Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
    • KSP 2 Dev Diaries
    • KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Show and Tell
  • Kerbal Space Program
    • KSP Discussion
    • KSP Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. Improvements to the presentation In KSP 1 aside from the initial launch and the landing you spend most of your time flying the craft in map view. It would be a shame for the developers to beautifully shade, light and texture the spacecraft parts just so we can spend 90% of our time not looking at them. This is a difficult problem to solve as it objectively is easier to fly the craft in map view. Maybe you could add a small orthographic top down view of your orbit around the planet, you could use this for simple stuff such as circularizing your orbit, and you can use the map view for more complex maneuvers such as rendezvous. Although it would be ideal to only setup maneuvers in map view, but to perform them while looking at the ship. It would also be cool to have a cinematic camera that automatically chooses good camera angles so that both your spacecraft and the planetary body you're orbiting are in view. Time Warp improvements KSP 1 time warp is completely linear, speed in eccentric orbits isn't. This can be a problem as when you are approaching periapsis your spacecraft speeds up rapidly and that has made me miss my maneuver so many times. The fix for this would be to make the timewarp non linear. So when you are approaching periapsis timewarp would automatically slow down. And it would speed up as you're approaching apoapsis. Also general improvements to timewarp (like fixing warp to node, or automatically slowing when getting close to a node etc.) would be good. RCS and reaction wheel balancing Let's be honest, reaction wheels are very overpowered and not very fun, and RCS is pretty much useless unless you're just learning docking. It's sad to see RCS, which is an integral part of most real life spacecraft being overshadowed by reaction wheels (which have a much more niche use case). RCS in KSP1 is 100% active continuously throughout rotation (even though its much more efficient to do a small burn to start the rotation and then another equal one to stop the rotation), this leads to frequent overshooting and a lot of wasted monopropellant (which takes a lot of space and is generally heavier than using reaction wheels), making RCS and SAS work together more elegantly would solve this problem. Reaction wheels should only be used on small space probes, and RCS should be used for everything else. At the start of the game you should be working with small unmanned probes which would use reaction wheels, then you could slowly introduce RCS, flattening the learning curve. In conclusion RCS is really cool and I would much rather have cool jets of compressed gas be rotating my ship than invisible arbitrary force. In conclusion, RCS add a lot of interesting depth to ship design which should not be ignored. Probes before manned To be honest, the only reason I wanted probes before manned was because it's more realistic. But after thinking a lot I found a great gameplay reason to implement this type of progression. People mostly stop playing KSP1 because they get stuck somewhere, I think that is because the leaps from one goal to another can be very jarring (especially in the early game). Unlocking probes first would be a great way not only to add realism, but to also flatten the learning curve. Instead of after achieving orbit, you immediately try landing and returning from the Mun. What if your next mission would be just to set a satellite in orbit around the Mun, without the need to return it. This goal seems much easier and only teaches one simple concept, while going from barely knowing how to orbit to landing on the Mun and returning to Kerbin intact seems like an impossible challenge. Constantly having challenges that are difficult but doable would make newer players want to continue playing. Although Kerbals are central part of KSP, they can still be in the picture when piloting probes. Imagine while you're piloting a probe instead of normal kerbal portraits, there would be a mission control portrait and the Kerbals would react to whatever is happening to the probe, they could be screaming as the probe is about to crash,or they could be celebrating a successful landing. Some minor things Ballistic entry would be awesome, since, if you nerf reaction wheels, the commands pods falling through the atmosphere would only be able to turn using aerodynamics, so having a ballistic reentry profile would only make sense. I find it much more fun to dock with a docking camera than just blindly, any way to measure movement relative to another ship would be great. Non linear thrust would mean that you wouldn't have to mess with the engine thrust menus just to accelerate less than like a 100Gs. Engines should also not accelerate to 100% immediately, they should take some time to spool. Engine gimbal should be smooth, would make rockets more stable, and of course, make the game more realistic. And last of all, just take your time, I have a lot of faith in you guys and I wish you godspeed in the development process. I hope that you guys can make the best version of KSP2 possible. Cheers!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. What it says in the title. If you attach a docking port to a crewed part, it'd be cool to be able to use said docking port as a crew hatch to access said part. Could also open possibilites for more 'airlock' style parts that you can use to disembark your crew in style.
  5. Hello. I'm @Dr. Kerbal. The weird with the weird profile pic. I went a bit overboard. A little bit. But I have a suggestion to improve the game. The oceans in Kerbal Space Program are kind of still. Without mods the oceans look dead. The liquids in them just sits still. Kind of creepy if you ask me. So I suggest that in an upcoming update the oceans should be revamps and improved. Even though this is Kerbal Space program and the focus is mainly on space, I think the oceans are important too. Visiting Laythe or Eve would be really boring. It makes no sense for Laythe oceans to be still. I mean it orbits a giant green gas giant (otherwise known as Jool). Shouldn't some waves come up? Or on Kerbin, the Mun's should cause some waves right? And the texture in the ocean make the ocean kind of boring. So I suggest that @SQUAD and the KSP Team should put an ocean revamp.
  6. A simple part idea. feel free to use! -SCC-00P Fuel Scoop The "Specialized Cargo Collection mk00 Part" Is an odd, net-like structure, that, when extended, captures gasses like Hydrogen or small solids such as ice particles and stores them to later turn into liquid fuel and oxidizer. Despite critics making outrageous claims such as "This part's acronym is forced and stupid", it seems to work as intended. Fuel Refinery sold separately. This part will slowly produce Ore when exposed to Jool's atmosphere, which can then be processed into fuel. The deeper the part is, the more Ore it makes.
  7. Now, this has been suggested before. Yes, it can cause problems on lower-end computers. maybe it's better off as a mod, so for any modders out there, maybe you can make something like this? Now, Weather is a major part of spaceflight. Dust Storms, Strong Winds, and more can cause problems for all sorts of craft. Here are some weather concepts, both Extreme, and not: Sun Near-sun spacecraft may be hit with solar flares, shutting down electronics temporarily (I think something else causes this, but Solar Flares is all I can remember atm) Moho Moho is close to the sun, where asteroids tend to break up. This causes dangerous meteor showers that can damage or destroy buildings. Eve Eve's atmosphere creates wind storms. "Wind" is represented by a random small force pushing on a part of a vessel. This force increases the further up you are, so while rovers may not be toppled aircraft will struggle. This also obscures visibility. Gilly gilly doesn't get effects Kerbin Kerbin has a variety of environments, which should have their own conditions Grasslands, Mountains Rain and Snowstorms can both occur here, with the exception that only snowstorms appear on Mountains. These storms don't affect craft in any way other then visibility In rare cases, Lightning will also be present in these storms. Lightning can disable electronics for 1-3 seconds. Islands Tropical Storms around islands can happen, causing rain and lightning. Wind is also present, also interfering with aircraft. Increased chance of regular rain. Desert Dust storms that obscure vision and block out solar panels. Mun The mun doesn't have any special effects Minmus Still nothing Duna Days-long dust storms block solar panels and obscure vision Ike random spacecraft trying to get to Duna constantly crash into the surface Ike gets nothing Dres Dres gets random meteor strikes that damage or destroy parts Jool Jool has strong winds, possibly strong enough to destroy weaker craft. Laythe Laythe has tropical storms, causing rain, wind, and lightning, as well as regular storms. Fog can also appear, obscuring vision. I can't think of anything else for the remaining planets or moons. PARTS A variety of parts would be added: -Laser Turret A small turret that uses Energy. It shoots down incoming meteors, protecting craft -Lightning Rod A simple, low-cost solution to storms. Putting this on the highest section of a craft protects it from lightning strikes -Weather Prediction Camera: A small satellite dish with a built-in camera. Craft with this part in orbit of a planet can predict incoming weather effects up a day before they happen, and where exactly they will happen -Storm Analyzer A device that, when within a rain cloud, snow cloud, lightning cloud, tropical storm, or even simply the atmosphere of jool, produces science related to the weather effects -Dust Net A device that catches blown-around dust from dust storms for further analysis of soil composition. provides small amounts of science.
  8. What do you think about some Spectators who could watch a launch?
  9. In ksp 2 we could have space tourism? As a way to raise funds or something like this, we could use rockets, airplanes, balloons and other means to do this tourism, we could also add hotels in space for the same purpose to raise funds.
  10. I was playing KSP and it hit me that something would be an amazing QoL feature would be draggable patched conics! I don't mean draggable handles on the little maneuver node like you can do in KSP, I mean dragging the actual patched conic line itself into the position you want around the moon/planet. How many times have you wanted to enter a polar orbit, and had to mess with all 3 to 6 of the maneuver node handles until you finally were able to get the patched conic line into the position you wanted? How many times have you moved those handles only to have it fly off into interstellar space causing you to have to fiddle to find your way back or to simply start over and try again? How awesome would it be to be able to click on that patched conics line and simple drag it around the sphere of the moon/planet until it is in the position you want, with the ability to swap the direction of the path as well? While dragging it around I think the altitude would have to be locked and adjusted separately, and it could also do a transparent sphere overlay that would show you were it is possible and impossible to drag the path to.
  11. seriously, ksp has added loads of features to make my space stations look cool but there is one thing missing, we could have spherical fuel tanks added into the next major update to make daedelus or Ares IV replicas, im surprised take two hasn't considered this yet but ill probably be the first to voice my opinion on this, what do you think you would do if take two would add spherical fuel tanks into the stock game
  12. I understand that the details of Kerbal biology are left mostly ambiguous, but as a pillar of Kerbal is teaching people about real human spaceflight I would suggest that there be some quips about bugs or bug-like creatures being farmed on Kerbal colonies in KSP2. Bugs are a valuable source of food for humans in space and (as a university student conducting research on the topic) I think that we should be eating a lot more insects in the future. It would be wonderful if KSP2 would show Kerbals to have not just a completely vegan diet, but an insectitarian diet too. Also, in real life insects are major pollinators of plants and they are great decomposers of soil, their byproducts act as an amazing fertilizer and the indigestible chitin from their exoskeletons can be extracted and processed into chitosan, a building material. I think that Kerbals should have similar bug-like creatures to accompany them on their space adventures, so that KSP players can learn what insects can provide us in real life space exploration!
  13. Weight is a force: f = ma & gravity is an acceleration, so weight = mass * acceleration but this should be a ratio: weight = mass * environment_gravity / 9.81 m/s. For convenience, orbit should be weightless. A 200kg mass weighs 200kg on Earth/Kerbin but 33.2 kg on the Mun. In a low g vacuum, the mass is mostly weightless. So you can more easily displace the mass in orbit and on the Mun, than on Kerbin, because your kerbals are able to do more work (displacement of mass) with the same effort (energy). Hence, the mass carrying capacity should change relative to the kerbal's environment: weight carrying capacity = mass * environment_gravity / 9.81 m/s. The only catch is that the more mass a kerbal carries, the more energy (eva rcs) the kerbal expends regardless of environment. I want my kerbals to carry two jet packs in orbit and on the Mun, but not on Eve, Kerbin, Tylo, etc. Please fix.
  14. In the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, Monoliths are found on the Earth, buried in the Moon, and in orbit around Jupiter. We've already had monoliths on planetary surfaces, but we haven't had them buried underneath the surface or in orbit around planets. For KSP 2, the monolith hunt could be expanded by adding interstellar Monoliths that aliens would have placed to tell when the Kerbals had gotten advanced enough to go into different star systems. A monolith would be required to increase the Kerbals technology further and further, the first letting them get off Kerbin after a plane flight from the KSC. The second would give Kerbals the technology to get them from Kerbin to the Kerbol system using chemical rockets. The third monolith would give them efficient rockets and interstellar tech. And finally, the fourth, if returned from an alien world back to Kerbin, would count as beating the game. Not only is this a great way to add a 'Campaign' to the game, it also allows speedrunning that isn't based on just a tech tree or a Eve mission.
  15. Title says most of it. Currently when your engine is burning and you are in map mode, rotating the camera changes where the engine noises come from. Personally I find this annoying, especially with headphones while I'm not listening to anything else and all of the sound is coming out of one ear. Do you find this similarly annoying or is it just me?
  16. I tried downloading bdarmory fps but my kerbal does not equip the guns so is ther a similiar mod to that. mod link for informations about the mod:https://spacedock.info/mod/284/BD%20-%20FPS
  17. In KSP 1 aside from the initial launch, docking and landing you spend most of your time flying the craft in map view. It would be a shame for the developers to beautifully shade, light and texture the spacecraft parts just so we can spend 90% of our time not looking at them. This is a difficult problem to solve as it objectively is easier to fly the craft in map view. Maybe you could add a small orthographic top down view of your orbit around the planet, you could use this for simple stuff such as circularizing your orbit, and you can use the map view for setting up more complex maneuvers such as rendezvous. It would also be cool to have a cinematic camera that automatically chooses good camera angles so that both your spacecraft and the planetary body you're orbiting are in view. It would also be cool to be able to plot the whole course and maneuvers for the spacecraft before the launch so you don't have to fiddle with maneuver nodes mid flight, you just fly the spacecraft according to premade maneuver nodes.
  18. There been a lot of talk about this with people ik irl and people saying similar to this idea but I feel like we are missing out if they don't add this mode. When it comes to me I had played ksp for years but was never really any good at it. But when the career mode was introduced it forced me to learn each step and vitalize the items I had on me. I made me feel like an engineer to face the problem of money restraint and vitalizing my designs so they do exactly what the need to do. All though if I had to add a system with it it be a rival space industry race me for contracts and we need to make co op missions to help each other out or don't. Make a space colony/dock to make money with other companies etc. I just dont want only exploration I want to be invested in each action I do. I want my mistakes to have value, I want were theirs limited food, water, and the air they breath. I want it so i need to worry about my kerbals mental health and physical health. I truly want to live in this solar system and the galaxy itself and face all the real complications of those ways to get there. I know this would make the game so much harder and complex but wouldn't you want to face all the obstacles of it to better understand what we need to face in real life and what we can do to solve these problems. I know some have the same opinion and some don't but it should be an option if we want to face it.
  19. Wouldn't it be great if the lights had an actual shader that changes its color based on whatever color you set for the light? For the next part revamp, maybe. In the stock game you can change the color of the light, but the texture always remains white. I added a bunch of colored textures to the lights via the MM patch, but it's a little bit clunky to use and I only have a certain amount of colors to work with. But it still looks great, or at least better than just a plain white light with the actual color being different.
  20. So today i stumbled upon recent PC Gamer article about KSP 2. I recommend to watch the videos, reviewing this article, before reading this post(or you can check out transcript somewhere on this forum). Videos can be found on ShadowZone and Matt Lowne YT channels. https://www.pcgamer.com/space-odyssey-our-first-big-look-at-kerbal-space-program-2/ I'm not gonna talk about the whole article, but rather about the part, that states, that KSP 2 will have what is called "Adventure Mode". From my understanding of this article, there is planned to be no funds/contract system in the game, because dev team considers, that it was too grindy in the original game. I disagree with this position. In fact the Career Mode is my favorite game mode for a very long time now. The only time i'm not playing it, is when i feel an urge to tinker and have fun with airplanes in sandbox, which is one of my hobbies (BTW this is why i really expect KSP 2 to improve in this area as well, but that's the story for another time), but when it comes to playing a campaign of my own Space Program - Career Mode is my only choice. I've never been an active user on this forum, or on any forum tbh, but the threat of not having this, EXTREMELY important feature, in the sequel, made me sit and write this post anyway. I really hope, that sharing my thoughts here, will make players give it a seconds chance and KSP 2 devs reconsider their position about adding it to the game, because it really deserves it. And here is why. Firstly let's talk about why the Career Mode was called "too grindy" in the first place. The contract system in the original game pretty much consist of the list of the simple objectives and rewards with some RNG integrated, and feels like it was done in a hurry by someone, who had little idea about how to realize the feature in the first place and took completely wrong approach. As a result of that most of the contracts were about pressing certain button at certain speed/altitude for a minor payout. I'm not arguing, with the fact, that it was indeed very boring. It was. But it is important to note, that is an issue NOT with career mode itself, but rather with the way contracts were implemented, so it shouldn't be used as a reason to not include the career mode into the sequel. The thing that is also worth noting, is that a lot of people, who've tried career mode, abandoned it almost instantly, without investigating the game mode further. Because of that they've had no chance of understanding good and important concepts, that this mode introduced to the game, so the community opinion about career mode being garbage was born. But i am not one of those people. I am one of the few, that gave the Career Mode a chance to prove itself. And spoiler alert - i wasn't disappointed. The importance of the "Funds" concept. KSP is a game about building rockets from parts and launching them into space. Some parts are better, some are worse, and some might come in handy in a specific situation, while being completely useless in the other. A good half of the fun in this game comes from designing a unique vessel, that serves specific purpose and taking some trade-offs in the process. In the game like this, it is VERY important to keep the parts balanced, otherwise your're gonna end up with a same design being an answer to every question, which is obviously not good and will for a fact make the game boring. There is of course a lot of ways to balance parts, such as mass and size for all parts, and some unique parameters for a certain part category, like range and throughput for antennas, lift and drag coefficients for wing parts and thrust and ISP for engines, when sometimes you sacrifice some thrust, in order to squeeze more dV out of your vessel, that is to reaching your destination destination, and other times you don't get a luxury of having good ISP, because you need a lot of thrust to push your massive 1000t craft out of the atmosphere. And in Career Mode there is also a cost. Why is it so important you might ask? Answer is going to be complicated. Let's talk about RTG's. RTG's are great! They have almost no mass, they take almost no space and they generate electricity absolutely for free, regardless of any conditions. The only downside of them is the fact, that they generate electricity at really low speed, which can be countered with just using more of them. You can see where i'm going with this. Why would i ever use solar panels and huge batteries(not even mentioning the fuel cells), when i have RTG's unlocked? If i'm playing Science or Sandbox i can just put 20 RTG's on my craft without any trade-offs and completely forget about the electricity as a game concept. Not good. But in career mode i have a clear reason to not do so - COST. For the same money, it costs to put 2 RTG's on my vessel i can launch a rocket to the Mun that will land there and return safely to Kerbin with crew onboard. A bit more ridiculous example: Why wouldn't you use a Daedalus engine to propel your 500kg probe into the LKO? Same answer. COST. And that is where the Career mode absolutely shines. Not only it introduces a necessary balancing factor into the game, that prevents player from thoughtlessly spamming parts, that are OP in other game modes, but on top of that it also FUNDAMENTALLY changes the way you approach designing your spaceship, by introducing unique trade-offs, that are present in no other game mode. For example: * You want to launch a communication satellite to the LKO. Which command probe will you chose? Sandbox/Science: "The best one obviously!" Career: "Well since it is a just communication sat, that is not indented to dock with anything, intercept something or land at specific location there is no point in having expensive SAS so i might just use the cheap one and save some money for future missions." * You want to launch a communication satellite to the LKO. Which engines will you chose for the rocket? Sandbox: "Vectors." Science: "Look at that new and shiny Mainsail i just unlocked!" Career: "It's only LKO i'm going to and my payload is not that big. I might easily get away with Swivel." * You want to launch science mission to the Mun's surface. Where will you put science equipment? Sandbox: "What's science?" Science: "Descend stage obviously. I can just take all the data from them and not take extra weight back with me." Career: "Damn these GRAVMAX and Double-C Seismic Accelerometer are so expensive! I think it's worth trying to recover them! Let's see...I can try snapping all the science on top of the crew module right near the parachute and hope, that it won't overhear on reentry... OR... I can put my science module in the service bay between the heat shield and crew module! But is it really worth paying extra for the service bay? Hmm..." The Career Mode adds new and, most importantly, interesting challenges(or puzzles how the Devs are calling them) of getting to space, in the game that is ALL ABOUT the challenge of getting to space. I don't know about you guys, but for me it is VERY exciting and makes me enjoy the game SO MUCH MORE. But wait! There is more! Have you ever heard about the guy called Elon Musk? He once said “Six million dollars is falling through the sky. Would we try to catch it?” Well would we? No. Because guess what! There is no such thing as "dollars" in the game! You might still do it for fun or challenge, but the whole concept of making reusable rockets or even SSTO's becomes pretty much pointless! In conclusion: Pros of Career Mode: * Balance for the expensive late-game parts * More challenges for the player * Encouragement for a player to reuse rockets Cons of Career Mode: * Was too grindy in the original game (which, as i explained earlier, is not even an issue with Career Mode itself) I think it is clear now, that Career Mode brings so much to the gameplay. It makes the game even more in-depth and realistic (you have to remember, that rocket science IRL is not just about getting to space, but rather getting to space with the cheapest and easiest way possible, which is often forgotten by KSP community), it introduces A LOT of new opportunities and challenges to the player, that NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab and every other rocket company IRL faces and has to deal with. And i not just absolutely love that. For me it is ESSENTIAL in the game like KSP. And taking all this good stuff out of the game, just because original game had not enough good ways to farm the money? It's just unacceptable in my opinion. So we have an essential, for this game, mechanics - money and a fact of grinding said money was boring in the original game. What do we do in the sequel? I would answer - instead of removing money from the sequel entirely, it is better to rethink the way player earns this money. And i have some ideas on how to do so, that i'd like to share. * Not all contracts in the original game were boring. Most of them yes, but not all of them. Tourism for example. Riding couple VIPs to the Mun and back is nowhere near a bad gameplay. It had it's issues of its own, like the required destinations would be a complete mess (for example land on Minmus+complete suborbital flight on dune on the same flight, which complicates the mission by a lot) if you visited a lot of celestial bodies, but that could be manipulated by the player. My strategy about it was: if you land on the Mun to unlock Mun contracts, but then won't go to Minmus or any other place, so the game gives you contracts, associated with only Kerbin (suborbital+orbit) and Mun(fly by+orbit+suborbital+land), and all of these objectives could be completed within nice and simple Mun landing mission. If you want to learn more about this method of farming you can check out thingy in the Steam Workshop, that i've posted a while ago. TL;DR: rocket with 16 VIP seats could make profit over 2 millions per flight if you get lucky with contracts. Again for a relatively simple Mun landing mission that will take 30-60 minutes that is not "too grindy" at all. My suggestion here - leave VIP contracts in the game, but limit the objectives in the way, so there will be one single destination for the whole contract, that is shared by all the VIPs in it. And maybe some multiplier for flying a lot of VIPs at the same time (single VIP - 50k, x2 - 55k each, x3 - 60k each and etc.), to reward player for taking time and effort in designing big and capacious spaceships. * Another example of good contracts are Rescue contracts. You get free Kerbal in your Space Program(just a reminder that in Career Mode you have to purchase Kerbonauts for those who haven't played it) and you also get paid for it on top of that. Pretty good stuff. * Contracts for putting 3rd party satellites on the required orbit are welcome as well. Also in my opinion it would be better if the game had some pre-build sub-assemblies instead of telling player to build the satellite himself(ex. "Hey here is my satellite. Put it in LKO with 350km apogee, 400km perigee and 10deg inclination." Player accepts the contract and gets a sub-assembly of this satellite and only required to send it to the desired orbit) * Contracts for resupplying satellites/space stations. Player accepts the contract, pre-made craft spawns in orbit, and player has to dock with it and transfer certain amount of resource to complete the contract. * Pretty much advanced and combined previous 2. Client gives contract to get sub-assembly to orbit, some time after player completes it the same client gives another contract to send new sub-assembly to the old one and dock them together. Repeat until the whole space station will be finished. Some time time after that player will start to get resupply contracts from same client. All these contracts will NOT be "boring" just by their nature, but can become boring IF the pay is bad, so the player has to focus on them too much. On the other hand, if player would get paid well for completing them, they WILL be VERY much welcome in the game. I would happily complete as many of them as needed, to fund my Space Program, considering again, that the paycheck is reasonable. * Concept of funding researches with money would never hurt * Idea of KSP 2 is to explore new horizons and find a new home for Kerbal kind. But that's a long term goal. To achieve that goal player has to get through a number of simpler objectives. And that Way could be similar to something like this, if the Career Mode will make it to the sequel: All starts with a cheap prototype rocket launch, continues with couple of commercial satellites being put in orbit and some tourists being send suborbital, to fund the research and construction of new and better rockets. With new tech comes the Mun landing, that unlocks Mun tourism and funds more research. After that player starts thinking about building colonies, to expand his reach, so the great exploration begins. From Duna to Eve, to Jool and Laythe and anywhere within the Kerbol System, until the Great Interstellar Ship has been constructed, while ALL of that being funded by commercial flights i described above. Colonies start to become independent and will use on-the-spot resources to build rockets. So at this point the money will start to lose its value for exploration and after Kerbals arrive to new star system they will have no use for it there at all. All that of course while on Kerbin player can still continue to expand the commercial side of his Space Program. And one more important thing to note here, that the "Cost" concept should still be present for colonies, that mine resources, in order to build a rocket. This can be implemented through a lot of multiple ways, i'm sure everyone can think of one. Here is the first thing, that came to my mind first(don't take this one too seriously): * Add to the game basic resources like Copper and Iron, that will be good for most of the stuff and can be found almost everywhere and some rare ones, like Uranium or Titanium, that will be required for high-tech stuff. Each part in the game will it's cost in the resources. When player attempts to launch build a craft in the colony game calculates total cost of the craft in resources and checks, if the colony has enough of these resources in its storage. Simple. Should work perfectly. This process can also be complicated by adding more different resources/making some resources to not be mineable directly, but rather craftable from other resources (like plastic from oil, or microschemes from copper and iron, etc.)(Factorio vibes yes ). This "cost in resources" thingy can also be applied to Kerbin, so that instead of paying for the rocket directly, player will pay for the resources, necessary for the rocket. * The thing above can easily be a limiting factor for why player can't build a Daedalus engine on Kerbin. It would simply cost to much. So instead of buying it player will be forced to go and get resources, necessary to construct it. * And if that seems too complicated it is still a solution to make VAB's on colonies require funds for rockets, just like the VAB on Kerbin, in order to simplify things. (although i'm not a fan of this approach) * Also great addition to this would be an ability to disassemble landed vessels into resources, for the sake of reusability. I've been typing this for couple hours already, so i'm tired and starting to lose track of my thoughts. This is it for now, but i might add something later. In the end i want to say: Fellow Kerbals, give another chance to the Career Mode. It really deserves it. And, of course, please help me with spreading this word to the devs. KSP 2 devs, i hope that this post makes you re-think your position about Career Mode in KSP 2 and helps you make the sequel as good as possible! And of course feel free to share any ideas on this topic! -------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT 25.06.2020 A new video on KSP YT channel came out(link) I want to draw your attention on a short glimpse of VAB UI at 4:28. As you can see Protective Rocket Nose Cone Mk7 has a cost of 111 Ore and 11.1 Uranium, which confirms that "cost in resources" i suggested earlier is in fact implemented in KSP 2. Now i can live in peace. Huge thanks to devs! <3
  21. I'm sure this is a an oft-beaten path, but it would really be nice to have something like alexmoon's launch window planner implemented into the KSC. It would make the Mission Control building a lot more useful outside of career contracts if you could go in there, punch in some numbers for a planned mission, and get a general idea of when you should launch, how much Delta-V will be required, etc. Mission planning in the stock game is anemic, at best, and I feel that the lack of something like this in-game detracts from the immersion of running your own space program.
  22. I'll get straight to the point. I haven't seen anything that can make a Kerbal talk. Sure, there's Chatterer and all, but you can't exactly control what the kerbals speak. So here's my request: a in-game Plugin that makes Kerbals talk (In Kerbalese, of course). Preferably connected to animations. How I think it might work: Also, I found this:
  23. Having destroyed the engines on my landable launch-stages in Career one too many times because there is no landing leg in the game large enough to land a Mainsail (or in my case, a cluster of Mainsails) without either heavy part-clipping of the engines or putting the legs on the ends of wings (which is draggy, structurally-weak, and makes it harder to maintain aerodynamic stability during an engines-first re-entry), and had even more launch stages tip over after landing, I am BEGGING for some larger stock landing-legs. Nothing too fancy. Just BIG. Maybe a 400 kg mass leg part? (this should put it in the right size/strength-range for landing heavy launch stages with Mainsail clusters, or crewed round-trip missions on Eve...) To avoid this being a problem again in the future, as players move towards ever-heavier designs, I suggest 3 new sizes of legs: - a 400 kg landing leg part, for landing Mainsail stages - a 200 kg part, more for when you just need a wider base: such as landing tall stacks with small Reliant/Skiff engine clusters on the bottom. - An 800 kg part, for truly insane designs: like heavy Eve landers. Additionally, if there were more aerodynamic-looking versions of some of these legs (like the ones in Kerbal Reusability Expansion) that would be amazing! I'll take any/all of those, as long as there is a leg in the 400 kg size range. But the 3 options I listed above really would make things easier (and more realistic: the stock legs are far too small for the forces they can repeatedly withstand) and less frustrating for players... And once again, for those who feel the need to make such comments: "LOL, just add mods!" is NOT an acceptable answer. Having been playing this game for 6+ years, I have seen countless mods come and go: but Stock parts stick around, are available on Console, and are official content- giving more players the chance to use these parts and become familiar with them. KSP has given me great diversion, frustration, and (sometimes) joy over the years- but it could be so much more. Expanding the range of stock parts available is a move in this direction: and I, like many players, would even be willing to pay for another expansion with a sufficiently-large selection of such new Stock parts... (although honestly, given where player base opinion is right now on DLC, how basic this functionality is of having larger legs, and how many people have been fiscally harmed by Covid-19: now is probably NOT the time for this to be another DLC: it would be better to add this "free" and sell other new parts/features later...)
  24. In my opinion, one of the biggest shortcomings of KSP one was that there were no IVA activities, and the science was just pressing a button and running a series of trite experiments repeatedly, that didn't make sense, and had very little basis in reality. What would be interesting would be a series of hundreds of randomly generated science experiments that could be assigned on missions and use supplies to do things that are more realistic, like experiments on animals or with plants, or physical tests of components in appropriate situations, not like the "tEsT lAnDiNg gEaR oN aN eScApE tRaJeCtOrY oF mInMuS", which makes no sense given the context. Considering the fact that the devs have an opportunity to not only overhaul game mechanics, but the actual core loop of play, more interesting science could alleviate the boredom caused by landing on a planet and not having anything to do there. The game could have another layer of depth that goes beyond just landing and managing fuel, but could be partially automated by well-designed UI and planners, that would also pair well with Kerbalism-style life-support or a KAC tool. This could compliment a realistic IVA system, so that one could actually use the ship interiors. This was just an idea I thought of a couple of hours ago, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
  25. With several colonies throughout the systems, some degree of traffic is... expected? Desired? Required? Sure, KSP doesn't simulate all of Kerbin's cities, populations and industry, but those aren't space assets. KSP 2 is going for space colonies and industry, and if you have those, you've gotta have space traffic. I don't see how it could be fun for the player to run every material and passenger demand in two or more systems, between potentially a dozen colonies. To have no traffic at all seems... sad. The reasonable solution, then, is somewhat obvious, and appears surprisingly simple. The player could design and launch ships with either cargo, material or passenger capacity and enough DV to make the journey between the two or more desired location. If A and B have refueling facilities, then the ship only has to have the DV to get from A to B at worst system disposition, and vice versa. The ship would be deposited into storage at either A or B, and launched to make the journey by the colony AI. It would automatically cross the distance, refuel, deposit/pick up goods and passengers, and travel back. What this gives the game is 3 things. First, it gives a sense of life in the system, like you are not the only thing moving out there. Second, it lets you design various ships for the mission, and demonstrates how real life interplanetary traffic would look and function. Third, it gives some sense and reason to colony growth. In any reasonable scenario, early colonies would need shipments from more developed locations (unless the colonization effort is truly huge). The player could do that themselves, but we have Elite Dangerous and Eve Online for when we want to play space truck driver. The big issues I can see: - Not easy to make: You'd have to make pilot AI that can set up paths between A and B without being insane. - Atmospheric entry would have to be handled with two ships and an orbital station. The space freighter would deliver to the station, then the station would use shuttles and lifters to move the cargo to and from the surface colony. Lots of mechanics there. - Resource demanding. If done wrong, a dozen ships moving across the system could be hard on the simulation.
  • Create New...