Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


64 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would agree that it would at least be surface-level good on release. But the pre-alpha warning stamped on the latest interstellar episode does not instill me with confidence for 2023 at least not something polished to the point of 'really decent with little in the way of bugs'. Alpha watermark? No questions asked, good chance a well polished game and complete experience by 2023 with time to spare, an alpha watermark may even mean closed testing within the month if you are lucky. But I can only speculate with that dang pre-alpha stage which I'm not sure how to feel about. You could say heck, we don't even know their standard of alpha and beta even is. They might abide (roughly) by my definition taken from my publisher, they might abide by the Wikipedia definition where feature lock happens on alpha, they might say alpha is the release and we will work on it like its an early access game until it is 'complete' (rip). Nothing was said but things can be inferred so personally I will just choose the lowest denominator and pretend that KSP2 is feature-incomplete right now to avoid letdowns, they have not decided on everything they want (do not quote this out of context!), much less solve every one of our ksp1 gripes.. yet. They were even hiring a senior concept artist? This 'late' in development? Is part creation that big of a bottleneck right now? What else have they not realized they needed extra man power for yet? If they only made half the parts by the time of this post with 600(+) parts, you'd need to make more then a part per day to hit the release 'window' with no time for testing. But I'll definitely give them the benefit of the doubt because that is just crystal ball doomer speculation. Maybe they have parity with KSP1? everything up to ""KSP1's content"" are polished and ready, they are just going thru the motions of new content for KSP2 in a essentially feature complete beta engine. They could release it today and itll be 'playable' perhaps, just missing most of the fancy tech and a lot of progression gaps. Clearly they hired professional testers earlier, maybe they really are just undergoing internal alpha/beta testing trying to find the last few inconveniences, progression gaps and really delivering on killing the kraken for good. Speculation but its positive. Maybe their development cycle is per feature, the procedural radiators go from pre-alpha to alpha build and so on and we just get it hot off the press and only see the pre-alpha watermark and I mistakenly assumed it was for the game itself. More speculation. I don't know, I hope I don't appear to claim to know. I wish i knew, but for now I'm just going to set an alarm for march 2023, anticipate and play other very vaguely related games like Extrapolation, The last starship and Cosmoteer that actually have semi-open alpha testing and pray its enough to distract me from ruminating too much about KSP2's development. XD Whatever comes come 2023 will come (haha, English) and frankly I feel we're not entitled to anything good because we haven't paid a cent to KSP2 yet. I agree we dont know anything despite as much as Vegatoxi likes to believe there is some concrete evidence for a vaporware case study. If in the off chance, KSP2 wont ever live up to its name then... some other game will perhaps. I can wait.
  2. If it helps, I've kind of stopped taking anyone's word (for things other then KSP2 as well) on even the year of the release date so long as the words 'pre-alpha' flash on any developer previews, game-play trailers, w/e. Pre-alpha being the stage of (We have a general idea of the game/set of features but there still can be alot of scope creep and features added).* When it hits Alpha (We have the major features locked down, but still not too sure on minor ones)* or Beta (We know and have basically all the features needed prior to release, they are locked down and we are just making them presentable),* then I'll start taking note of the year or month of the release date. Before then any 'release date' is just for marketing purposes and is more speculation then estimation. Working in the games industry its kinda funny how much stuff is added basically last second as planning goes, there's always something you missed, more things to live up to. Tripling a time estimate to pad for unexpected developments isn't too uncommon ('bad practice' sure, but when you're in under explored territory or a new studio its more of a given). Perhaps the people at the newly founded intercept games had underestimated their public release time by just removing the 'padding' for an optimistic schedule or underestimated the cost of essentially building an engine from scratch again, but in the end their (speculative) legal agreement with Take 2 reflected that immense padding and this is what the fiscal 2023 release disclosed in T2's meeting likely entails. Depending on what is stipulated in the publishers contract, if they wanted to delay again there may be legal repercussions resulting in pay being withheld or more extreme measures. I would personally take KSP2 as a case study of whether to propose a more risky but tangible release date, as opposed to a further out but much safer one and which one generates more 'healthy' hype in the long run. But this is going a bit off topic so ill just leave it at that c: *Features as in features prior to first release candidate (RC1) or just 'initial release', some games (esp indie) are released in alpha for financial purposes if their scope is too big and the sales money is needed to fund the remaining development cycle. I dont think KSP 2 will be one of those but that remains to be seen.
  3. Oh, team based multiplayer was confirmed? Or rather more specifically the Team vs Team gameplay your extrapolation on bots would suggest as opposed to just regular coop (everyone is in the same 'team').
  4. getting paid to play ksp2 early, tempting. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Man I wish i could've been born 3 years earlier to meet the years of work requirement for both jobs.
  5. I think its mainly todo with how repetitive and tedious launching from kerbin is, esp as you venture further out. If you could just not do it in a gravity well then, that leaves alot more room to explore and alot more of those minmus scale missions where its measured in days rather then months (Even when there is time-warp i still saw a thread where some people on this forum felt 'bad' for leaving the ksc idle while a long mission is running). They could've gone with just "oh a new KSC spawns on a new planet once youve done enough science there" but thats shallow, people want to build these bases themselves, and hence colonies exist. My argument before was based off the feeling that, once youve "got a colony" or are essentially done looking at the planet, the planet just is 'whatever', another rock to launch from, albeit in a more convenient dV position then the last. It would be nice to have these science engineering challenges tied to these places that encourage exploring the planet and the suite of parts ksp has, even after youve moved on to the next. So that even while you're at the next star system, theres still a reason to go back and take another shot at these activities, perhaps to optimize, perhaps to revisit one you couldn't do before with the level of technology you once had. This time with much more freedom, eventually leading to vehicles designed for the unique challenges of each planet which I find particularly attractive.
  6. did it? The slight difference in name is probably because its 2018 unity not 2021 like im using rn. Unless you are referring to a different screenshot, then count me corrected.
  7. Its just the default desktop build config in unity under the category of (Windows, Mac & Linux), which mainly targets windows. So i don't think it means anything. The title of unity under this default config (even thoh i can only build to windows):
  8. Hot take but I feel for science to not be repetitive they have to be more handcrafted and unique then "activate this machine you brought with you in various locations" or "wait 40 hours for this thing to complete". I dont think there's a big enough carrot other then a literal skinner box to offset boring and repetitive gameplay. Perhaps fitting in with the goofy but grounded theme of KSP, unlocking a better reaction wheel or RCS means doing a back-flip on a rover on the mun or other body with low gravity. Getting a better heat shield may be surviving a kerbin atmosphere entry above some velocity. These are pretty rough examples but the idea is just so you have a neat set of fun engineering-related challenges to do when arriving at a new planet that tests your skills gradually, gives a bunch of concrete but open ended goals and really plays into your ability to build rockets and solve problems in various ways. I'm not saying to remove KSP 1 style science instruments entirely, just that maybe they should be de-emphasized somewhat in a rocket building game in favor of actually interesting challenges that put the engineering focus of the game first. Or at the very least have the science instruments require these kinds of challenges to be functional rather then be used as a shallow token of a progression vehicle.
  9. I don't know man, considering how they have endured the dumpster fire at mine, id say they are more then a good case study for heat shields ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  10. Didn't NASA receive peak funding due to the cold war with the USSR? After the USA won the moon landings and hence 'space supremacy' people stopped caring about the soviet threat(in the avenue of space exploration) and the budget was cut. We then entered a space progression lull before commercialization picked up traction this decade. Had the cold war not happened its likely the moon landings would have happened much later. Major conflict drives accelerated innovation often. But I do agree its probably not the route KSP2 should take when it comes to informing motive or gameplay It could be fun with a bunch of friends that you know well however, at least you can just laugh shenanigans off and set boundaries for whats acceptable so they don't blow up a serious mission. :p
  11. You misunderstand. You see, past a point in thruster power it stops becoming you getting to places faster, but rather getting places to come to you :)))))) Planet redirection anyone?
  12. I like the small local recurring events (e.g. volcanoes (minus the lava), geizers, minor impact, meteor shower) and the positional recurring events (thing passing through rings, alignment, eclipse). Those seem pretty reasonable to implement as special landmarks on the surface of bodies / pre-calculated timestamps and would be cool to have bases near their sites (even if its just for the cool photos). The rogue planet is kind of interesting thoh, as the game progresses it gets harder and harder to catch as its escapes the star system, an interesting way to scale with player progression for sure. I'm not holding my breath on visuals or changing terrain so likely its perapsis is going to be a bit far out or its a rocky world with next to no volatiles to melt or vaporise. The ideas like merging, giant impacts or celestial bodies getting slowly spagettified by the roche limit seem a little too out there owing to how planets are implemented and the insane effort it would take for it to look half decent and not just two spheres awkwardly clipping into each other with explosion particles (simply bc KSP2 is likely to be designed with this never happening in mind , making this feature especially difficult to introduce).
  13. The thing is, KSP2 as described by the planet tech insights does all of the LOD in the gpu. Yknow, the processor that only does an absurd amount of computations in parallel anyway. So the Concurrent binary trees may be a bit redundant to the devs, but it seems to have some advangtages in the tessellation between the borders of Lod (even thoh that can be fixed with quadtrees). Additionally even if the devs used this technique you wont get much of a detail increase, both techniques rely on a heightmap (normally a huge grayscale texture), which is limited by the memory in ur gpu. So even if it has incredible fidelity on a 2km square, you shouldnt expect that level for an entire planet, and hence why ksp2 uses terrain scatter and procedural elements at finer details. Terrain features that dont need to be fully stored and sent to the gpu essentially. As for the nano thing, having it scale to 1m (still very low poly looking) polygons on kerbin is equivalent to having a 1m boulder have polygons the size of bacteria. Having millimeter precision, is like boulder polygons the size of a water molecule. You just cant store that kind of detail in a way thats worth it. I get the hype but its too easy to point at a new technology and not consider its limitations and how its used.
  14. It reads to me more like a 'history' icon whatever that entails; Owing to the arrow on the clock. Perhaps its ur undo history. :0
  • Create New...