Search the Community

So Take-Two is going to be one of the companies present at E3 next week, and this could mean some KSP2 at the event, so I think we should discuss! Take-Two does currently have two unannounced games in development so it could very well be those, but I can still see them dropping some news or maybe a new trailer, just to keep hype and interest up while they're in development. What do you think? Will there be anything KSP2 related at E3, and if so what might they show? Could it be related to the "Something more" mystery? Or is this all just conjuncture? Who knows, but its fun to discuss!

Seems like a great reason to create a moon base, if the technology is actually possible. I'm not so sure a robot could create cells, lay them flat, and wire them. Then beaming the power to a receiver is a whole other challenge. In KSP2, the crawler cost, speed of cell production, cell efficiency, and micro-meteoroid impacts (which would require replacement of cells) would vary depending on each body. Would only be possible on certain bodies where the regolith can be made into solar cells.

When doing a resupply mission, instead of just saying you've done it so now forget about it, make it so it always follows a "milestone mission." This would allow for these gameplay features: 1. Make repetitive missions as optional as the player wants, as planned by the developers 2. A way to set a cost to each automated mission so that they aren't simply ignored 3. Incentivize efficiency and creativity for all skill levels 4. Introduce almost endless compelling yet optional challenges for players of all skill levels, increasing replayability of KSP2. The uniqueness of each location would determine how fun optimizing these missions would be. They would be optional regardless, so it can't hurt the game for anyone, only improve it.

The Kerbal news agencies report on all colony channels that Scott Kerman's vessel suffered critical failures, jeopardizing his mission. Some fear starts spreading through Kerbal society (along with causing a big distraction), reducing colony productivity somewhat (i.e. resource production, construction, science research). Later it is confirmed that Scott Kerman has gone MIA. For the Kerbals that know what this means, they become fearful of spaceflight, reducing population growth of the colonies, especially the one that Scott launched from as well as nearby colonies. Like an opposite "boom event" caused by player actions. This would be a difficulty setting to introduce consequences that require more safety features and margins for each mission. This would make the game more challenge and allow the developers more opportunities to make unique mission types and locations. Adding news reports would increase the player feeling of their actions being consequential to their Kerbal interstellar civilization, as well as allow for more humorous Kerbal reactions in the game. TLDR; Killing Kerbals is reported on Kerbal news, triggering an event making kerbals less likely to want to travel to new places in space for a while, reducing pop growth.

I've been thinking; warfare in KSP2 using mods and multiplayer would be awesome, much more so than in KSP1. In KSP1 you need a lot of mods if you want to play war. You need mods to make bases and cities, you need mods like BDArmory so you can actually fight, and if you're not doing it alone you'll need a multiplayer mod. Most of the time the fighting only happens on Kerbin, and when its in space its usually role play and not strategy based. With the new base system in KSP2 and stock multiplayer, you won't need nearly as much mods, but playing war will (most likely) work much differently. Not only can you fight on other planets without needing to haul weapons and vehicles across space, but you can fight each other's bases and fight for control over parts of a planet/moon, or fight for total control over the whole thing. Imagine scouting a planet for a good spot to place a strategic base! Maybe you've found a good canyon and you can put a fighter base at the base of a cliff, or you have a tall point of land that you place a fort on to protect the nearby area. It'll be fun to play war in KSP2 less as role play but actual strategy in multiplayer. When a weapons mod eventually comes to KSP2, playing war in multiplayer would be very fun IMO CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying stock KSP2 should have weapons and some kind of focus on warfare. That should be delegated solely to mods and how you yourself play KSP.

KSP is special—and challenging from an engineering perspective. Learn about the work that KSP2 Physics Engineer Michael Dodd has been putting into improving static and dynamic object collisions in KSP2 Dev Diary #10 "Collisions". Check out the post below ↓

As you know, KSP 2 is coming with a host of new planets and moons to explore. I think it would be cool to have a planet pack for KSP 1 with KSP 2 celestial bodies. The planets and moons in the pack obviously wouldn't be exact replicas, and proper credit would be given to Private Division and Take Two. Aside from super realistic terrain and volumetric rings, making KSP 2 planets in KSP 1 is entirely feasible (Rask and Rusk can orbit a barycenter). Any thoughts?

There's one thing in KSP1 that keeps bugging me every time I've started a new career game. As of KSP1, when starting a career/science game, you've got: No thermometers No pressure meters No accelerometers (When using SCANsat) no radar altimeters And yet, the UI has: Overheat indicators and F10 thermal view Atmosphere density indicator (below the altimeter) G-force meter (right of navball) Altimeter OTOH, one of the things that I learned when using KER is that if I want the UI, I must plop a part onto the controllable part of the craft. Which makes sense IMO. So I wish that KSP2 would unlock UI elements as the player progresses, instead of full UI from the beginning. Research thermometers, you get temp gauges. Research inertial gyros, you get prograde/retrograde indicators on the navball. Upgrade the tracking station, you get sea-level altimeter. And so on. A hardcore version of this idea would be to tie UI elements to parts in the craft, KER-style. But this would need some QoL in the form of "always add flight instrument parts to probe cores and pilotable cabins". Ideally this could lead to "know your instrument" tutorial missions, to soften the learning curve of KSP. Get this experimental part, put it in a sounding rocket, and watch its readings. Maybe do something when the reading reaches a threshold. Would this be a chore to seasoned KSP players? Yeah. So make it skippable. But I would expect fans of the caveman challenge would love this. Maybe the "right" way to achieve something like this is to make the KSP2 UI architecture more mod-friendly, so mods could add (or remove!) flight instruments. I wish for the possibility of having KSP2-KER fuse seamlessly with the KSP2 UI.

When KSP2 is finally released, I'll take the day off college (or work, if it gets delayed long enough), lock my door, grab $60, close the forum tab, close reviews, close all chrome tabs, download KSP2, and play for a few hours. Then I'll probably hop on here and join in with everyone talking about how awesome it is. (Yeah I'm optimistic about the final game)

In KSP, you can control one Kerbal at a time and when you time wrap they just standing there starting at nothing. Funny thing is that I once left Valentina on Minmus for two whole years in her suit standing still staring at nothing. It would be cool if you can set each Kerbal to do something, such as patrol around the base ( and maybe gain some science ) or command them to take cargo and store it in other cargo space. Cooler even if you can set it to repair anything in proximity and they just repair anything damaged. Overall, I want to see other Kerbals do something other than sitting inside the base and just standing still when you leave them.

Recently on the new KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion tab there has been a thread that caught my eye. A Tribute to KSP 1. This is not a thank you to the KSP Team, but a suggestion that a memorial or a tribute of KSP1 should be present in the game. Many suggestions have been suggested, and I decided to list these in a poll. The poll is above. If you have any other suggestions or comment, you can comment below. Notice: All voter names are private. Please feel free to vote with your opinion. And this poll will close on December 31st, 2022 at 12:00 am.

Sorry if this has already been discussed. Do you think KSP2 will be similarly priced to KSP? Should older players from pre-2013 (I am not one) get a free copy since they got free DLCs? Or will Take-Two charge us all again?

Do you think there be robotic parts in KSP 2? Will they be added in the base game or in a DLC? I really hope they add robotic parts in KSP 2, so I can make cranes, excavators, and other equipment in KSP 2. If they do add it, I want them to be procedural, where I can make a hydraulic cylinder really long, really short, wide, or skinny. Also, telescopic crane booms similar looking to Liebherr's TELEMATIK system, and NON-FLOPPY ROTATION SERVOS, SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO CRANE SLEW RINGS. Also for VTOLs and similar things.

Hey everyone, this text is my attempt at proposing the idea of a system which could greatly improve the career mode gameplay by introducing new challenges and new mechanics inspired by real life. Please bear in mind that I am not a rocket engineer nor a specialist in any of the topics I talk about. The features i suggest should be considered optional difficulty settings for the career mode and may not be included on easier difficulties by default . Also, sorry for any spelling mistakes as I am not a native english speaker and my native language is german. So...let's begin! The concept of rocket reliability My first idea is not only a requirement & a big part of the second idea coming later but also, in my opinion, a concept really missing in the current KSP. Rocket reliability could change the well known gameplay a lot as not only (just somewhat!) random incidents & misfunctions are introduced as also the way you will build & use rockets will change. No longer will you be operating a just recently constructed rocket with 100% reliability as you first need to gather some science data of the vehicle and its components itself to increase the reliability of all the different parts and the rocket itself. Starting with things like engine tests, rocket static fire tests are now always (maybe a science option to remove that?) required. Propellant tanks need to be pressure tested before you know the exact data. All of that requires money, space, the right equipment & scientists. With that, the research system also changes: No longer will you see the whole tech tree and know what you need to research to get part X. Now you have to have the right scientists & engineers specialized in the genre you want to advance in. You want a new sea level rocket engine? Get your team to work & research and they will develop a prototype. You don't have scientists trained in your desired components technology? Buy components from other companies for an increased amount of money. I think you get the idea: New rocket stuff needs science, testing & also construction time (also a whole new gameplay mechanic as your parts have a limited stock) but that costs money & more so you get a whole nother level of ways to play the game. You got a mission from a rich guy living alone in the woods and he wants you to launch a satellite into LEO and gives you a hard deadline? Maybe quickly develop a prototype & launch the rocket without much testing? Or should we just buy some engines from another company and attach them to our tanks? When you decided which way you wanna go, you will create your rocket concept and announce the plans to the "media" (Well, in reality you just click "submit"). The rocket is now officially known by the space fascinated kerbals around kerbin. Now it is your time to shine as the rocket is now able to gather reputation (which directly incorporates reliability in a way). More about that in the second part of my post. In case it isn't clear: These are just all my ideas stuffed into a quite simple concept so of course you could and should change things. I just think these mechanics could add a LOT more replayability and gameplay depth to the career mode which is my favourite way to play anyway and could really need some more managing aspects. The concept of rocket reputation Your rocket got a name now! Yay! Be aware of people annoying you on social media with strange WENHOP questions. Now with your rocket known around the world, you could start creating a wikipedia article with pictures & flight data of your fancy rocket (not a gameplay feature). But wait? Didn't your last mission (the one where you should deploy a satellite for some rich unknown guy) fail on stage separation, as you did not test the decouplers nor the second stage engines? Please don't forget to add that to the article! Oh, some random internet dudes already did that. Your customers won't like that! Enough roleplay, I hope it still introduced you well to the second part of my concept. Rocket reputation is a stat that is bound to a rocket you created and "submitted". That means, if you change too much (how much is too much requires a lot more thinking) on the rocket itself, the rocket will lose all it's reputation as it is technically a (almost) completely new one (maybe keep some reputation if it still has a lot in common?). Of course you could replace an engine with an upgraded version of the same one, as your newly trained engineers continued to work day & night on improving the already existing concept to increase it's stats (btw this is again a whole new game mechanic on it's own) but you cannot simply replace the whole upper stage or switch your engines with a completely new one without losing (some?) reputation. Now, some time later, your rocket has earned some good reputation, higher level contracts are available as the global trust in your abilities to build rockets and especially in the rocket you just proved to be working has increased. It is finally time for the rocket to become a global contender and not just a simple toy for random rich people or small satellites nobody will talk about. You want to transport THE BIG & IMPORTANT STUFF and, ofcourse, our beloved kerbals. To get the most rewarding contracts, you need to earn specific certificates. Certificates work like "achievements" but are (mostly?) bound to your rocket. Prove your ability to deploy stuff into LEO and your rocket get's certified in that task which would not only offer your higher star contracts but could also allow you (if you want to enable that mechanic in your career) to let your star engineers prepare & launch contracts by themself, working in the background while you create new concepts or try to improve the existing one. The same is required to launch kerbals: Do some demo missions and prove that you CAN do it. If you can show the reliability of your rocket and your skill in achieving a specific task your rocket will get huma....i mean kerbal-certified and the big companies will ask YOU to launch their future kerbonauts. Yay! Also, your star engineers do your daily business to secure consequent funding. Finally, you are not only a rocket engineer but a real space company manager. The end At first, thank you for reading my suggestion for Kerbal Space Program 2. I am happy to discuss my ideas with you all and would really like some feedback. Ofcourse nothing is written in stone as this was just something I thought about an evening while talking with friends & watching a spacex mission. Again, keep in mind that all the introduced mechanics should be as customizeable as possible and just be some optional gameplay elements people CAN choose to enable. If you really like my concept, feel free to share it whereever you want. See you next launch! EDIT: Please read my answers to some concerns about the reliability part. I got a bit carried away by my interest in solving unexpected things so it would be nice If you would focus future answers on the reputation part and not so much on the reliability part, as I already realized that there shouldn't be such a rng factor in the game.

Some of the KSP Show and Tell videos appear to be taken in a deep, sand-colored valley of some sort. Is this environment just a test scene, or is it located on an in-game planet or moon? The amount of terrain detail and the inclusion of a sun / atmosphere seems to indicate that this place is a real location in-game. If not Kerbin or Laythe, where could this be?

As we move forward into the future lots of information is often forgotten and lost to time. Now we know that Kerbal Space Program will be receiving a sequel, Kerbal Space Program 2. And that the KSP Franchise has grown. However, just because KSP2 is coming shouldn't mean we should forget the original Kerbal Space Program. So many of us have put so many hours into the game. I, Dr. Kerbal would like to preserve Kerbal Space Program. I do not want it to be lost to time like the Kerbalizer and the alpha days of KSP. I want to keep the original alive even if, the KSP Franchise has grown to be larger than 2 games. This awesome series of games has started from this game. The original. Kerbal Space Program. And lets preserve the game so we all know where we started from. Lets remember the time we had in Kerbal Space Program. Where veterans of the game have come from. As a community, I would be honored to see Kerbal Space Program active and alive even if there is a Kerbal Space Program 4 or 5. Lets record this time and preserve KSP. Lets preserve the original game through wiki, forums posts, threads, videos, images, social media posts, icons, and etcetera. Lets preserve Kerbal Space Program the original, for future kerbalnauts in the future that may play KSP2. I do not want the original game to dies once Kerbal Space Program 2. To me that would be very sad.

Hello, things that I would really like to see in KSP 2 are surface fixed reference frames, let me elaborate: There is this mod called principia, it models n-body gravitation and has an option to manually change reference frames, one of the options is a surface-fixed one. This one is really useful for analyzing how a satellite drifts in say a geostationary orbit, or even a Molniya orbit, and is really nice for fine tuning orbits like that. Here is an example how this would look in a RSS KSP 1 system in a geostationary orbit: Here you see a satellites history as it moves into GEO (using RSS + principia). It is clearly visible that at the final trajectory, the satellite has very minimal movement with reference to the fixed surface of Earth (in map view). In principia there is also this other reference frame, where you can select a target, and the target becomes the center of the reference frame (like the visual effect you'd get when you get an encounter with another body), this is way more intuitive to look at than 2 closest approach markers as we would have in stock KSP 1. I would really enjoy these features in KSP 2, if possible.

KSP 1 is an extremely difficult game, especially for people who aren't familiar with orbits and space travel. The developers stated that they are making KSP 2 more accessible by adding tutorials, better interfaces, and other quality of life improvements. Reaching a broader audience and improving the feel of the game for everyone is great, but I am worried that it's going to ruin the best part about KSP. KSP 1 is immensely satisfying when you finally understand how a concept works after playing with it for some time. If the tutorials in KSP 2 are too abundant or reveal the answer to a problem before the player has had time to tinker with it, the "AH HA!" moment is lost. I think the quality of life improvements are amazing; I just hope the developers don't accidentally strip KSP of its magic.

I would love to have a Camera of the Groundcrew, just like the IVA cam. The Groundcrew could cheer when a Rocket lands on Mun or cry when it explodes.

An easy way to plan Mun mission is to be in LKO, drop a maneuver node, drag the prograde till the propagated orbit kisses the Mun orbit, then drag it forward in time until it gets a Mun encounter, and fiddle it to tune. Using this method you can easily plan even a free return "by the seat of your pants". You cannot use the same method for interplanetary transfers, but if you gave some maneuver node behaviors to celestial bodies it would be that easy. Select Kerbin, drop a node, prograde till it kisses Duna orbit, ... At the end you'd have a time for a transfer window, and a delta-v (from heliocentric orbit, so you have to adjust somewhat, it's a guide). You can even seat of the pants the adjustment if you could set a vehicle node time to match the Kerbin node transfer, fine drag it to be at midnight (for outer bodies), set the prograde to the Kerbin node value, and tweak it down from there. Even "ghost nodes" make sense; drop a node in LKO and do the above to do preplanning without a vehicle, if you later rendezvous with the ghost node you know you are in phase to burn at the right place at the right time. (the node back propagates for the encounter detection) Reusing the concepts and code would deliver a lot of power for the players. This is really nothing more than we have now, just accessible in a new context.

Hello, devs. Do you have a plan to add a different types of weather on a planets with atmosphere (like rains or sandstorm)? And will kerbals need a protection of solar and space radiation for interplanetary flight, and can they get older or even...dead by radiation, dehydration, from old age etc? Will you add a food plants and toilets? Do you going to add an inclination of planet's axis? And another question, you said that you do not add concept of randomly broked parts in a flight, but what else can do the game more challenging? I think that it is important part of any mission, when you need to develop a maximum reliable system that can live many years of flight, parts that repaired by engineer can have a differnt more messy structure and it's very interesting looks and also realistic ( remember how many problems people have with a space stations in a real life because space station it is not a 2-hours flight to the Moon, it is a system that stay in orbit for years). Just think about it... P.S. Sorry if you see many mistakes, I'm from Ukraine =)

This is something i thought of a bit. It would be nice if KSP2 would be free for the first 24 hours of it's release. Then after that time, they can set the intended price of the product. It wouldn't hurt, right? I would really appreciate the work, if Kerbal Space Program 2 Would have a demo, just like KSP1, which is gone. Can't seem to find it, because it brings some good memories before the purchase. It just feels different, would be really appreciated. . What do you think about it? The most important question here I guess would be the minimum system requirements. I'm a bit anxious about the visuals, they are so stunning, that I know the game will stutter each 3 seconds. The question is, will the game have advance graphics settings? Like tweak the terrain texture mesh, increase or decrease the level of detail, OFF, STATIC, REALTIME reflections. I just want more graphics customization, because i know my PC will struggle to run this. I gotta pray for my computer not to explode lol rip. I think that's it. I will add more questions to disccuss on this thread later.

Welcome to Pol, Jool's patchwork moon. The Mun may be made of cheese, but Pol is made of at least four kinds of cheese, some of which may no longer be edible. Courtesy of environment artists Jordan Pack and Sung Campbell.

It's Friday, check out the new video! Now excuse me while I go flood my house with my drooling.

What do you think about some Spectators who could watch a launch?