[how many salty 9 year old kids will come to ksp2 and give a one star review because it "twoo hrad"?]

1 minute ago, ModZero said:

Can be silly, that's why so many of us enjoy kids stuff. Problems start when we try to own it, like with the entire "She-Ra isn't sexy enough" debacle, or, well, this thread.

Who da fudge looks at She-ra and thinks, "I need this woman in my life". Watch siblings sassing She-ra to understand. It's a bad show.

[how many salty 9 year old kids will come to ksp2 and give a one star review because it "twoo hrad"?]

1 minute ago, ModZero said:

It's literally designed for kids, and maaaybe folks who enjoy kid stuff with a bit more "edge." It has little green men in it. The overly serious people spend their days complaining about the correct amount of resources in a life support mod instead of playing the game. 

And it has multiplayer now. In 2010s, a game without it would have very limited appeal to most kids. Most people even. But with co-op and base-building it has a really decent chance. And yes, it's challenging, but kids don't just play easy games. 9 year old is probably the lower boundary, but do expect plenty of early teens telling you to git gud on the forums.

The little green men seems more like a dad joke. I'll grant you, it doesn't take itself too seriously, but that doesn't mean adults can't be silly too, in fact, we need that more than anyone else.

[how many salty 9 year old kids will come to ksp2 and give a one star review because it "twoo hrad"?]

None. It just won't peak their interest, compared to other game adds. If you actually look at most game adds now, they are so hyperactive to try and get kids interested. It reminds me of the Nostalgia Critic review of Spy Kids 3-D, "I'm 3-D, I'm 3-D,  I'm 3-D!". It's both hilarious, and saddening at the same time. Whatever happened to sitting down for a few hours to watching intriguing episodes of the land of talking trains, for example. Now everything is so bouncy and bright, I feel like I'm going to throw up.

Anyway....

KSP 2 is for us older folk, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

[Worried about KSP magic tech, unrealistic orbital mechanics, and lol-explosions]

10 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Everybody ALREADY can make effortless returns from Eve (or anywhere else).  Just open the cheat menu and select infinite fuel.

Again, you have a perception that what other people do in the privacy of their own games somehow impacts you when it really doesn't.  When folks talk of their missions, they explain how they did them (if it wasn't obvious from the pics).  We've had a host of mods for years that allow Eve SSTOs, not to mention various conservation-breaking stock props and ladder drives.  If somebody uses one of these (or just the fuel cheat), they know it and you know it.  So how does that cheapen your accomplishment if you do things the hard way?

Ok, further clarification. I'm talking about stock KSP (+DLC), with no cheats.

[Worried about KSP magic tech, unrealistic orbital mechanics, and lol-explosions]

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Nobody is going to hold a gun to your head and force you to SSTO from Eve to a distant star.  If you don't want to do that, then don't.  If others want to, and it's possible, then let them.  It's really not your business how other people play their games.

I'm not saying someone shouldn't be allowed to do something, just that it shouldn't be trivial. If anyone could easily do return missions involving Eve, what would make it different from any other planet?

[Helium-3 and mining it for fusion engines discussion]

Crazy thought, but would an atmosphere like Eve contain Helium 3?

[How to find Delta v usage?]

If it's something obvious that I've missed, I apologize. However, what I'm looking for, is how do you know how much Delta v you have consumed? Stock, preferably. It's for measuring efficiency, you see.

[Worried about KSP magic tech, unrealistic orbital mechanics, and lol-explosions]

We are talking about interstellar travel here, something that many people already consider in the realm of fantasy. Big problems require big solutions, and the fact we can still point to the real world and go 'look, this is meant to represent that', is an achievement in itself.

My only real worry, is if these new engines make a planet like Eve, easy to get off of. As Matt Lowne has said, Eve is the boss mode of KSP 1. To take away that boss mode in KSP 2, would make the game feel too easy. Regardless of the tech we have, KSP should always have something to challenge us.

[List of new propulsion systems]

On 8/24/2019 at 4:47 PM, DStaal said:

I have another thought on how to tease info out of what we have: What are the tech trees?

Let's assume they haven't changed the tech/science system much - you still gather science and advance through the tech tree to more advanced technologies, each influencing what's available next.

Looking at it that way, I think you could consider the Daedelus as the end-tech on the same tree as the Orion - both are about dropping a fuel nugget behind you and detonating it, the Daedelus just has advanced the type of fuel and detonation, as well as the evening out the bursts of thrusts and getting better at collecting the energy.

Then Epstein drive would be a different tech line - it's conceptually much more similar to an evolution of chemical rockets, though is obviously a few steps up the tree.  What's in between?

And what would be on the same tech line as ion drives?  Or would they be a dead end, never really useful for anything other than small probes?

(And of course this is just a tech tree that came to me quickly.  There's reasonable arguments for other layouts obviously - but I thought it might be able to give us more of a framework to speculate on.)

I've been thinking about the tech tree myself a little:

I think a lot will depend on when interstellar travel is supposed to happen. If you can start it around mid game, then you'll have access to simpler interstellar engines, and as you get to later game, more advanced engines unlock. The alternative would be, if interstellar is late game, that there would, as you said, be different paths for interstellar travel, and you pick which path based on the advantages/disadvantages of that engine type, but maybe also on the access to different resources.

It all depends on how the devs view progression. Is it multiple choices or one thing is inherently better than the other? 

[Bigger part sizes]

What I'm curious about, with the new sizes, is what fuel type they'll be. Becuase given we are getting new engine types, that will likely require new fuel types, and that these larger ships appear to be launched from a space dock, I think launching from a normal launch pad will still be very similar to KSP 1, which is a shame. I'd love to haul a massive load into orbit from the KSC.

[How are Rask and Rusk going to work?]

6 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

I mean, you can certainly try, but it's not really feasible. Celestial bodies are REALLY heavy. See this Scott Manley video for reference:

 

 

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

With the kind of engines and time warp needed for interstellar craft, I don't think it'd be impossible to shift Gilly's orbit, if it wasn't on rails that is. Unless it the effect is rounded out anyway.

See. Already we have someone up for the challenge, and with an idea how to do it. Nothing's impossible in KSP, unless it's hard coded.

[How are Rask and Rusk going to work?]

1 minute ago, chaos_forge said:

Yes, this is how it already works in Principia. The bodies aren't on rails, they just affect each other as determined by the law of Newtonian gravitation.

There's no need to have the planets be "locked" in their orbits. They're massive enough (and in stable enough orbits) that the player can't do anything to push them out of place.

Challenge accepted. Well, not by me, but someone will try it, trust me. Especially if it's a small object like Gilly. Never underestimate a KSP player.

[How are Rask and Rusk going to work?]

1 hour ago, chaos_forge said:

Orbits around a barycentre are an emergent property of n-body dynamics. Rask is exerting gravity on Rusk, and rusk is exerting gravity on Rask. The combined effect of that is that they rotate around their combined center of mass (just like any unconstrained system). "Barycentre" is just a fancy word for the center of mass of the system.

For another example, we can look to the fact that objects in space always rotate around their center of mass. When you build a rocket out of parts, the devs don't have to create a special "center of mass" object for the rocket to rotate around. They just set up the parts to follow the laws of physics and have certain predefined interactions with each other, and it works out that the rocket always ends up rotating around its center of mass. Because, well, that's physics. If you set up a simulation of objects that follow the laws of physics, you get the results that are predicted by those laws.

And suddenly, it all clicked. In KSP 1, you couldn't change the orbit of a body in the solar system, even something as small as Gilly. However, for Rask and Rusk to work, they need to be able to change each others orbits, so they force themselves to rotate around each other.

A 'simple' privilege system would do the trick, like a dev mode. In Dev mode, you can affect orbits of everything, but in normal mode (our mode), you can't. You'd have to somehow have both run simultaneously of course, which might have an impact on performance, and you'd have to find a way to stop players accessing Dev mode (apart from say, mods, to create you systems or tweak old ones), but, it would work.

[How will interstellar travel work?]

55 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Ohh, I think I understand - you're referring to what happens if you escape the sphere of influence of either star, aren't you? In that case, my apologies for the condescending reply

It's a good question to be honest. Realistically, I can see a few options:

• The stars all orbit a black hole: this would be problematic as over time, the systems' relative positions are going to change, therefore changing the difficulty of interstellar travel.
• The stars all orbit a black hole at the same orbital SMA, but at different inclinations, eccentricities etc.: This would be simple, but kinda weird and unrealistic. I could potentially see this happening.
• The stars all orbit each other (a barycentre): You'd need to employ some sort of N-body calculations for when you're between the two stars.
• The stars are all frozen in space, and you're taken along a straight path to the next SOI. I see this as the likeliest option, since interstellar voyages are likely going to take on the order of decades, and to make that feasible you'll want to get to the next star as fast as you can. They'll probably approximate the stars as being relatively stationary, since your motion is going to be a fair few orders of magnitude greater than that of the stars.

Thinking about it, the stars orbiting a black hole could be really cool. It'd probably be a pain to code a black hole, but it'd definitely be something unique to visit.

[How will interstellar travel work?]

26 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Well then you'd best learn not to make mistakes. What's stopping you from flinging yourself into an escape from the Kerbol system at the moment? Nothing

It isn't an intended feature, and you can only really do it if you are aiming to do it. The velocity difference between going to a planet, and escaping Kerbol, is vast. In the new game though, it's an intended feature, and you will be aiming to escape Kerbol anyway, so if you miss the star you are aiming for, boom, you're in the void. You miss a planet in KSP 1, All that happens is that you orbit Kerbol.

[How will interstellar travel work?]

I ask because, in KSP 1, you aren't designed to leave the solar system without either glitches, or a lot of time spent accelerating. But, in KSP 2, it is intended that you leave the solar system. However, what is stopping you, for example, not pointing towards an new star system, and just going off into the void of empty space? While it might be funny to fling a spacecraft away, never to be seen again, if it happened by accident, it could be really annoying. 

So, will there be some sort of on the rails paths you can't deviate from between stars, or have the given us absolute freedom that may end up in disaster?

[Escape Velocity (fun hype)]

PLEASE READ ALL FIRST:

So, with KSP 2 announced, and interstellar travel soon to be possible, I had a fun idea to get people in the mood for KSP 2, and it revolves around a single mission. To prepare for the journey to the stars, you must first leave our own, in KSP 1. Now, while this is just for fun, I do want screenshots, to track how many successes there are, and there will be rules, which I will state later on.

Now, while some of you know what I mean by escaping Kerbol, the sun, but, others don't, so I'll quickly explain what I mean. If you go to the star map, and you zoom out to the planet orbital lines, the line of your craft should be a line pointing away from Kerbol, the sun, and shouldn't have an orbit of it's own around the star. Hope that makes sense.

Now, the rules:

-No cheating.

-No hacking.

-No glitches.

-Stock parts, DLC allowed.

-Gravity assists are allowed, but only once per body (planet/moon/sun). Choose your path wisely.

-Must be manned.

-Command module only, no command chairs.

-Must contain all scientific equipment for scans at the destination, and must allow for crew rotations of said equipment (mainly the lab), as well as communication equipment to transmit the data you find back to Kerbin.

-Must not lose power while on escape trajectory.

And that's it. Have fun, and boldly go where no one has gone before. To infinity, and beyond! (Yes, I know it's sort of already been done, but just try to have fun with this, for the sake of the KSP 2 hype train).

-

[Life support and/or habitats?]

10 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

It really depends on how they structure where the colony modules fall in the tech tree and how fast population grows.  It might be you can colonize LKO, Mun, or Minmus to build interplanetary ships to explore the original system before going further afield.  I also envision that the engines (at least) for interstellar ships will need exotic resources you can't get on Kerbin (helium-3, for example), so I'd not be surprised if you have to colonize other "home" planets to get the resources to go to other stars.

This brings up orbital shipyards, which I'm guessing are a thing based on the trailer.  Space stations can't be self-sufficient.  Even if the life support is a magic closed loop, they'll still need resupplies of toilet paper   But a shipyard will need tons and tons of construction materials, too.  The only way I can see this happening with an abstract, 4X-style thing avoiding player micromanagement would be if orbital "colonies" weren't stand-alone things, but part of the ground-based colony on the planet they orbit.  Then, as the player, you would make the ground colony have sufficient mining and manufacturing modules to supply the orbital shipyard, and probably also an "orbital logistics module" that trucks these materials up to the shipyard, all on autopilot without you having to mess with it.  You'd still have to buy it all up front, and get it there, and set it up, but then all the abstract NPC Kerbals living there do all the blue collar work.

So, if this is how things will work, it might be possible to build an orbital shipyard at Kerbin reasonably early (in KSP2 terms, mid-game in KSP1 terms).  The planet of Kerbin itself would be the "ground colony" supplying the orbital shipyard.  You'd pay to build the shipyard.  You might even have to add an "orbital logistic module" to KSC to handle the freight.  And then, you'd pay the normal price for any ship built at the Kerbin orbital shipyard.  It would effectively become another launch site on (only in this case above) Kerbin.

The problem I have with that idea, is that it is completely different from KSP 1. In the original, zero infrastructure is required to reach the entirety of the solar system. All you need is science and/or funds if you aren't in sandbox.

If, as a company, you wanted to have your old player base come over to the new game, you'd want at least the basic experience to feel the same. Of course, with colonies and interstellar travel, those are new features, and you can add whatever you want. But, for the base exploration experience, the core of KSP 1, it has to stay the same, or you'll hemorrhage loyal fans.

[How are Rask and Rusk going to work?]

Ok, I'm probably going to butcher real science, but what about some kind of push/pull system. As one planet gets too far from the 'rails', the other planet pulls in the veering planet, but this then pushes that planet away from the rails. The opposite then happens for each planet. Basically, the two planets allow some give and take, so they can change orbit a little, but then still ultimately right themselves before catastrophe strikes.

If someone understands what I mean, and can explain it better, please, do so. I'm really bad at this sort of thing.

[Life support and/or habitats?]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

I foresee (and sincerely hope) that KSP2 handles colonies the same way it handles KSC in KSP1.  This, IMHO, is the ONLY feasible way to do multiple colonies.

In KSP1, there are 2 types of Kerbals:

1. Playable individuals you can load into rockets and send somewhere.  This is currently the only way to get Kerbals off Kerbin
2. Abstracted, non-playable "population".  The global population of Kerbin who works in the industrial base that obviously must exist to supply KSC, plus the workers at KSC itself, some which are named NPCs like Gene.  None of these can be played or put in ships.

We don't have to feed Gene, Werhner, or the rest of the KSC staff, nor the global population of Kerbin.  We don't have to run the mines and factories that make the rocket parts that we assemble at KSC.   The only "dirtside" thing we have to worry about is upgrading the KSC buildings.  All the micromanagment is abstracted.

I figure KSP2 colonies will be a lot like this, with 1 difference:  we'd have to establish the global population and industrial base before we could have a functional "KSC-type facility on another world.  But we wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to micromanage the details of running the mines and factories, trucking resources around, and worrying about life support.  All the Kerbals in the colony population are doing those jobs.

So, the ultimate goal of the colony is to become a functioning spaceport, KSC on another world.  Build and launch ships, hire playable recruits, accept contracts, track asteroids, be a DSN link, etc.  This will only happen when the colony has sufficient population and supporting industrial base.  To get to this point, first you have to plunk down some starter modules.  This is the seed population, what they need to support themselves, and some space to grow into.  Once the population increases, you add some more modules to grow their industrial base and provide room for more population growth.  Then finally, you add a VAB, launchpad, astronaut complex, etc.  The population, the life support, and resource management for all this is totally abstracted.  Player input is just bringing in the modules.  Pretty much like how you establish a colony in a 4X space empire game.

Now, "just bringing in the modules" I figure is going to be a HUGE task.  I expect they'll weigh and cost a lot, and you'll need lots of them.  I also suspect that the planet's environment will dictate how many of which types you need, and how fast the population can grow.  I also expect you'll have to put the modules on or near sufficient deposits of various resources.  Thus, a lot of planning and prospecting will have to happen first, and then the major colonial expeditions to bring in the modules.  But because all the details of  how the colonists spend their time are abstracted, you don't have to keep checking in but can go off explore and prospect for future colony sites elsewhere.

I also suspect these colonies will just be for interplanetary ship builds. So, building them on a low gravity moon would be the best route. To build interstellar ships, it looks like, from the trailer, you'll want to build a large spacedock, that can handle these ships, that you provide resources for, from your colonies.

[KSP2 will have axial tilt!]

So, does this mean we'll get a planet like Uranus, and have the chance to make funny jokes about it?

 

[List of new propulsion systems]

On 8/24/2019 at 12:35 AM, nubeees said:

metallic hydrogen engine?

 

On 8/24/2019 at 12:36 AM, DStaal said:

Just thought I start a thread to try to analyze what engines we've seen in the released material so far.  Obviously the most talked about so far have been the Orion nuclear pulse, and the Daedalus inertial confinement fusion engines.  However, there's definitely others in the trailer and what's been seen so far.  For instance:

In this picture, the central engine *may* be a Daedalus, but it's also slightly different than the one leaving the Jool station: There are ports inside the bell, and the rim is more separated from the bell.  It also appears to be much smaller, based on the scale of the rest of the ship.  As a guess, it's likely another inertial confinement engine, but a smaller one.  However, there's also the eight engines surrounding it.  They could be the same engine as this shot:

But they could also be a something completely different.  I don't have any ideas off the top of my head on it.  Anyone see something familiar?

There's also several of what are fairly likely to be magnetic confinement nozzles - best shot I can quickly find for one is here:

 

Part of me thought I recognized the tanks before the smaller engines, and the single engined craft. At first, I thought they might be large Xenon engines, but they look nothing like the Dawn. Then, I looked at ore tanks, and it's surprising the similarities. However, what this means for what these types of engines are, is beyond me.

[Using colonies for interstellar travel?]

5 hours ago, Chilkoot said:

I expect for huge interstellar ships,  we'll be harvesting raw materials from mineral-rich low-gravity rock/iron bodies like Minmus, then launching proper from orbital fueling stations that harvest from Jool.

That actually sounds like it might be true, even just looking at the trailer. We only ever see interstellar type ships around orbital stations. Although, if you wanted to set up a station orbiting Jool, it's probably best to get resources from Bop and Pol, and maybe Vall.

[Life support and/or habitats?]

25 minutes ago, purpleivan said:

I'm imaginig an enormous snacks trailer, hauled along by whatever beast is making the interstellar trip. "module one... cupcakes, module two chilli dogs, module three assorted nacho dips".

module four, Imperial Slaves....

Wait, wrong game.....

[Life support and/or habitats?]

We see ships both with and without these modules. My thought is, interplanetary travel, requires no life support, like in the base game, but, with interstellar travel, certain modules are required to make such a vast trip. Also, some modules, such as tanks and containers, may be for the colony building side of the game.