• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Teek

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm very excited about space stations in general, in my most active KSP periods, it was my main gameplay focus, rather than significant interplanetary travel. I hope we get a range of stylish and functional parts that work for space stations, based on the gameplay I've seen so far I'm fairly encouraged. I always liked the FusTek station parts, as well as THSS and B9 from an aesthetic perspective, so I hope we lean a bit more into expanded station parts in both stock style and maybe some additional futuristic parts as well. It does sound like we may have the option to directly build onto our space stations, just like terrestrial bases using some variation of the VAB/BAE. That does make me very excited about the prospects of more complicated structures, like true stardocks or maybe even skyhooks. Mostly though, I'm just excited for the possibility of bigger, more purposeful stations that won't bog down systems as much: I usually ran a fairly high spec PC for most of my KSP time and even then space stations were usually the biggest burden on my system.
  2. Very productive post, you must've worked hard on it. The thing with disappointment is that it all depends on what you expect. I'm excited for the game, but what I'm largely trying to avoid setting my expectations too high. For me, I'm trying not to get my heart set on too many new mechanics and features. From what we've already seen, we can likely count on improved visuals and performance, as well as the mechanics that they've already described (Interstellar Travel, new parts, colonies, etc.) Put all that together, and I'd be pretty satisfied with those results. Anything in addition to that is a nice bonus. I know there's a lot of speculation, and it's fun to come up with ideas and over-analyze footage, but take nothing for granted that hasn't been stated by the devs. At the same time though, from what I've seen of PAX coverage, most of the things that people were specifically hoping would not happen (DRM, Microtransactions, etc) have already been pretty conclusively ruled out, so I overall I think there's more to be happy about than not, at least so far.
  3. First, congrats on this! Really cool opportunity, I hope you enjoy it and get some great info from Star Theory! I suppose my biggest questions are: 1) We've seen pre-alpha footage of some very wobbly vehicles in atmosphere, as well as some very large and seemingly rigid interstellar vessels in orbit. Has Star Theory been working on anything to keep large builds stable, or implemented measures for players to add rigidity to their builds? 2) Science! I'm assuming we won't get much in the way of details, but I'm curious whether Star Theory has put any thoughts into the original Science system, whether they think it will need to be reworked (simple changes to # of science rewarded, science required for each research, tier ordering etc) or completely revamped (as in entirely new systems of research and unlocking tech) or if it will largely stay the same. 3) Kerbal Activity on EVA: We've seen a lot of functionality get added on to Kerbals' EVA activities over the years (collecting samples, repairing or resetting equipment, deploying gear, etc.) Has Star Theory been looking into further expanding what Kerbals can do outside of their ships? There are many other questions, of course, but plenty of others have either already asked them (or may well ask them.) I'm sure whatever you pick will be great, best of luck with the interview!
  4. In general, I think adhering to realism at the expense of gameplay and accessibility is thorny. Might not be popular hear, but remember that most, if not all, of us are experienced players with a ton of game time and lots of knowledge. KSP's selling point is that the game is accessible for people who do not have either. That said, I've got no problem with the game adding these features so long as they are optional, and the devs have the resources to adequately put them in place without hindering development in other areas. If that doesn't work, then like DStaal said, the modding community will likely come through. So for me, most realism features would be nice as additional settings, but should not be default and, for me, would not be a deal breaker if they weren't implemented. I'm also fine with some of the future propulsion techs being a tad more on the theoretical than practical side. If the goal is interstellar travel (and as far as spaceflight mechanics go, there's not much else KSP2 could do to extend the endgame over KSP1) then there's going to have to be some minor reality bending. Interstellar travel in general is highly unlikely and impractical, so why sweat the smallest details on how the game achieves it? I think of the "magic tech" assertion of the developers as pertaining more to the overall mechanics of travel, rather than the actual tech of the device: warp devices and em-drives could be excluded purely on the fact that they would make it far to easy to reach other systems, and would not follow the traditional mechanics of rocketry that the game has used up until this point. Metallic Hydrogen or Kerbstein drives may not be possible as they are currently portrayed, but at least they work along the same lines as conventional rockets from a gameplay perspective: they require fuel, heading, and time in order to get from one place to the other. So long as they are appropriately balanced, I have no problem with them. Finally, on noodle physics, I've said before that I'm fine with them... to a degree. They probably can be stiffened up a bit from KSP one, but I think especially for early, smaller scale projects having the physics engine calculate for individual parts is fine. Obviously, later in the game, with larger vehicles, it becomes more of an issue, although I think offworld building and launching may also help with this issue. Ideally, I think the game could potentially introduce the ability to weld certain parts together, effectively eliminating the joint physics for that part. It could maybe be a later tech discovery (maybe have struts available earlier, and strut-less welding unlock later on) and primarily focus on inline connections, primarily through similarly sized parts such as fuel tanks, while it would not work for radially mounted parts. That could be a good sweetspot, allowing you to eliminate some of the wobble of tall rockets (and simplify physics calculations to boot) while also preventing abuse of the system to create more physically unfeasible designs. Certain types of procedural parts could also be an answer, though I'd prefer if the game primarily keeps to the stacking mechanics.
  5. It's way too early to be judging the game based on pre-alpha footage. Even within the trailer, there are substantial changes in performance that could possibly indicate that they were taken at different stages of development. Off the top of my head, if you were to ask me what would be the more visually and physically demanding scene between the initial launch gameplay and the Jool station, I'd say Jool, an yet it's significantly more stable and relatively smooth. As for how they are handling parts physics, I've said before that I'm fine with there still being some joint flexibility, to a degree. Mostly I think it's something you should be able to configure and build around to eliminate. I think it's a bit strange that they've shown a lot of that initial explosion footage, but I think they see that kind of spectacle as appealing to new players (and I would probably agree with that.) But there's no way I can see that level of physics rendering working with interstellar levels of acceleration and parts count, so there has to be some kind of system in place that at least differentiates between the two circumstances. At the very least, I'm sure there will be struts, but I have a feeling there's more to come. At the end of the day, it's your money, so you can do whatever you want, but no one's forcing you to pay for it right now either. Why bother getting up in arms about it when there's still so much we don't know?
  6. One thing I hope to see is a variety of structural parts and cockpits that lean into the futuristic aesthetic for the late game, things designs for functions besides their aerodynamic/reentry capabilities, like what we had with B9. I already like some of the futuristic fuel tanks and struts that we’ve seen (very THSS vibes, which is a very good thing imo) as well as the skin and coloring options, but I think would be very cool to fully embrace an aesthetic of ships specialized for non-atmospheric travel. Also, I hope there are some hangar options for the larger ships, for probes and landers and such. Maybe even a star dock (I know I’ll try to build one)
  7. Well, for one, this is likely going to be a larger team, with some more experienced developers, particularly in the console space. No offense to Squad, they did a great job with the PC version but the outsourcing of console development obviously could have gone better. I have a feeling that Private Division and Star Theory will keep it in house and have better luck. On top of that, count on this game being more optimized on all platforms. It’s being built from the ground up with these expectations this time, and will certainly help with performance on all systems. And don’t underestimate the processing power of these consoles. They might not match up with the highest end CPUs PCs can run, but they’re still fairly possible. Finally, I think there is a chance that KSP 2 doesn’t come out for this generation. Star Theory has said KSP2 comes to PC in Spring of 2020, and that consoles will come later, but they haven’t provided much more detail than that. I could very well be wrong, but I wonder if they could be holding off for next gen consoles. We’ll have to wait and see.
  8. I’m not against rescaling, but I have a feeling they wont introduce it by default. I’m fine with the game sacrificing a bit of realism for fun, balance, or lightening the computational load. That said, I imagine scaling will be pretty easy to do via modding, so I think eventually everyone will be happy. I’d rather see the devs put in more time developing new features and polishing the game.
  9. Almost certainly, it’s really more of a question of how the game will handle recruitment. It’s entirely possible that each planet may get its own astronaut center, much like we have on Kerbin. But I could also see them just lumping everyone into one large pool that is available on any planet. Personally, I hope we do get discrete populations, and the ability to transfer them between worlds via shuttles. In my mind, the more reasons the game can provide you to create new vehicles and launch additional spacecraft, the better. To that end, I also wonder how communication will fit in. I hope that interplanetary colonies will reward good communication networks, and maybe we’ll even see interstellar-scale com equipment. The other thing I’ve realized in looking at the large interstellar vessels is that our idea of crew size will likely change significantly. I’m not the most ambitious KSP builder, so my stations and vessels rarely got above a dozen or so Karbala, but I can see these interstellar vessels easily requiring much more than that. It’ll be interesting to see how the game represents that, and whether we will just have larger numbers of astronauts, or a distinctions between the normal crew (pilots, engineers, scientists) and other inhabitants. Maybe we can also get an expansion on crew types, and additional skill requirements for interstellar vessels.
  10. Just a few hours ago, a new PC Gamer article went up discussing Colony mechanics (and Kerbal reproduction, but only in that it is something too horrible to disclose, apparently.) https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-dev-reveals-how-baby-kerbals-are-made/ JUICY Details: Colonies will start out with set deployable modules that you will land on a planet's surface. Once deployed, it sounds like you can then use the Building Assembly Editor (or BAE for short... nice) to add pieces to your colony. At first, you can only use parts that you have brought with you from Offworld, but eventually you will be able to unlock the ability to directly manufacture parts from available resources. Unlocking these parts seems to originate from a progression system tied to colony size. Colony size (and the aforementiond Kerbal multiplication) will not be a product of time, but rather the result of you achieving specific goals, which will then cause a... uh... "celebration" that will lead to a significant baby boom in your colony. No comment. Eventually, you will unlock buildings to create vehicles that can then be built and launched at that colony! Obviously this will grant you the benefits of building in low (or null) gravity, and which will apparently be a requirement for unlocking interstellar progression. A few other notes or observations on my part: They've talked primarily about terrestrial colonies, but I'm assuming space colonies will follow some similar methods. In both cases, I think we will probably still be able to launch and dock colonies/space stations as we used to, but this sounds like it will be a great alternative with real substance in late game mechanics Star Theory has previously said that buildings will be subject to physics after they are constructed, but not necessarily in the editor, so expect space kraken shenanigans! Except not in space... we may need a new, land-based mythological creature to blame our colony woes on. For now, I'm taking the Cinematic trailer at its word when it comes to physical models, if not the actual visual effects, in representing the main game. Given that population is so emphasized, expect lots of geo-domes and habs, and maybe many other specialized buildings (not just ol' spaceship parts). Maybe these will automatically generate when your population increases? Or will we need to be building habs to accommodate? I have a... not great reputation for creating sustainable housing in Frostpunk, I'm a bit worried here. Interestingly, how these things unlock seems a bit ambiguous. There's been no mention of science so far, and it's unclear if colony progression will unlock entirely new parts, or simply make parts you already have usable for the colony. It also sounds like additional functions within the colony will be unlockable through population growth: obviously spaceship construction is one, but airstrips and land vehicular construction are also likely. I imagine other functions could be resource management, communications and control, and research. Population also makes me think about how this will impact astronaut recruitment. Will astronauts be able to inhabit colonies? Will colonies each have their own pool of astronauts, or will it be one large collective pool? Will astronauts need to be transported between colonies before they can be assigned to ships launching from each world? Lots to consider, verrry verrry interesting.
  11. So PCGamer has had a couple of articles up on KSP 2 already. https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-dev-reveals-how-baby-kerbals-are-made/ : Related to colonization mechanics, NOT NSFW I swear https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-interview/ : PC Gamer interview with Star Theory Creative Director Nate Simpson https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-release-date-multiplayer-everything-we-know/ : Summary of details compiled by PC Gamer, mostly the same as what we've seen elsewhere but a pretty decent compilation. Also, there is obviously the Cinematic Trailer, the Developer Story trailer, and roughly 15 minute video interview with Nate up on IGN and their youtube, good source of pre-alpha footage.
  12. I suppose I shouldn't hope for Outer Wilds style gravitational storms or lava asteroid planet destruction, but it would be cool! I am now really hoping that we get Lagrange points though, It'd be cool to build a few (hundred) colonies around there. Fully adhering to the Antarctica treaty though, no colony drops.
  13. I mean, it's darker and more minimalist than KSP 1, which is closer to SR 2, but I can't call it a copy. I'm not super familiar with SR2 myself, but it looks like there's more data in KSP2's screen, and ultimately you're going to see a lot of the same features because that's how flight instruments work: you need velocity, heading, etc so of course there will be similarities, but calling it a copy is a bit too far IMO.
  14. A lot of people have already posted things that I want, but here's a few more that I haven't seen or would like to expand upon: A sense of progression: In another thread, I noted that the trailers we've seen so far seem to have an interesting hodge-podge of parts. Old Mk 1-2 command Modules with current KSP1 fuel tanks, old RCS fuel tank with an apparently new design of Mk2 Lander Can, and obviously a ton of new futuristic parts. This makes me wonder if we may see more parts with variations of models as well as skins. So if you want to go for the ol' Jumbomax oil cans, you can! Or, you can opt for the sleeker modern versions. Even better, I think it would be cool for campaigns to start you out with old junky parts, and allow you to use sleeker skins later on. Would provide a nice visual of how you've progressed into future tech. Similarly: Noodle rockets. I know we've all seen the gameplay footage, and many are disappointed. However, I'm hoping that noodle rocket physics are something that can be addressed in game with later tech, and not just struts (although struts, still important and should be in game!) Personally, I think noodly rockets are good for the early game, adding a bit of challenge into what would otherwise be fairly simple launches into orbit. Plus, wacky physics explosions are part of KSP's history and charm. However, I don't know how we could see the physics of what we see in that rocket launch work with the space stations and massive vessels later on. My suspicion, then, is that we may have the ability to weld parts together, with or without struts, later on in the game to make more robust craft and hopefully simplify the physics model a bit. Finally (for now) I hope we see a significant revamp of science mechanics. I'm usually a campaign player these days, because I like working with constraints and having specific objectives. But science is in need of an overhaul, grinding out some of the tech tree branches is a pain and some of it's layout isn't optimal. I'd like to see probes feature much earlier and have a more significant roll to play, and to even out the allocation of science outside of those initial first data sets (labs aside.)
  15. Great work on the map! I like the new layout, seems devised for multiplayer but also obviously references Kennedy, definitely spices things up from the usual layout. I guess we'll just need to confirm where the suspicious and slightly ominous black monolith will be this time. I also need to find out where I'll put Methuselah Kerman, my customary on-base time-keeper/mascot/rent-free... unintended inhabitant.