CMDRennie

My suspicion is that because KSP became such a huge phenomenon, nearly the entire player base will be aware of KSP2 and ready to buy it day 1. At some point in development they decided to do an early access release, which poses a problem. If they set the price to reflect the state of the game for an EA release, a huge proportion of the total sales will be at the lower price (which may not be enough to support development to 1.0). So they decided to set the EA price at what you would expect for full release, and develop the game to justify that price. The trouble with this approach is that allot of the players are put off by the discrepancy between price and quality, and choose to get a refund.

I like this approach. I feel like it would be a fairly accurate representation of full n-body physics without allot of the computational and stability problems. I’m not a coder though, so I’m only guessing.

While I don’t disagree, the point I wanted to get across was a dissatisfaction of core gameplay improvements and a lack of ambition. Of course I expect KSP2 to embody some of the most popular mods from KSP1, just as KSP did throughout its development.

This quickly became a hot topic in another thread, so I’m creating this one for a dedicated discussion. Keep in mind that most of this is hypothetical as the developers have already chosen not to implement such a system in KSP2. And are unlikely to retroactively change the core physics of the game.

I think someone should start an n-body physics thread (if they haven't already). Clearly people have allot to say on this topic, myself included. In fact, here:

In the context of KSP, it wouldn’t technically be the n-body problem as all but one of the bodies would be on rails. But I digress, I didn’t intend for this topic to be about n-body physics (interesting though it is). Maybe that’s a topic for another thread.

I agree 3+ body physics would be a huge challenge to implement, but it serves as an example of the kind of changes which could have been made to increase the technicality and depth of the gameplay. Other ideas that have been mentioned like radiation, transmission delay, surface scanning and life support would also be good fits.

Yeah, these features are on my wish list too. I didn’t include them for brevity. I feel allot of KSP players have gone looking for that space sim that offers a more realistic setting. Games like Orbiter, Re-entry, Rogue System and the upcoming Alliance Space Guard all offer something new in terms of realistic space sims, but have there own limitations. And most of them are niche projects that don’t have the same wide appeal and support of KSP.

With other space games like Universe Sandbox and Children of a Dead Earth having 3 or N-body physics, it makes KSP feel dated and simplistic by comparison. I know it’s not an easy problem to solve, but it’s one of the many mechanics which KSP2 could have used to become more advanced than KSP1. Personally, I wanted to see a lot more realism from the game mechanics to give veteran players of KSP some new and interesting challenges.

Disclaimer: While I have not yet purchased KSP2, I have been following the development and launch though the dev’s own promotional material and player reviews. The following are just some personal views and observations. Being a long-term player of KSP, I was excited at the announcement of a sequel. But I was also apprehensive as to the direction the game would be taken. I had been playing flight sims on and off since 2004, so when I came across KSP it was the perfect union between a simulation game and physics sandbox I didn’t know I needed. KSP2 has the potential to take that unique formula and expand it, unshackled by it’s predecessors roots as a simple unity project. It is my understanding that KSP2 was written from scratch, and does not borrow source code from KSP1 (please correct me if I’m wrong). This should have left the doors wide open for a radical re-imagining of what KSP (and space sims as a whole) could be. Instead, the developers chose to make Kerbal Space Program, again. Albeit, with some very welcome quality of life improvements and graphical upgrades. Because of this approach, I’ve seen bugs and physics problems have either been solved or alleviated in the original for years, re-appear in the sequel. For example, wobbly rockets, which is an inherent problem of a vehicle made from dozens of interconnected parts, was worked around in KSP1 using struts and later auto-struts. KSP2 presented the developers with an opportunity to redo the vehicle assembly and parts physics from the ground up. But instead, in an attempt to stick with the familiar ‘pick and place’ building method, they have given themselves the same obstacles they already overcame years ago. The tutorials, while not a big deal for plyers like myself, are an important part of making an otherwise technical game accessible. But if the developers felt that the accessibility of the first game is lacking, I see no reason why that tutorial system could not have been added in an update. The feature set to come to KSP2 during its early access development are exciting, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that most, if not all of these features are already available though KSP1’s modding scene. And while I’m sure that these feature can be well implemented by the devs, to me, it still doesn’t justify the sequel on its own. I would have liked to see an overhaul of the vehicle assembly system, including: Fully procedural parts like fuel tanks, engines and even habitation and command modules. N-body physics instead of sphere of influence orbital mechanics (even if it is just for the currently active craft). And maybe even control of kerbals inside spacecraft and habitation modules. But It's looking like we're not going to get the next generation space sim we've been hoping for. Thanks if to made to the end of my ramble, I needed to get this off my chest. Fly safe!