Chilkoot

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

82 Excellent

About Chilkoot

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

429 profile views
  1. I suspect they (Squad) may be stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. The biggest impact right now is per-piece physics and the interactions at every joint. If they re-code the physics from the ground up to permit much larger ships and bases, it will almost certainly break existing structures and saves. I don't think there's a real "win" situation for them here that offers both major performance gains and save compatibility. I would love to be wrong about KSP 1's future optimization potential, but I think KSP 2 was really the only long-term way forward for the franchise in general to let people build bigger and go further.
  2. In the Virtual Reality gaming segment, performance is paramount, yet about 75% of virtual reality developers to date have chosen to build on Unity. For reference, low-end VR resolution is 2160×1200 @90Hz, and there is zero tolerance for stutters, so pretty much every VR game dev must focus first and foremost of visual performance. The engine of choice for most developers has been Unity, as Unreal-based VR titles have no performance advantage over their Unity counterparts, and Unreal's VR tools were late to the game and generally provide poorer visuals. As others have made clear, KSP's performance problems are related to CPU-bound physics calculations, not rendering. The way those calculations are made has nothing to do with the engine, and everything to do with developer choices. Modern versions of Unity hold their own with anything on the market, and with mod developers supporting the choice, it sounds like Unity was the best possible direction for Star Theory to take.
  3. Star Theory has said that they don't want to "punish players" for just leaving a colony on its own and focusing on some other undertaking, so I suspect any KSP2 in-game life support will be rather minimal and automated like requiring production and reprocessing modules in your ground bases. Adding life support in general to KSP 1 changes the game *completely* and usually introduces a ton of micromanagement, which isn't for everyone. Without cryogenics, some longer missions are essentially impossible. Personally, I don't want strict life support in the base game, but I would at least like to see engine-level support for survival and resource processing loops as we see in quasi-overhaul mods like the USI suite. Being able to implement these features via mod without bringing the game to its knees would really open the door to some fun mechanics.
  4. I don't believe the plan for KSP 2 is overly ambitious, in fact, I think the core framework that Star Theory plans to deliver is just right. It will provide us with built-in, efficient game mechanics to cover probably the top-5 (non-visual) modded-in features used in KSP 1: Landed Base Building and ISRU (MKS/Pathfinder/KPBS/etc) + Orbital Bases (SPE Redux, OKS) Advanced Propulsion Technologies (think Near Future, Far Future, Interstellar, USI Orion) Off-World Rocket Construction and Launchpads! (EPL, Ground Construction) Extra-Kerbolar Systems and Moddable Primary System (Kopernicus, KSS, etc) Multiplayer! Yes, we could do all (well, most) of this in KSP 1, but anyone who's tried to build a self-sustainable interstellar launch facility on Io in career mode knows the performance and stability were *brutal* with all the required mods and a station with enough parts to be self-sustaining (esp. with life support). Not to mention the game-killing Kraken problems with larger bases or ark-level ships. Star Theory is giving us the tools and systems built-in with KSP2 to do all of the above and more as part of core, efficient game play. The real benefit of the upcoming release will be to open the door to modders to expand on all these elements with new worlds, new parts, etc., and not kill performance in the process. I do expect KSP 2 will be a complete game experience when it ships, but I'm more excited about it being a far more robust platform for content creators. EDIT: The one extremely popular mechanic I left out of the list is Life Support. I know a lot of people consider this a must-have game function and we'll just have to wait and see how KSP 2 supports it as both a core feature and moddable add-on.
  5. This was just an off-the-cuff example. Yes, people on this forum know it's a simple save file edit to change Kerbal names. Probably >95% of KSP players don't know how to do that. *Any* digital content extras will be something that can be replicated with mods. Whether extras will be appealing to the broader market is a completely different question.
  6. Two opposing thoughts: Given the cult status of the first game, it would follow that a "Collector's Edition" with physical swag (eg. statuette, mission flag, art book) would be released in the $90-$100-range. I could see it also including a key for a uniquely-named in-game Kerbal and a skin pack for parts. The shift to all-digital distribution for games has hampered the market for physical game swag. 10 years ago, a large Collector's Edition box next to the standard box was a more appealing impulse upgrade/buy than the digital content offered with most Collector's Edition releases today. I don't think we're going to see a Season Pass made available until the first DLC for KSP2 is announced. They will likely hit the store at the same time. Offering a purchase tier that includes all future DLC isn't uncommon, but typically that goes hand-in-hand with some kind of news related to actual DLC in the works.
  7. Sadly, there is more money to be made and more votes to be gained by bombing the hell out of each other here on earth. The future looked bright and starry in the earlier days of the space program.
  8. ^ Sound advice. Refurb/off-lease machines are cheap and generally pretty reliable.
  9. No lie - I'll be using a few vacation days when it hits the market.
  10. As per title. I was happily liking away until the other day my little thumbs-up button disappeared. Any ideas what would cause that?
  11. You know, it makes pretty good intuitive sense that we can't push something up to or beyond the speed of light mechanically. It also seems to make sense that if we were able to modify space, we could transplant something from A to B faster than it would take light to travel through the regular space in between. But messing up causality... that's the one that really bakes my noodle. I think if you asked 5 different Cosmologists about it, you'd get 5 different answers, and I don't have nearly a strong enough intuitive understanding of it to even hazard an educated guess.
  12. There's also the whole breaking causality problem... Whether causality is immutable in this universe remains to be seen.
  13. Taking a step back even further from the 'on rails' mindset, I was hoping for random or procedurally-generated Kerbolar systems for us to explore in each new save. As much as I loved them the first time around, it's going to hard to make landing on Duna and Eve feel fresh or interesting again. I'm really scratching my head at Star Theory's decision to use the same base planetary system we've explored to death over the last several years.
  14. This sounds a lot like the Kerbal Research and Development mod.
  15. @Brikoleur I really like your list, and luckily it appears you're going to be safe come release day based on the interviews and dev responses we've seen so far. To be honest I always play with USI-LS and more realistic ISRU modded in, but I don't believe they should be part of the core game in KSP 2. They frankly limit exploration (significantly - esp. life support) and force a lot of micromanagement that would be a real drag for most players. Those of us looking for more 'sim-level' realism can always mod that in without being a killjoy to the playerbase at large.