Nao

If they properly gate the sci-fi in "eras" (preferably only 2 or 3), so we can for example play normal-creative and sci-fi creative it should end up "ok" in the long run. If it is anything like vanilla Minecraft, multiplayer should be fine too. I'd be more scared of technical limitations that it could impose themselves on the normal game. Or glitching/hacking that could randomly ruin fun things. I have the same sentiment. For sandbox it probably does not matter, but if they intend for a more streamlined experience on consoles with missions, story, progression, achievements etc. the likely constant over the top everything will get old fast. I'm similarly not buying into the hype, thou will likely buy it regardless of reviews - as long as it runs at all it should be fun... or !!fun!! ( "!!" means something is on fire in DwarfFortress )

Astroneer did great for what it was, but games don't really scale linearly with complexity. I think KSP2 being 2x the price is at least 4x as hard to do. Work experience is very valuable, but getting whole team to be comfortable with a project takes time and failures that you learn from. Some problems can hit you even when you see them coming. And i'm not talking about design, KSP showed what works and what does not. But even when you know exactly what you want, to actually code it, make it work, you still need to stumble along the way as you do it. Idk i may be underestimating Star Theory, but great development studios don't just pop into existence. Yeah, but then we paying full price for unfinished products and it's a coin toss weather the game company can stay afloat while they are finishing it up. Not saying it won't but also i don't see it trying to make 100% sure it will work. I'm not too worried about design, main concept is already solid, thou multi-platform does make me nervous they get some "great idea" to make it more appealing for consoles. Also i bet multiplayer will either be too limited or be too limiting to the game (a balance here would be really hard to hit blind). You don't really build smooth games, you can have robust engine that does not bog down as much when you add new stuff during development. But in case of these resource intensive games, smoothness is fixed and you dial the content around hardware limitations. Similarly "richer" and "more complex" isn't given as they are building the game from ground up. It's something that is added over time, and i'd much rather see it done like original KSP, with some supervision from the game community. In fact since game hardware didn't really expand that much over the recent years, i've seen first handed in a game that i am a tester in, how a sequel looses features over the predecessor on performance grounds as new fancy graphics features demand so much that even the top of the line PC can't fully handle it (and i do mean the very best you can buy today). Having community feedback on what to cut and what issues to focus next can be invaluable. And even then you have to make a choice. Yeah it's not "the cash cow" but business is business, Amazon did not become giant it is by only focusing on the big fish, they look for money everywhere. And here is where the 60$ comes in. For a game that complex and performance dependent a longer open ended development (like Early Access) is much more fitting, but it also has less chance to become a "Hit". So to me the way KSP2 is to be released feels like a marketing decision. They might still pull it off, but it will be "in spite of" not "thanks to" multi-platform full game release at full price. What im trying to say is that there is a lot of design decisions that can be altered mid development at a small cost, but when the game goes live it's usually very hard to make such alterations. And both multiplayer and multi-platform usually require big commitments that shape the game as a whole. And I've seen first handed a game studio full of passionate people that are very experienced in the genre they are working with, do decisions that really go against wishes of consumers, and usually the bottom line culprit is the "expansion" of the scope of the sequel. ps: Sorry for that wall, i should probably stop typing and let you guys (us!) be happy to get KSP2 confirmed, im sure it will turn out alright (guess im too old for hype haha) edit: better formatting

It jus dawned on me that some years ago i was doing exact same types of posts on another game forum. Funny how getting involved in game dev can turn you around. I have great admiration for anybody in this business already. So if Star Theory pulls it off, it will brake my scale haha. Lets hope it does. Cheers

Ad 1), yup heard that too many times. Can't remember any time long dev time helped anything (at least in similar case to this). Ad 2), yup they know "what" they are doing which is like 20% of the game at best, remaining 80% of "how" to do it is to be discovered afresh. But hey fresh developer making a big, complicated game in a closed environment is a recipe for success. It sure worked for No man's sky for example, i'm sure KSP2 can match that. (this is both sarcasm and expectation that it will work out in the end). Anyways having friends in game dev really strips you from rose tinted glasses of hype when you know how things work in the kitchen. Sorry.

Oh definitely, i wasn't really thinking it's too much. It's just that 60$ is such a standard value that just screams, "i'll be fully developed and matured game, buy me". And I just can't see it happening. If this was SQUAD, i'd think they are crazy, then i'd buy it on launch and roll the bumpy road with a smile. But as it is with new developer the price it just rises red flag for me. IMHO it feels like they are aiming too high at the start (seen that one too many times), and i fear it will flop.

We shall see. I'm cautiously pessimistic based on experience. I think people underestimate how much features, content etc. that are "essential" are created over the many years of creation of first game. I just can't see KSP2 to have that AND more big features, like multiplayer etc. As for the publishers, i don't really mean it in the simplistic "microtransactions are bad" way, but in overall how their existence pulls the game development in suboptimal directions. For example first game (like KSP) always released stuff when it was done. While the sequel almost always is under stiff release schedule. This causes many issues, from game straight up not working, to content being cut, and often it's not* the obvious "new craft models etc" but technical features. Which in the end creates very dry experiance. With many things that we never even thought were important for us in first game that sequel now lacks. The only redeeming thing is modding, that has potential to fix any forced blunders that come by. Lastly, I don't mind the price per-se. I have the money, but i have serious doubts that on release the content will match it. After all, while the Star theory isn't completely green, it's still their first try at this type of game and by straight up setting the bar to "max" with full price game with no EA, multiplatform and multiplayer just sets up alarm bells for me. I've seen enough good studios crash and burn while doing even less than that. * - edit: missed a negative, now it should make sense sry.

Awww, this was such a great news until i saw 60$ full game, multi platform release ... I fully expect a community divide between KSP and KSP2. There is no way for KSP2 to rival the number of mods, features and knowledge base of KSP. That said, if they make multiplayer work and scalable it might explode with popularity which would be magical. But as it is i've seen enough games/IP's that hit a gold with first game only to flop on a more ambitious sequel. And that's before we add publisher pressure concerns. (no trust in T2 at all here) Happy to see it done in Unity thou, it's the right engine for the job. Funny to see people crying it's "so old". Similar with ones expecting multihreading to be savior of kerbalkind. I wish all the best to KSP2 team but, i'd not throw out any "to do" or "in progress" projects for KSP, it will take much longer than 2020 release for KSP2 to replace KSP. ps: oh, it's been 4 years since last post already, damn time flies fast.

Idk if i'm more impressed with results or with the ancient program border I use classic shell for my W7's, so it looks exactly the same on my side haha ... Great job on the ascent!

As you can see (the empty space instead of my posts) not so great , made 2 crafts with fun and useful configuration, both ended up having phantom forces, and then life knocked on the door ~~But to answer your previous question, the two tweaks to the 51% craft would be to drop the radial intake (the RAPIERspike actually gives enough air to fly) and to angle the wings up by 5degrees - due to how drag for wings works a bit differently, you get roughly the same drag but a significant increase to lift for most part of the flight increasing efficiency of both early ascent with less drag on rest of the craft for the same lift and for the rocket flight as the additional lift allows for keeping vertical velocity high without excessive attitude tilt over prograde. Nice craft thou! I was using similar configuration but with LV-909 instead of Aerospike. Spike has only a tiny bit more TWR, while 909 is lighter by 0.5t, and provides better ISP. And considering the last "rocket only" push is so short deltaV wise, only 909 was mass effective, in my calculations, when compared to just bringing more fuel for RAPIERs. (Funnily enough i have used the same main wings as you in the same configuration) But in the end during tests payload was only ~52% so idk (with a 2.5m fairing thou)... Now i kind of want to wait for next version and fixes...:/ Anyways congrats again!

Ohhh so thats how this cookie crumbles! I'll show you the tweaks... right with some percentages to boot! soon

Nice Nefrums . Although with two small tweaks to the craft, that configuration can go above 52% hehe...

Payload fraction is "payload mass" divided by "launch mass", and according to MJ you have 562t launch mass, so it's 16% (90/562) not 56% unfortunately If you want to get higher number, take heavier payload and less fuel in the plane itself. From the pictures, with the amount of fuel left in the craft itself i think you will have no troubles going above 30% in that craft Anyways @ Red Iron Crown, i've been thinking in making a true SSTO jet, but to be sure, if i use fairing and don't stage it before payload separation, would it be considered single stage? And could the fairing be counted as payload? At first i tried use open fairings and use undockable cap to get the payload out but undocking destroys fairing and i refuse to pay 3+% payload fraction penalty on using normal cargo bay hahaha.

Nice one Padishar . The consistency is becoming a problem for me too. I've tried doing three identical launches and by comparing video footage, some drag values between same parts at the same points in flight have been different by 10+% (which gave the final altitude error of +/- of 100+m). With this kind of random factor it's hard to guess if a new profile is better or just the drag was lower. At this point i wonder if running the game at different warps, physics delta or framerates (im locked to 30 atm to limit air temperatures in my room haha) could be changing stuff too. Anyways congrats on top spot !

Oh my that was hard... had to modulate throttle up and down several times and make sure to launch at a small angle east to be completely vertical etc... big kudos to MadChris48 for his launch!!! But i don't think 62km would be possible (or is it ?) (ps: i checked the physics file just in case and it's the same as in the link mhoram posted so it should be ok~) The only two mods i have are engineer and hyperedit. (second ofc not used) Edit: As for flight profile i used [X] to cut throttle at 0.9ma and immidiately throttled up with shift... then after ~2-3s there was second throttle reduction, by ~20% for just a second (then full again) From there i did gradual reduction in throttle so that acceleration would go down from 5g to 3g near end of burn. Increased the throttle by shift again at the end so that burnout occurred near 100% power. Most likely overdone it, but "welp" it worked

All the control was from the engine gimbal And the CoM does not move while flying in atmosphere due to fuel being drawn only from the four wing-tanks. I unlocked fuel from the main tank just before going closed cycle on Rapier, and after that CoM shifts to front as the rocket fuel is used so the craft self centers on prograde in atmosphere.Everything can be seen on the crappy video i posted. Although this video was made after i managed to get the thing to orbit properly and in spirit of trying new ascent paths and comparing fuel to orbit to know which one was better i did turn on command pod sas at the end forgetting i should not do that. But it's perfectly possible to turn the craft around only with engine gimbal and minimum throttle which was what i used in several first flights. The ~5l of oxidizer left in the video is ~15s of "rocket sas" which is plenty considering any maneuver before burn needs only to bring the craft in the general direction, as full throttle burn would give precise steering. As for the craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqjq1kj1uqe4gqz/gray%20screen.craft?dl=0 but as i've noted there is probably 51% and more in just tweaking the fuel and maybe adding reversed ram intake instead of nose cone to rapier.

I do use hyperedit, it is so much on the edge it would take too much iterations normally... Right now the best ascent dV was something around 4800m/s (vac) from highest peak on eve. (with temperature issues too).But if there was one rule to atmosphere in FAR it would be "there is no atmosphere" and with 1.0.4 it's the same. Thats why the dV values are so low. Edit: Heh, it might be just barely impossible still, i can get to 100x100km orbit with something like 2t of stuff that isn't engines and fuel from the highest peak, but coming down will be a real problem :/ SSTO ascent is possible thou, so thats one thing down...

Dang it SuicidalInsanity... i've been trying to recreate that craft's performance only to see you are using FAR >_< That said i'm improving my no wings rocket design and from 7500m i'm short 67m/s to 93x91 orbit. So it's most likely doable Wiki, especially with new atmosphere, is definitely not accurate enough. Stating 8000m/s as required minimum dv to orbit, while it's definitely possible with below 5000m/s in patch 1.0.4 (launching from highest peak on the planet)

I'd say guys "go for it" ! Hyperedited a simple one engine-type rocket with a 0.8t capsule and fell short something like 200m/s of orbit from 7600m launch height... so it's probably possible but everything will be on the very edge. Welp "loosing is fun" they say. This will be a really Dwarfy challenge

Gah dang it, i'll try the Youtube automatic song removal thingy... video should be available here shortly: Can't really split the song from KSP sounds so if the above does not work, ill reupload it later with some "crappy" anime music again haha I kind of wonder how does it work thou as the song itself was taken from some random small channel on youtube ... guess that one is blocked in Germany (and maybe more conutries) too. edit: Actually the new video looks like it has the song still (although the audio is half botched lol). Welp, looks like what was "claimed" was the original song while i was using remix so it cut it ~ meh

Sry Laile but i like my spot, it has nice views 73x71km orbit with zero fuel left (was really close lol) 174.9t of rocket fuel on a 617.52t launcher = 28.32% This time video only... @ Red Iron Crown you can check last 30s of it for both mass readouts. EDIT: anybody having troubles loading the video, try using this link: (Audio is half broken, but at least video should work), sorry for inconvenience.Rocket is very similar to the previous design, although heavier and finally symmetrical, (doesn't anything symmetrical look and work 10x better haha) Also a cookie to anybody who knows the connection between craft name and the song played during launch (~kappa)

Started designing this before Jouni's rocket, ended up using the same engines - so there is a chance that it's the theoretical best configuration, although i used more power (1.4 mN compared to Jouni's 1 mN) to lift a touch lighter craft. Anyways here are the photos: craft name: SYNC.ART'SThe new aero definitely has it's good points but i kind of miss the soupospehere, there was room for finesse control and adjustment especially later in the flight, while now everything is settled within first 10s of the launch and you just wait for results At first i was using ore instead of fuel for cargo as it's denser and suffers less drag, but i kind of wanted to have comparison to Jouni's design and ditched it. The launch left me with 3.6t of fuel so adding that to payload i guess +28.2% would be possible but thats for another time Also the drag glitches of many parts like big probe cores and fairings made me use separate stage at the top to hold control elements (smallest core, ASAS and small batery), the big docking port also helps as it has less mas and drag than standard decoupler.

Had a little more time with that, found out that that the bug happens only when the cargo bay part is a root (being a root helps with placing things inside). So i think just making a note about making sure the cargo bay part is not root should be enough. For example, i took selfish_meme's craft, which is without the bug normally, and after making the cargo bay into a root it lost it's drag (after one revert). Fortunately it doesn't matter if the bay part was a root when placing parts, as long as it's not root when going to runway it should be fine. Yes alt+F12 -> Physics tab and it's the first on the list.

An update, the cargo bay part needs to be a root for this to happen. It's possible to induce that in other crafts that are normally fine just by changing the root part.

I'm using KSP store version, it's just a zip, and there is definitely a difference between physics.cfg that comes zipped and what the game generates by default if the file is "missing". And frankly it's the game generated version that looks more problematic, there is a bunch of zero value temperature related constants, where in the game's original they have actual values. Anyways, it's all temperature related while the bug at hand is related with drag cubes... Don't want to make into a bug support thread so let's take this to the thread i mentioned earlier.

Wait wth, why after renaming physics.cfg file the new one is different to the old one, i was on stock install ?? ... Anyways, thanks for suggestion but the bug in question prevails refreshing physics file.