Lord Aurelius

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord Aurelius

  1. Haven't looked at KSP for awhile, but I have fond memories of SETI and am very glad to see someone picking up the torch for an overhaul mod like this. Kudos for picking a permissive license that will allow the mod to live instead of dying like SETI did. Just one little thing, on the thread title this mod is indicated as being 1.8.x compatible, but the spacedock download link hasn't been updated to reflect this so I want to make sure I'm getting the newest version of the mod and not an older version.
  2. I don't see an in-game programming system as replacing action groups, but rather complementing them. For example, action groups can run code snippets, and code could toggle an action group. If you don't want to use the coding system, the action groups would still work the same way they always have. On the topic of a stock programming system, yes please. A drag and drop code block interface would fit the game perfectly, and would enable a ton more functionality and automation. As long as your vehicle has some sort of guidance computer onboard (anything with a probe core or crew capsule, external seats don't count) it could execute the programs.
  3. Did you use any life support recyclers when you tried those mods? How long of missions were you trying to do? All LS mods I tried (mostly TAC life support and UFI Life Support) had pretty good balance IMHO where the crew capsules had enough LS for early LKO missions, for Mun/Minmus missions you had to add a little bit, but the weight only really became a big concern for interplanetary if you weren't using recyclers. Same thing would happen if you wanted to do an interplanetary mission with just batteries/fuel cells without bringing along solar panels or RTGs (hmm, now that sounds like an interesting challenge). Sure, you're going to need a lot more than a MK1 capsule to get a Kerbal across the solar system alive, but isn't that the point of playing with life support, to eliminate the realism break of being able to do that? Your second point is valid for LS, but is also a problem in stock KSP for dV since unless you're using a dV map/calculator the game gives you zero info on how much dV you actually need and you're pretty much guessing on that front as well. Definitely an issue worth addressing if some sort of stock LS is added, but not a new issue for the base game either. I've long thought that KSP could greatly benefit from a mission planner that would let you place a bunch of maneuver nodes and get an idea of the launch windows, dV requirements and mission duration, and it would nicely solve both issues. Would be even better if you could see the mission plan during your flight and have the maneuver nodes prepopulated.
  4. Orion drives sound like the perfect solution to less than ideal landing sites. Nothing like dropping a few nukes on the way down to flatten out pesky slopes and leave a nice, level glass-lined crater to land in.
  5. Another random point on this topic: throttling isn't inherently a bad thing. Running CPUs/GPUs beyond their cooling capacity for short periods of time has been one of the big reasons laptop/smartphones (and many SFF desktops) have the performance they do. It allows them to have the performance of a much more powerful processor for a short period of time without the corresponding increase in cooling weight/bulk/cost, and for many workloads (web browsing, application loading, etc) there's plenty of downtime between tasks that the end user sees their machine performing much better than it would if the CPU were limited to what the cooling system could actually cool at steady state. Same goes for a beefy custom cooling solution, it's great that you can run max boost constantly, but how much more performance could you get in tasks that don't 100% load your hardware (i.e. most games that aren't KSP) if you allowed it to boost beyond even what your crazy cooling system can handle (in other words, what overclocking does)?
  6. For custom desktops that may be true, in OEM systems the manufacturers have a lot of tuning parameters to play with to adjust the thermal behavior of the CPU to fit whatever cooling solution they've built into their design. End users can also tweak these with appropriate software utilities (had to do that on an ultrabook that insisted on bouncing the CPU between 100% and thermal slowdown mode under load without settling on a steady state in between). But yes, the best way to get the thermal load is to actually measure it (or in the case of end users like ourselves, read CPU reviews where they measured it and tested with various coolers).
  7. Fair enough, if you've got a custom/botique gaming desktop with appropriate cooling then the clocks will always be at max boost even under load. However, for the vast majority of PCs (including most desktops) the CPU and GPU will only run at max boost in lighter workloads, hit them them hard and they will heat up faster than the cooling can remove the heat and they will throttle. An average desktop CPU tops out at around 90W (lower TDP parts will potentially boost into this range as well briefly and throttle sooner, the TDP is a measure of average power), anything less than a high end air cooler/liquid cooling will have trouble keeping up with this rate of heat production under sustained load.
  8. Ugh, not another one of these "realistic" space movies that's anything but to join the likes of Gravity and Interstellar. If you're going to make a realistic, hard sci-fi movie, then stick to real science. If you want to do crazy stuff, then either make a space fantasy like Star Wars, or do a comedy like Rocket Man.
  9. For laptops (or any PC really) that lives on poorly implemented thermal throttling, possibly. ALL PCs now (even giant DTR laptops and desktops) live on thermal throttling, which is why there's separate base and boost clocks for CPUs and GPUs. If well implemented, that throttling will maximize performance for a given TDP in intermittent load scenarios (i.e. normal everyday PC use with opening web pages and programs). During heavy sustained loads, ideally the parts will slow down to achieve an acceptable steady state temperature that won't result in overheating. In a machine with poor cooling design that puts temperature sensitive components next to hotspots like the CPU/GPU with a potentially inadequate cooling system and throttling algorithm on top, then yes, reduced lifespan could be a real possibility.
  10. Unless there's something already wrong with your PC, the only real concern on that list would be lag or running out of battery if you're not plugged in. Overheating in modern machines generally manifests itself as lag since the chips slow down to reduce heat. Crashing/freezing could potentially happen due to driver issues. Fire is so unlikely that it's not even worth considering, your machine will hit thermal shutdown and turn off long before it gets hot enough to ignite anything. At the end of the day, KSP is just a particularly demanding piece of software on the CPU side due to the physics, you could generate a more demanding load on the CPU/GPU using benchmark software.
  11. For some reason, despite my love for rocketry and space, I missed out on this gem until the other day when a friend showed it to me (WARNING: VERY LARGE IMAGE). For those of you not already familiar with the Rockwell Space Plan, it was developed in the 1980s by a Rockwell engineer, outlining an ambitious plan for human expansion into space, including colonizing other planets and interstellar travel. It's based on real tech and expected near future tech, with hard sci-fi taking over near the end. From looking through the plan, it looks like with the new engines and colony mechanics it would be entirely possible to fully follow this in KSP2 without mods. Anyone else curious to try to follow this plan in KSP2?
  12. Some more oddball planets I would like to see in KSP2 (mostly inspired by existing planet packs for KSP1): Super-fast spinning planetoid Rotational velocity at the equator is greater than the escape velocity Could be the solid metal core of a much larger planet that was set spinning at a high rate of speed by whatever cataclysm set the core free Cube Planet Unusual planet with 8 perfectly symmetrical mountains that make the planet look like a cube Bonus points for having an atmosphere, with the tops of the mountains above the atmosphere Even more bonus points for having craters in a d6 pattern on the 6 faces Shattered planet Collection of small planetoids and a bunch of asteroids loosely orbiting each other in close proximity A bit more on the sci-fi side, but would be interesting to be able to fly through a large debris field Crushing gravity Super-earth or ice giant with something like 5G (i.e. on the upper end of what's possible to escape from) Disk world Spinning metallic disc Could be a blob of molten metal that was ejected into space and the spinning motion pulled it into the disc shape as it cooled
  13. I would like to see the context of that comment, as terraforming is often used to mean changing a planet's climate to make it more habitable (i.e. super advanced colonization) as opposed to literally reshaping the terrain.
  14. Not sure if this will ever make it into KSP2 or what the limitations of the Unity engine will be, but I might as well mention it now for the best chance of the devs being able to at least lay the foundation for making it possible later. Given the multitude of ways we already have in KSP to deliver large amounts of energy into a celestial body via large rockets and redirected asteroids (which will be even further expanded in KSP2 with extremely high output nuclear engines), it seems fitting that we should be able to leave permanent scars in the terrain around the solar system. I would like to see this as a core feature given how deeply integrated it would be to the game engine, but I also recognize it would be a fairly low priority over other essential features. So maybe not a launch feature, but something that could be introduced in a future update, with the ground work being laid before launch and the rest of the feature being fleshed out afterwards. What do you guys think? Would you like to see deformable terrain? If so, would you like to see this as a core feature, DLC, or a mod?
  15. I wouldn't mind seeing more alien artifacts/ruins (possibly from multiple alien races) and maybe some live ship cameos and light lore, but ultimately KSP is more focused on real spaceflight than sci-fi so whatever is done with this would need to be fun optional background content. At most maybe having some unique science experiments available at the alien sites with funny flavor text with some nice but not critical bonuses (i.e. unlock some of the high-tier engines a bit earlier than normal).
  16. I can't think of any single feature that would keep me from buying KSP2, with the exception of those awful gambling mechanics/lootboxes/microtransactions/forced multiplayer/games as a service/etc nonsense a lot of recent "AAA" games are being ruined with, which the devs have clearly stated they won't be doing. Otherwise my only potential concern is that KSP2 will release in a half-finished alpha state like KSP1 did (and is still recovering from). Hopefully highly unlikely given the new, more experienced dev team and lessons learned from KSP1. Being asked to pay a full AAA $60 asking price means the game needs to be in a MUCH better state at launch than KSP1 was.
  17. Apologies, that makes a lot more sense now. Yes, I can totally see where you're coming from in terms of dev time to do it well. My conclusions are still different than yours (I still think that there are relatively simple ways to do it that could work very well and would be a net positive to the game and worth the dev time/resources to implement), but I respect your position.
  18. I agree that if not done correctly, this could very easily end up being tedious. Which is why I gave the suggestions about using ISRU and future-tech advanced closed loop systems to find a reasonably realistic way to incorporate life support without a constant need for supply missions once you have the appropriate technical foundation. That's an interesting way to define trivial. Doesn't everything on a rocket boil down to mass in one way or another? From my perspective, the whole EC system is a life support analog for probes and science that follows this progression (early game you only have the dinky battery in the probe/capsule which greatly limits your range more than anything else, later you get batteries (and fuel cells if the tech tree wasn't such a mess) but not solar panels so you need to add a bunch of extra mass for longer duration missions, then you get solar panels (ISRU) and finally the infinite energy RTGs). I don't see players complaining about being bound by this system despite literally not being able to turn it off without cheats, and becoming fairly trivial once solar panels show up. Automation would be interesting (for more than just life support), but I agree with your assessment that it would necessitate the need to add whole new frameworks and systems to the game to support it that might take too much dev time and focus away from other aspects of the game. The main game design challenge I see here is balance. Mods have already shown multiple ways this can be done from a technical standpoint, and unless there's something wonky going on with KSP2 I don't see the programming implementation being the main challenge for life support (outside of automation). I've spent plenty of time thinking this through, and based on the way I play the game and having played with life support mods I find that it adds an interesting design challenge for manned missions where I need to consider the mission duration and make sure I've got enough supplies, or a plan to resupply en route. Just to be clear, I agree that it's also fun to play the game without life support if I'm just messing around or have a specific building challenge in mind where I don't want to deal with life support. The case for having life support being implemented as an official feature (like the comms network was) vs just relying on mods largely comes down to game balance. Right now manned missions are not well balanced vs probes, and a life support system could serve as a very good balance for this, not to mention how much better an official feature integrates with the rest of the game over mods. Like I've said before, I've always thought that the dev's reluctance to add life support even as a difficulty option to be a strange, glaring omission, especially given they put the effort into implementing an official comms network feature which only added more difficulty and complexity to the game and necessitated a lot more planning for probe missions (with manned missions being largely unaffected, further exacerbating the balance issue between probes vs manned). Ultimately, it sounds like we need to agree to disagree. You've stated your assumptions (which if I'm understanding correctly are that there's no good way to implement life support that would be worthwhile, and you keep seeming to assume that everyone will be forced to use it and haven't acknowledged that it could be a toggleable difficulty option for players who don't care for it), and my assumptions are that if implemented well (following the logic from my suggestions to have tech available to refill life support without a lifeline back to Kerbin), it would add interesting and fun new challenges to manned missions, make the game more realistic given how big of an issue life support continues to be for RL long-duration missions, and serve as a good gameplay balance to the currently OP manned missions.
  19. Build your station around a captured asteroid and use ISRU ISRU on an interplanetary mothership (with an ore shuttle if needed), or bring enough resources for the full mission duration (see The Martian). You're continuing to make the assumption that the very presence of official life support mechanics in the game will automagically make it tedious and un-fun, and be mandatory for all players. If done well I don't see how that would be the case (unless you REALLY must have your orbital stations/colonies everywhere before you've researched the appropriate technologies and such to make them more sustainable). Not to mention that if the devs did add life support, it would almost certainly be controlled by a difficulty toggle, just like the current comm network system. Like another post on here, I see life support as a progression. If you try to go too far too soon with manned missions, it will be a micromanagement nightmare. Same principle applies to trying to build a heavy launch vehicle without the appropriate engines, you're likely going to have a clunky, inefficient rocket. However, if you develop the appropriate technologies you can go farther and farther, until Kerbalkind is now an interstellar race.
  20. I don't understand this kneejerk reaction anytime realism is mentioned, especially with regards to life support (your #1 point and the subject that seems to most commonly trigger this sort of response). There always seems to be the assumption that if implemented, it would be in the most player-unfriendly and hardcore way possible to cater to a small minority at the expense of the majority (which the devs most certainly WILL NOT DO, they want to make a fun game that will sell well). Personally, I do mostly like the realism vs gameplay balance the devs have struck in KSP, but I still feel that the lack of any life support mechanic whatsoever is a huge omission, both in terms of gameplay and realism. In gameplay, manned missions are hugely OP compared to probes with all the extra abilities kerbals bring to the table beyond a probe (repair, science, control when out of comm range and power, infinite EVA fuel "get out and push") for the minor cost of a 0.5t landing capsule. If I was going to implement life support in a way that was reasonably realistic but still fun and didn't turn the game into a micromanagement nightmare, these are some ideas for what I would do: Pods would have enough life support so that early game LEO and Mun/Minmus missions would be largely unchanged, long duration missions would favor probes due to life support limitations (unless you really do want to micromanage) Mid-game, ISRU could be used to resupply bases without needing to manually send supplies, colony ships could carry enough supplies for the one-way trip to set up the base that you wouldn't need to resupply them en route. Late-game, closed-loop life support devices (for interstellar missions and orbital bases) could be researched that would effectively give you unlimited life support using energy for large ships, stations and bases. The purpose here is to help players understand why we haven't really done manned missions past the moon (in addition to balancing the aforementioned issues with probes vs manned missions). Resupply missions are difficult and tedious, and carrying enough supplies for a long mission takes a lot of mass, so for manned missions to go further we'll either need a jumping-off point (which with ISRU could enable the first off-planet self-contained bases) or much more advanced closed-loop life support systems. Of course, this system would be entirely optional (just like the comm network) for players who don't want to deal with it at all. Anyways, on the topic of this thread, there's no real single dealbreaker feature for me (unless the devs did something truly awful and unexpected like gambling mechanics, microtransactions, forced online, game as a service, etc, which I highly doubt). If anything, it would be something like KSP2 releasing in a half-finished state like KSP1 did (and is STILL recovering from).
  21. I think it's entirely possible to balance realism with gameplay considerations in KSP. RL numbers don't necessarily need to be used, but like earlier posts have said, all the parts should use roughly the same scale factor so as to maintain the correct RL relationships to each other. Otherwise you end up with some parts being OP (like the vector) or nearly useless (like the SRBs in general) and make building functional replicas of RL craft much more difficult. A bit of a tangent, but one additional gameplay consideration I would like to see is part upgradeability. I don't like useless parts cluttering up the parts tab, so I would like to see parts upgrades used to keep all parts relevant throughout the game (i.e. tech tree). For example, you unlock a 1.25m LF engine early on. It's early in the game, so it can't be too good of an engine. However, rather than having it become completely obsolete at some point, you can upgrade it to the latest and greatest 1.25m engine that's objectively better than the old one in every way. For all intents and purposes it's a completely new engine, but it replaces the old 1.25m engine in the parts list since there's no reason to use the old engine anymore (unless you use a semi-hidden option to use the old engine anyways).
  22. Not sure if you're serious? KSP 2 was just officially announced yesterday.
  23. I would love to see a KSP2.0, although most of the things in the OP have already been accomplished via mods. If I'm thinking of major systems changes that would justify an entirely new game instead of just continued updates, here's what I would like to see: Proper game engine for the job I totally agree with this part of the OP. Unity was a reasonable choice when the game first got started, but today the engine has boatloads of problems and hasn't been maintained well at all. Would like to see them make a clean break and use an engine better suited to the game. Vastly improved mission planning In RL, missions and maneuvers are often planned out years in advance, and are often planned out before the craft is designed. Would love to see a mission planner where you can pick the date/time of the launch, and plan out all the nodes to get a full dV estimate for the mission even before entering the VAB, along with a mission flight plan that saves the maneuver nodes so you don't have to recreate them manually during flight. Improved flight automation Would love to see something like MechJeb made stock, along with kOS (albeit with a simpler interface, maybe like what LEGO Robotics uses), including the ability to run scripts on staging. RL rockets are entirely automated, and a big part of rocket design is also writing these launch programs. Ability to control multiple craft simultaneously This is one of the biggest gameplay weaknesses of the current game, and the lack of this feature makes many RL missions (especially involving SpaceX style booster recoveries) just about impossible. Could be solved with the improved flight automation where pilots/command pods can be given autopilot instructions to execute on staging Easier vehicle reuse Maybe have a payload part that be given an arbitrary size/shape (or automatically take on the size of the fairing/cargo bay its inside) When testing the rocket, you can put a mass simulator in the payload part to demonstrate the weight capacity of the rocket Once a rocket has been verified for a given payload volume/mass, you can easily click launch rocket, choose a payload that fits in the payload part, and go Limited locally hosted coop multiplayer Would be awesome to have the ability to have friends (or just a second PC so you can fly 2 craft at the same time) connect to the game with the ability to control in-flight craft or potentially launch new ones. I envision this as being hosted locally on one PC, with non-host players being more limited in what they can do (i.e. host has to provide permission for them to fly/launch craft). Create custom parts in-game Similar idea to procedural parts, but more robust including the ability to order a new engine, probe core or crew capsule design Parts would follow the laws of physics and would take lots of time/funds to research Ability to randomly generate solar systems with a seed (and store them per-save) Would provide even more replayability, could always use the default seed to get the default solar system Also have support for custom star systems so something like RSS could be stock More RL gameplay considerations Life Support Part reliability Ability to construct additional launch sites and tracking stations Fully implemented part upgrades Keep each part relevant for the entire game Makes game balancing better without parts that are either OP at the beginning or useless after the first flight (looking at you, Flea). Upgraded Kerbal Inventory System We've got it now in Breaking Ground, want to see a lot more done with it like carrying parts and tools Tutorial Overhaul With all the proposed changes, would want a robust tutorial explaining all the parts of the game, especially given the current sad state of tutorials in most games today (including current KSP) Overhauled career with greatly improved management considerations New tech tree starting with probes, and with much better part progression (current tech tree looks like it was generated via dartboard or RNG) New science system that decouples science points from parts research, and overhauls experiments to fix many of the head-scratching inconsistencies (crew reports aren't per-biome, but EVA fly-over reports are?!? same for silly transmission science point losses for what should just be a number value from a sensor), and adds some new experiments (where are our cameras?) Make something like Rocket Construction Time stock (no more rockets appearing out of thin air) Better Kerbonaut hiring (pay money to train them instead of them magically learning things in space, major rep losses if they die) Better funding (regular budget, varies based on rep, ability to get fired if rep drops too low) Story missions similar to what NovaSilisko proposed a long time ago and started on with some of the easter eggs, and also the anomaly surveyor contracts (with some neat rewards as well) Much better and more realistic contracts (i.e. you're given a prebuilt payload, bring it to the specified coordinates or orbit, or a set of requirements to design and build a craft that can do X). General graphics/model/texture/audio/UI improvements and polish Especially on the audio side, would love to have per-planet music Procedurally generated cities/towns on Kerbin (with buildings to crash into, and negative rep if you do so make sure your rocket has a range safety system) Clouds and weather on appropriate planets Probe IVA (camera view, or in some cases just telemetry Mission control scene with lots of big screens (one shows camera footage of the launch, another shows telemetry and orbit info, all are customizable, etc) More interesting things to find in general Anyways, just some random thoughts I've had for awhile regarding KSP and how to make it better