Lord Aurelius

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.

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.

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?

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

Build a flying city with Orion drives.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

Not sure if you're serious? KSP 2 was just officially announced yesterday.

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

I totally agree with the logic in the OP, but I still play modded simply because stock is still so poorly balanced between the atrocious tech tree and questionable part stats (especially around power)/holes in the tech tree (even after the recent updates), and is missing some pretty major game mechanics (life support, construction time) that it needs to really flesh out the game. My hope is that someday the devs will implement these missing features and finally work up the courage to go break everyone's craft files and properly balance the game so I can play stock without cringing and having to go download mods/roll my own configs just to make the game tolerable.

I think that prop design will actually work for what I'm trying to do (build a solar-powered aircraft to send to Eve). Next will be a nuclear powered aircraft for Jool with that thick atmosphere to carry the weight. I was thinking more of like the aircraft @fourfa shared with both engines facing the same way, seems less likely to kraken out with the startup torque

Yeah, I noticed that as well, will probably need to go with dual engines with counter rotating props in most of my designs.

Leading up to this release there were rumors that Squad would FINALLY be adding an electric propeller, but sadly we didn't get one. However, using the new rotors I was able to make a decent large prop (made a large quadrotor), but I'm having trouble making a compact one with the small rotor due to the lack of small aerodynamic surfaces. Has anyone come up with a working small (~1.25m diameter) prop with the new parts? The ones I tried to put together with the smallest elevons and fins could barely pull a tiny plane along the ground at 4 m/s.

There's also the demo which has a fair bit of replayability and would let you start applying some of the online tutorials right away while you wait for a sale or save up enough for the full version. There's a new KSP expansion coming out at the end of the month and there's usually a bit Steam sale around this time of year, so you might not have to wait long to get a discount.

I'm in the same situation with owning MH but not using the mission editor. For me at least, I think the reason the mission never really took off was fundamentally due to the lack of an easy and convenient way to find and share missions (they solved this for craft sharing but didn't apply it to MH for some reason). There's lots of other problems as well with things like the inability link missions together to create story challenges and the lack of leaderboards for players to compare how they had done in challenges (something that's very common in community challenges that Squad didn't tap into at all for some reason), but IMHO the failure of this mode really came down to this lack of an easy way to discover and share anything created with the editor, which strongly discourages players from making anything with it in the first place. The fact that the MH parts were poorly done didn't help either and pushed a lot of players away from the expansion, further reducing the number of players participating in creating missions.

What you're suggesting is pretty much what I said about career mode. It would be awesome if that were overhauled and got a bunch of contracts and time-based mechanics (which is why I also suggested incorporating KCT so players also need to consider how long it will take to build a rocket). The story campaign missions I also suggested would be more akin to mission builder scenarios arranged to tell a story and including some cutscenes like we've had for launch trailers. Many of those cutscenes were hilarious and I would like to see a game mode that incorporates them and tells a funny story and effectively serves as a tutorial for the more open-ended modes. The existing tutorial could still be offered, and the campaign missions would jump off from there. This is not a replacement for the career modes, but another way to play the game. I like the extra complexity for life support personally as well, but there needs to be a balance. A lot of players in the past have downvoted me for even suggesting that life support should be stock, so any stock implementation of this would need to be relatively simple and completely optional. Probably should have a way to refill life support using ISRU units as well.

My electric planes for Eve will finally be a reality without needing mods. Combined with the robotics to have them fold up in fairings, it will open up all kinds of awesome new mission profiles.

Something relatively simple like Snacks is what I've had in mind for a stock life support template. Nothing overly complicated, but something to help better convey the challenge of long-duration manned (Kerbaled?) missions and to provide a check to the additional abilities Kerbals have over probes. I see contracts as a component of more "tycoon" style gameplay. My thoughts are that there should actually be two separate "career" and "campaign" game modes. Career mode would be more of the tycoon style gameplay and could fundamentally be similar to what we have now. There could still be some optional story contracts here as well (similar to what Novasilisko talked about years ago with regards to a storyline for the easter eggs eventually leading to a hidden planet and also the anomaly explorer contracts) for players to pursue and make use of the full tech tree to achieve them and to provide a way to "win" the game. A campaign mode on the other hand could be a series of highly scripted scenario story missions (including cutscenes similar to what we've seen for the launch trailers) that could serve as a solid place for new players to jump into the game and could also function effectively as a tutorial to prepare players for the more open-ended game modes. Early missions would pretty much tell you what to do, but later missions would be a lot more open ended and give the player a lot of creative freedom in how they accomplish the mission. Difficult optional objectives (that can change the mission progression similar to StarFox 64 or other games with branching paths) could provide extra challenge for veteran players and some replayability.