Jump to content

Has everyone forgotten about the fabled extra gas planets?


What do you think about the controversial Gas Planet Two?  

89 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think about the controversial Gas Planet Two?

    • I want it back! Please! SQUAD! Goddamnit do something about it!
    • I don't care / don't know what Gas Planet 2 is.
    • I don't want it back! By computer would dye if I use Asteronomer's!


Recommended Posts

But like I said, these are all useless to suggest or even think about. The game as-is won't support them.
Yeah, the devs would have to change their mind about what KSP is first.
But it will support Yellow Jool and its 4 moons that look just like the other moons in the game, so I suppose that's a thing too.
In general I find base building and points-collecting to be fairly meaningless, but going places in space in interesting craft and doing things that challenge my piloting skills has always been a big attraction in KSP. I could get behind short-term colonization efforts, especially AI controlled, but then what? It's just more art or refueling stations, or places to launch from. You're still doing the same stuff.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Going places in space in interesting craft and doing things that challenge my piloting skills has always been a big attraction in KSP. I could get behind short-term colonization efforts, especially AI controlled, but then what? It's just more art or refueling stations, or places to launch from. You're still doing the same stuff.

Then instead of a single gas giant you should be championing randomized system generation.

As should I. That would be a great addition for the "Okay I'm totally done with the base game and have no other use for it" phase that - let's face it - we're both in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then instead of a single gas giant you should be championing randomized system generation.

As should I. That would be a great addition for the "Okay I'm totally done with the base game and have no other use for it" phase that - let's face it - we're both in.

You know there's an old piece of software called ACCRETE, and that Kopernicus is getting better and better by the update? Wouldn't be too hard to adapt ACCRETE to crap out Kopernicus configs... Especially since the devs aren't ever going to make random, procedural star systems.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know there's an old piece of software called ACCRETE, and that Kopernicus is getting better and better by the update? Wouldn't be too hard to adapt ACCRETE to crap out Kopernicus configs... Especially since the devs aren't ever going to make random, procedural star systems.

ACCRETE is awesome. Back in another life I created a science fiction universe for a series of books (2 of which became podcast episodes), and used ACCRETE to make the star systems. I even had a little email conversation with the writer, though I cannot now remember what feature I wanted. I think it was something simple like solid planet circles instead of just outlines. IIRC I ended up post processing the svg files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ACCRETE is awesome. Back in another life I created a science fiction universe for a series of books (2 of which became podcast episodes), and used ACCRETE to make the star systems. I even had a little email conversation with the writer, though I cannot now remember what feature I wanted. I think it was something simple like solid planet circles instead of just outlines. IIRC I ended up post processing the svg files.
A while back I had translated ACCRETE (the older C code, not the derivative StarGen) to Java in order to generate star systems for a role-playing game. I thought I had lost the code to an old laptop hard drive failure but I just checked and it turns out I had it backed up on my old gaming desktop. I'll check out the licensing and see about getting the code up on Github for sharing; all the hooks exist for writing text files, it'd just have to be rewritten to create Kopernicus configs.

And add moons, and texturemaps from perlin noise and such, but still...

Edited by regex
Link to post
Share on other sites
A while back I had translated ACCRETE (the older C code, not the derivative StarGen) to Java in order to generate star systems for a role-playing game. I thought I had lost the code to an old laptop hard drive failure but I just checked and it turns out I had it backed up on my old gaming desktop. I'll check out the licensing and see about getting the code up on Github for sharing; all the hooks exist for writing text files, it'd just have to be rewritten to create Kopernicus configs.

And add moons, and texturemaps from perlin noise and such, but still...

I'm kinda drooling a little, I'll admit. IIRC Accrete works with seeds so in theory you could set up a whole Mulky Wuy Galaxy, each system explorable. You could even shoehorn Kerbin into each system by taking out the planets around it, or making it a moon of a gas giant that happens to be in the right place.

We may be getting outside of the original thrust of this thread though. By my count we're actually twice removed from it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
A while back I had translated ACCRETE (the older C code, not the derivative StarGen) to Java in order to generate star systems for a role-playing game. I thought I had lost the code to an old laptop hard drive failure but I just checked and it turns out I had it backed up on my old gaming desktop. I'll check out the licensing and see about getting the code up on Github for sharing; all the hooks exist for writing text files, it'd just have to be rewritten to create Kopernicus configs.

And add moons, and texturemaps from perlin noise and such, but still...

Traveller?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want more Easter eggs! I was SO disappointed when Eeloo and Dres came out with stuff all on them. Pol too.

I remember seeing an old mod, which randomly rearranged the solar system for each new persistance file.

I think that was before the forum-splosion.

Edited by kahlzun
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm kinda drooling a little, I'll admit. IIRC Accrete works with seeds so in theory you could set up a whole Mulky Wuy Galaxy, each system explorable. You could even shoehorn Kerbin into each system by taking out the planets around it, or making it a moon of a gas giant that happens to be in the right place.
Easier to just use Kopernicus to create all the planets as needed, I think. Not sure how I did it, I'll be looking into the code, but adding a specific seed would be pretty easy.
We may be getting outside of the original thrust of this thread though. By my count we're actually twice removed from it :)
Yeah. I'll check it out and move conversation elsewhere if needed and the licensing is cool.
Traveller?
No, much more recent, d20 Modern within the last ten years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Easier to just use Kopernicus to create all the planets as needed, I think. Not sure how I did it, I'll be looking into the code, but adding a specific seed would be pretty easy.

Easy is good, and IMO a seed is critical in this sort of thing. "OMG check out 1153392. It's got a sweet XXXXX and YYYYY orbiting a ZZZZZZ."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why was this not developed further. I mean come on, it's not that hard. This is basically why I'm using Outer Planets Mod. It's stockalike, reminds me of our own system and it's interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As said numerous time now, it would be pointless to add new planets if there isn't more meaningful difference than requiring more dV or a barely tricky orbit change.

We need more stuff to do down on the planet we have. Science is already giving reason to go in different biome, now it would be great if there was a sort of synergy between biome.

I have no suggestion on this, but being given reasons to build long range rover/ship to "link" base in carefully though out place would make a great dynamic. Just more reason to take <UNIQUE Kerbal/stuff> at point A, THEN B would be interesting.

Lastly, ultimately I don't mind a new Gas planet further away, but only if one give us a OP orbit-only fusion engine/radiator to go with it. I have no interest in doing the same sort of missions with even worse mass margin. Constant optimization is a one trick pony, but giving new toy to play with you could reconsider doing bigger thing elsewhere, like that giant ISRU base on Laythe you were too lazy to carry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As said numerous time now, it would be pointless to add new planets if there isn't more meaningful difference than requiring more dV or a barely tricky orbit change.

We need more stuff to do down on the planet we have. Science is already giving reason to go in different biome, now it would be great if there was a sort of synergy between biome.

I have no suggestion on this, but being given reasons to build long range rover/ship to "link" base in carefully though out place would make a great dynamic. Just more reason to take <UNIQUE Kerbal/stuff> at point A, THEN B would be interesting.

Lastly, ultimately I don't mind a new Gas planet further away, but only if one give us a OP orbit-only fusion engine/radiator to go with it. I have no interest in doing the same sort of missions with even worse mass margin. Constant optimization is a one trick pony, but giving new toy to play with you could reconsider doing bigger thing elsewhere, like that giant ISRU base on Laythe you were too lazy to carry.

To sum it up, you'd be ok with more planets if Squad added an engine that's basically a tooth fairy pipedream?

Well guess what, some places are not meant to be populated or visited like we visit continents. Do you complain about the horrible task of coming back from Eve's surface? Some places are to be visited with probes or really insane motherships, just like it would be in real life. It's not just about making things bigger.

If Squad adds more neccessary realism and makes RTG units decay, and Kerbals hungry, it will make things very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Squad adds more neccessary realism and makes RTG units decay, and Kerbals hungry, it will make things very interesting.
Imagine trying to get out to a second gas planet system, especially if it's past Eeloo's current orbit, while dealing with life support and RTG decay, and with only the tools we have now. That would give you reason to actually build infrastructure elsewhere, something "meaningful" to do. Right now it's just too easy to get anywhere in the Kerbol system (for bold players, at least).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now it's just too easy to get anywhere in the Kerbol system (for bold players, at least).

There in lies the problem with your assertion. KSP cannot be balanced solely around those of us who have done almost everything. ITs not unreasonable to assume the majority of KSP players (though most certainly not the majority of forumers) have not been outside Kerbin's SoI more than once or twice.

While we want new, more difficult things to do, those people have to be taken into account as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While we want new, more difficult things to do, those people have to be taken into account as well.
There are plenty of things for new players to do already, the experienced players need some new stuff as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
To sum it up, you'd be ok with more planets if Squad added an engine that's basically a tooth fairy pipedream?

Well guess what, some places are not meant to be populated or visited like we visit continents. Do you complain about the horrible task of coming back from Eve's surface? Some places are to be visited with probes or really insane motherships, just like it would be in real life. It's not just about making things bigger.

Yet the way people envisage a new Gas Planet is precisely "MAKE STUFF BIGGER" because higher dV mean bigger tank, no matter if you refuel in-between you are still reusing the same mechanic (a refuel on a Jool moon is simply more exotic than on Minmus) and you'll only be timewarping a lot more to get the truly efficient launch window between Jool and GP2.

The case of Eve is precisely "MORE STUFF TO DO ON THE SURFACE", how much did you explored on Eve, built a manned-rover ? Probably not because it isn't worth the trouble.

Aside, I gave hint that the fusion engine could be Space-only (because of -say- radiator). Since I've seen many Eve-manned-return rely on specially built one/multi ship design and no reusable design, I consider such engine would do more to encourage said insane motherships than a new planet (as efficiency go by multiple specialized & agile ship rather than one mothership)

Still you were right on one thing : I don't mind for a new planet but I don't consider it more interesting than new parts, I'll take a 2-seats 1.25 capsules over a GP2 and all its moon.

Imagine trying to get out to a second gas planet system, especially if it's past Eeloo's current orbit, while dealing with life support and RTG decay, and with only the tools we have now. That would give you reason to actually build infrastructure elsewhere, something "meaningful" to do. Right now it's just too easy to get anywhere in the Kerbol system (for bold players, at least).

The problem I see IMO with your logic is that going to a further away planet is no harder than planning to do more stuff on arrival, you just have bigger weight constraint and a need to refuel.

If you really wanted difficulty, you should seek for more complex stuff to do on available planet. It would ask as much -probably more- infrastructure to require more manned station, manned rover and Air-to orbit shuttle.

What you consider to take skill, I consider to take more grinding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you really wanted difficulty, you should seek for more complex stuff to do on available planet.
Like what? Seriously, I'd love to see some ideas that aren't just more of the same. We've already got contracts for roving, bases, flyovers, rescues, part return, and so on, and the science system, while amounting to nothing much more than whack-a-mole, already provides some impetus to visit more locations, although you have to reduce the gains to achieve that. I've been asking this the whole thread: "What other, different ideas are out there that serve all modes of play?" Is there stuff that can be added that doesn't require that the entire game structure and the idea of how KSP is played be changed? Anything that isn't a pipe-dream?

The only thing I can think of that makes sandbox, science, and career mode more interesting, and that isn't a total pipe-dream, is more places to go.

E: Actually life support and more realism would serve that purpose, I suppose, but if MaxMaps' Twitter account is anything to go off that's not likely to ever happen.

It would ask as much -probably more- infrastructure to require more manned station, manned rover and Air-to orbit shuttle.
And more grinding useless art projects, we already have that sort of thing in the game. Edited by regex
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...