xxxxx m in T-..." and count up. Bonus: The indicator doesn't have units for lengths of a day or more, so it just rolls over constantly when counting down to distant events. This makes it hard to tell if you are coming up on something. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }
  4. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | RAM: 24.0 GB Expected behavior: The "Better Signal" mission would complete as soon as the probe achieves a stable orbit around Jool. Actual behavior: The mission is marked as complete as soon as the probe achieves a collision course with Jool. Steps to reproduce: Send a probe meeting the criteria for the "Better Signal" mission to Jool Enter Jool's SOI with the probe. Maneuver into a collision course with Jool. (The mission completes at this point.) Included Attachments:
  5. I have noticed my vehicles accelerating slightly around Ike, Gilly, and Kerbin. On Ike and Gilly it was pretty clearly an upward acceleration, but in Kerbin's upper atmosphere I've had both Ap and Pe raising. It doesn't matter for me whether the vehicle is in 1x, 2x, or 4x time, if it's in that "physics warp" zone it's accelerating.
  6. One of the things I've been able to decipher is it's causing the target ship to translate when the controlled ship rotates, and the velocity vectors are being calculated based on the ship's command pod or probe core rather than the center of mass. There are many other incorrect accelerations, though, and I've generally noticed it start when I switch between the two vessels (generally while docking I'm making use of the [] keys). Switching vessels in general is very buggy in this game. I feel like switching vessels while one of the vessels is rotating always leads to some crazy behavior. I think I also once saw the target ship rotating as I rotated my ship, both ships may be taking control input simultaneously.
  7. I think you could have something hand-crafted surrounding the monuments, just to make sure the player isn't likely to get all the answers right away. It's different in that it's a much larger and emptier system, but similar in that there are several planets with a piece of the puzzle hidden on each.
  8. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | RAM: 24.0 GB My rover has four command chairs, which are spaced in a way that the back seats are considered to be blocked by the game. I set my rover down on Ike and got a Kerbal on EVA to go to it. I got onto the ladder and found the "board" option available. After I clicked it, the Kerbal was sitting in the back seat and can't exit the chair due to an "obstacle". Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }
  9. I'm not saying the tech tree should be removed, I'm saying that science should function differently than solely as a currency for the tech tree - which means that the way in which the tech tree is implemented would be different and interact with different aspects of the game.
  10. This is the way I think science should be in KSP2. It should involve actual discovery and provide useful information for the player to plan their next steps. I wrote a whole long post in suggestions & development that I think is related to this discussion. It describes a very different version of science than what we have now: A few examples of my ideas for science: Planet terrain and details would not be visible, at least to probes, until photos and RADAR/LIDAR surveys are performed over multiple orbits. The player chooses which sections to take images and scans of and must plan ahead if they want to scan a whole planet in detail. Perhaps there is a place for signal delay in this game, where the player records a sequence of commands to be sent to a probe instead of controlling it in real-time. If you haven't mapped the terrain of a planet, your probe will need to be able to measure its own height above the ground or be able to reach landing speed miles above the ground to ensure a good chance of a safe landing. Of course, things like terrain maps of planets at various levels of detail could be unlocked for easier difficulty modes or returning players already familiar with the planets who just want to fly around. Magnetometers orbiting bodies can map magnetic fields, and a network of solar observation satellites would be the only way to detect incoming solar storms ahead of arrival. Perhaps the "monuments" would appear as anomalies in maps generated by surveys. They should NOT appear as a mission or text box appearing out of nowhere telling you to go visit them. The relationship between the tech tree and the collection of science would be expanded beyond the simple currency system. The direction the player chooses to go in on the tech tree would be related to the missions they choose to perform, where they would create some sort of "directive" for the space program. The science they collect would influence the directive of the space program, for instance discovering a water resource on Duna could provide incentive to increase development of resource extraction and long-term crewed mission technologies, or discovering an exoplanet could incentivize development of larger space telescopes and instruments that can characterize planetary atmospheres. Basically, I want science in KSP2 to function as sensors that gather data about the environment, not as currency dispensers that unlock new parts as a reward for traveling someplace new with limited technology. I think the place for "tech tree"-like progression lies more in the missions and the player's own directive to perform increasingly complex missions around the destinations of their choice, with science acting as an influencing force on those directives and mission goals but not directly acting as the sole source of the currency for unlocking parts.
  11. I think it would be nice to have some additional autopilot stuff like what's in airplanes nowadays - "maintain altitude" would be more useful in SAS than "maintain horizontal orientation" for me, and an ability to set a desired heading angle in SAS would be nice too. I also noticed that the 3-Kerbal command pod only has the "forward" and "reverse" control orientation options, where a vertical option would have been useful on my 2.5m diameter lander which lands on its belly.
  12. I agree, I hope to see a far more detailed system of discovery built around science and exploration. And I think the monuments should function as puzzles or signals that the player needs to figure out themselves. Perhaps there is some inspiration to be taken from Outer Wilds...?
  13. How about rotors covered in a thin PV surface? They seem to have enough area for it.
  14. One thing I think about on the maneuver node front is that when manipulating an interplanetary transfer, it's often useful for me to adjust both the delta-V on the large, solar system-scale of the maneuver, but also the timing within the low planetary orbit I'm usually coming from, which helps to get the angle just right. Being able to see both those things without having to scroll a bunch in the map view to switch between them would be helpful.
  15. In my opinion it'd be fine to keep the home system mainly consistent, but for a really full interstellar experience I think there'd be so many planets and places that you'd need to make many of them randomly generated or procedural, kind of like in Space Engine. The other thing that could benefit from random placement might be the alien monuments.
  16. Seems realistic enough to me, just not what they do at ISS. I haven't noticed any large movements except when I screw up a burn or RCS move.
  17. The following are my thoughts, more or less on what I would do to distinguish KSP2 from KSP and make it a far greater experience if I were making the game. I'm not demanding these things, and understand that the structure and affordances of the game at a basal level may already be set in stone in many respects. Still, now is the time to talk about what can be made, while it's still a bunch of ideas in all our heads. What is KSP2 trying to surpass anyway? What is KSP1? KSP1 is a rocket simulator at its core, the "challenge" that the game entices the player with are the construction of working vehicles and the piloting of those vehicles to various destinations. There's never been much to "do" at those destinations, except take in the sights, maybe send a rescue mission, or try to build the biggest thing you can there. There didn't need to be more than that - KSP is about spacecraft design and flight, and teaches players about the challenges of spaceflight and the thrill of getting from here to there while trying to avoid blowing up. The science system acts as a simple form of guided progression, and science instruments don't provide much practical purpose except as a source of a currency for unlocking more diverse spaceship parts as a reward for traveling to new destinations with limited technology. The mission system also provides a set of design and flight challenges that act as "suggestions" if you're stumped on where you want to go next. What could KSP2 do that's "more" or "different" from that? Right now, KSP2 basically has all those things KSP1 does: The rocket simulator, the flight challenges, the unlockable parts, etc. It also has updated graphics to rival the best KSP1 mods, some slight changes to the UI, and an ecosystem of bugs almost as diverse as I'd expect to find by overturning a log in the Amazon. So KSP2 is using KSP1 as a base so far, to hopefully metamorphose into a new and different experience. There are a few main "new" aspects the devs seem to be working towards for KSP2, and while I see the beginnings of some of those inside the 'skeleton' of the game today, there are some things that have been carried over from KSP1 that I think don't help KSP2 grow to the greatest experience it can be and develop its own "personality" if they remain as they are. KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator. KSP1 helped players answer for themselves "Why should we build rockets?", to the point that the story of KSP players enrolling in aerospace engineering programs because of the game has become somewhat common. For this reason, I consider KSP to be the best game. (I myself graduated as an aerospace engineer last year, though I can't say that KSP inspired it - I was already committed to becoming an astronaut long before I heard of the game. I've had interviews with SpaceX for various positions in recent months, but no offers yet.) Where KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator, I see KSP2 as trying to be a "space program" simulator. In KSP1, the player could build powerful rockets and touch down on any body in the solar system, but it would occur in isolated missions or voyages. Where KSP1 asked players "Why should we build rockets?", KSP2 seems to want to ask a question more like "What should we USE our rockets for now that we've built them?". The colonies, base-building mechanics, and interstellar destinations seem to point to a goal of letting players create a vibrant ecosystem of space travel. Instead of singular missions and tiny labs in space, we would be creating cities on the planets and trade routes between them, with complex exchanges of resources and technology culminating in the assembly of an interstellar vessel and the opening of the wide frontier. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to teach players not just about how rockets go from here to there, but about how they gather the information while exploring that leads to scientific discoveries and better informed designs of new vessels, and about the realistic challenges of living and building on another planet, and, most importantly, about exactly what makes it worthwhile to go to all that effort of leaving our perfect blue marble behind and actually trying to live there. To that note, there are a few specific aspects of the game that are presently implemented in a way that I think will be detrimental to those goals (which I just made up in my head) if they continue to build directly off of KSP1 and the simple precursors in the game now. These are the main aspects that I think should be overhauled to make KSP2 a grand step forward from KSP1: Realistic Science Currently, science in KSP2 functions purely as a currency for unlocking new ship parts. The experiment modules themselves don't provide any useful information, and the game doesn't go out of its way to tell you what was learned from each experiment. The experiments are all packaged together in a mysterious bundle, and the only interaction from the player is a simple reaction to the blinking "science" button, to click and receive science points. This is based directly on science in KSP1, which had the same function as a currency but allowed more direct viewing of the readings from some instruments like thermometers and barometers. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to embrace science in a more realistic way, and bring a taste of actual science for players. The repeated clicking on individual experiments from KSP1 doesn't need to return for this, but perhaps an "experiment manager" window or some other form of more in-depth interaction would be warranted. What I mean by this is for the science experiments to act as sensors measuring quantitative qualities of the environment. Examples of this would be a probe dropping into the atmosphere of a planet with a barometer and thermometer and creating graphs of pressure and temperature by altitude for that planet, or a spacecraft orbiting a planet with LIDAR to map its terrain for the first time, while the player would not be able to see the surface detail up close in map view or with probes before doing that. The player could gather actual scientific data, and the game could guide them into understanding why they've learned something about the planet by doing what they've done ("See the spikes in your spectrometer reading? Those prove that there is water on Duna!" "You measured a dip in this star's brightness, that must have been caused by its planet!") I recall the devs mentioning the idea of not giving the player all the information about planets right away, and players having to "discover" at least some celestial bodies on their own. I think this idea of the player gradually building up their own "discovered world" based on their own measurements helps with that, and I hope science gains a lot more depth and realism in KSP2 in the future. Some of the science experiments I can think of: -Magnetometers that can map planets' and stars' magnetic fields over time by orbiting them, and can help forecast solar storms -Spectrometers that give spectra for stars, planet atmospheres, and surface samples, which the player can look over to characterize composition -RADAR, LIDAR, and cameras that allow the player to record detailed maps of surface topography -Telescopes with various specialized instruments and wavelength ranges for observation of deep space objects, exoplanet discovery, and mapping the stellar neighborhood Player-Driven Exploration With discovery at the forefront of the game, I think the player will have all the incentive they need to drive the direction of their space program on their own. Want to explore the Sun? Prioritize radiation and magnetic science parts. Made an unexpected fascinating discovery about Jool? Drum up the resources for a planetary probe. Prefer visiting Minmus over the Mun? Focus the game on that destination. Show the player the options, and let them choose their own goals. A big place where I feel the game falls short of this are the anomalies. Instead of encouraging the player to go to space to learn about their environment and place in the universe, about the natural beauty of the world, the game sets the main goal as learning about the ancient aliens who were in the Kerbol system. I think having those artifacts in the game is no problem at all, and can make for a really cool adventure, but no part of the game should tell us to go seek them out or visit them. I would implement them far more subtly, requiring the player to discover them through actual anomalies in the data they gather as they explore. For instance, mapping out the magnetic environment around the Mun with an orbiting probe and discovering a strong localized magnetic field that reveals the location of the Mun arch. No Keri Kerman telling us that there is an arch, no mission handed to us by the game - all the incentive and excitement can come from a pure "What's THAT?" as the player discovers a tantalizing measurement. Then, visiting the arch (which should probably be covered up to begin with until excavation is possible) could allow discovery of an actual signal, a puzzle which would need to be deciphered by the player. Another example would be finding nearby stars and exoplanets. Once the player has the technology to do parallax measurements and light curves of stars, the game shouldn't tell them where to look in the sky. They should just be able to start a sky survey or point their telescope at whichever star they like, and see what they find. They might not know about all the same planets as some other player does, and when the time comes to launch their interstellar vessel they'll choose a different star to point it at, based on what they've discovered. Resources As the game progresses into colony-building, I'm sure the focus on material resources will grow, as now it isn't there but I can see the place for it in the game. On extraplanetary bases, it's obvious that there will be a limited budget of raw materials, metals, oxygen, etc. with which to build rockets, buildings, and other machines, with that budget coming from resource extractors and mining of the surface through combing, excavating, and drilling the planets. Other planets would also have alternate materials available like regolith for buildings, roads, and launch pads. On Kerbin, presumably advanced industry elsewhere on the planet is able to supply KSC with an "allowance" of materials and parts, which don't necessarily need to be limited by cost in money units, but could be limited by quantity available, especially for specialized parts like probe cores and science instruments. For instance, "There are 6 FL-T200 fuel tanks available" or "There are 3 probe cores and 1 capsule available". Part of the player's directive for exploration could be the strategization of prioritizing production/purchase of certain kinds of parts and materials. Probes vs. space station modules, longer range antennas, different types of experiments...These would make every player's "space program" unique and personalized. Conclusion This is basically my outline for what I personally imagine KSP2 could be like in the future. The main aspects I see in this "speculative" version of KSP2 are: Science experiments functioning in a realistic way, as sensors that observe the environment, and conclusions about the universe being drawn from those observations, as well as useful information for designing and piloting vehicles in those environments Player-driven exploration, with much less direction coming from the mission system as to what to focus on or find important A focus on material resources for production of parts, vehicles, buildings, and missions that is adaptable to the player's self-determined goals There are a few places in the game where I see gameplay mechanics that I think will prevent KSP2 from achieving these aspects if they are left as they are and taken for granted. Mainly these are copied from KSP1: The "science point" system and its dynamic with the tech tree Exploration being driven by "missions" where the game tells you where you should go and what aspects of space exploration you should consider important I think those aspects from KSP1, which themselves were added after the core identity and function of the game were fairly well established, should be rethought and reworked to better fit the mission of KSP2. I'm not demanding that they be changed or made to fit what I've described here, my only request is that they not be taken for granted just because they're the status quo. I know this is just my idea, and I'm sure the actual game could turn out very differently from what I've described and still be a very good game. The devs have no doubt been thinking and shooting ideas around about these very topics for years longer than I have, too. Developers, thanks for listening to the community, and thanks for your dedication and commitment to trying to make something even greater than the best game ever.
  18. I do like the idea of this, but I've had trouble telling whether something was in front or behind a couple times, and I'd appreciate a little more visual distinction between them. My strategy for docking has been to have both vessels target each other, and set both to align to target. A docking alignment indicator would be extremely appreciated though.
  19. I actually gained an intuitive understanding of m/s from playing KSP. Any use of mi/h and km/h outside of cars is basically meaningless to me until I convert it to m/s and can compare it to how fast my rockets go. Now, Mach units would actually be interesting, especially if the game actually treats the transonic regime in a realistic way for jet engines and aerodynamic surfaces. (I haven't noticed anything different happening around it.)
  20. The Kerbals descended the slopes of the giant mountainous plateau, and drove until the sun went down, then stopped for the night. The next morning, they continued on all the way to the monument, which was a grand total of 74 km from their landing site. Then they were unrecoverably bugged out. One Kerbal willed himself all the way back to KSC with all the science, and the other three fell through the ground on their rover on the next load. I'm sure they'll be fine. Much later, it was time to return to Kerbin. The game still expressed no intention of showing me how much propellant was left in my fuel tanks, so I had to just assume that when I lifted off Duna I would be able to avoid coming back down. Time to close the cargo bays and take off! The ship twisted and turned as the center of mass had shifted, but it was just controllable enough to turn to face the right direction for orbit and gain enough height to switch to the main engine at the back. Off we go! I had to keep the nose tilted high in order to avoid overheating the docking port, but encountered no problems aside from that. The engines were still burning, and the ship still seemed weighty enough...fingers crossed. Eventually the ship actually made it into orbit, and inched back toward the tanker stage. After some unexpected rotations by the SAS, the ships docked with monopropellant almost running on fumes. They were in a somewhat odd angle to return to Kerbin from Duna, but there was enough fuel to make it work. Plenty, in fact. The Mun falls into its familiar place in the sky. A trajectory correction was needed to fix the re-entry altitude after the Mun's gravitational tug. Kerbals in a can. Dropping down into the familiar blue sky. "Hey, do you think there could be repercussions for contaminating Kerbin with material from Duna that we inadvertently brought along on the exterior of this very capsule?" Too late now.
  21. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | RAM: 24.0 GB While orbiting Kerbin, the ground-relative altitude displays a lower value than sea-relative altitude while the craft is obviously over open ocean, implying that the craft is closer to the ground than to the ocean surface. I think the seafloor's terrain altitude is being treated as positive instead of negative. Sea elevation displays 71827 m: Ground elevation displays 70095 m at the same instant: Often the ground elevation will even display values below 70 km even though the craft is totally in space.
  22. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | RAM: 24.0 GB I had a Kerbal go on EVA from a command chair on a rover that was parked at the Duna monument. I then noticed that the "Recover" option was available. I don't remember if I was in the map view or the tracking station when I clicked it, but it worked and the Kerbal was marked as having been returned to KSC. I got around 3000 science for it. The Kerbal had initially launched in the command chair, and the rover had been on Duna through three separate play sessions as I drove it to the monument. I think I had gone to Mission Control to claim the Duna Monument prize, and then gone back to the tracking station. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }
  23. -The big circles around planets and the dull colors of the planet orbit lines make it hard to watch multiple phase angles at once. -SAS/RCS on/off distinction is difficult to discern from color alone. -Gilly's timewarp limits are much too conservative. -What's the point of unlocking different length fuel tanks anyway? The only reward I can think of is "better performance". Bonus: I just found the resource menu today. I thought you all were talking about the "Vessel Resources"/"Non-Stageable Resources" menu and was confused about why I couldn't get my methalox to show up there. Turns out it was hidden two layers deep in a generic menu icon that I couldn't always get to open when I clicked on it anyway. I thought it was nuts that it covered up half the view when all I needed was to see my fuel reserves.
  24. I agree that the launch music gets repetitive. I'm also curious about where the iconic KSP1 theme went...
×
×
  • Create New...