Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

[photografer]

built in calculator, notepad, and cheatsheet.

perhaps the cheatsheet can have discoverable equations or something for career.

it'd also be cool to see the amazing FAR and kOS implemented...

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by photografer

[EugeneLevinson]

I think a good tool that can be implemented into ksp is ability to export your craft as a 3D file eg .stl. It would also be cool if we could select if we want it as one craft or a folder of individual parts. Personally I like this because it will allowe for many more people to create their own models. Ik there are some pluggins for blender but they don't seem to work as the . craft file structure has being changed.

What do you guys think?

[Spraki]

For Kerbin airplane matters:

• Weather. Rain, WINDS. Gushes, younameit.
• Weather. Rain, WINDS. Gushes, younameit.

• Lights that can render out to some 30km. Or give some stock PAPI readout.

• More stock airports to visit and land at. Not too many. Just a few.

• Using said airports for some passenger minigame.

• Research bases to bring data to. Like in order to get some midgame research done, you have to bring it to some place on Kerbin or elsewhere in spaaaaace.

• More actual Kerbal space programs to compete against. Factions. Newsflash spinny paper n stuff.

[SpaceFace545]

I would like to see an in game modhub where you can browse and download crafts and mods in game.

[Confutus]

While we're wishing and without reading though all the suggestions, I would like to see:

1) more chemistry

   a) distinctions between materials. (gases, water, organics,  metallic ores, and rock)

   b) different types of fuels,  (and appropriate engines)

   c) chemical analysis  instruments and missions.

   d) life support material requirements.

2) improved off-Kerbin construction

   a) parts for metal refining, (to get construction materials from ore found on asteroids or other bodies,)

   b) parts for machining and fabricating metal (to make rocket or building parts)

   c) The ability to build (atmosphere sealed) habitats and construction facilities in other locations on Kerbin, in orbit, or on other bodies. 

   d) Sufficiently rigid structures might be fusible into one part, to simplify the physics.

   e) deconstruction and  salvage for obsolete facilities; orbiting junk disposal.

   f) life support and supply management.

   g) automated flight for supply missions.

3) Better support for suborbital flight

   a) More destination missions on Kerbin.

   b) a low thrust, low altitude engine for practicing powered landings on Kerbin.

Some of these have certainly already been suggested.

[mcwaffles2003]

6 hours ago, Confutus said:

3) Better support for suborbital flight

   a) More destination missions on Kerbin.

I hope they make some genuinely beautiful scenery so I would have the desire to complete these kinds of missions

[KSP2whistleblower]

I dream for more mods!

[Hyperion7]

I hope that there will be more capability for mods.

[Xd the great]

On 1/18/2020 at 6:31 AM, KSP2whistleblower said:

I dream for more mods!

Modders, not Star Theory, will cover that.

On 1/18/2020 at 6:34 AM, Hyperion7 said:

I hope that there will be more capability for mods.

They specifically said that more support for mods

Me wants: realistic explosions. Aka shockwaves, shrapnel and bigger fireballs.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Xd the great

[Abedshehabi]

On 12/28/2019 at 4:14 AM, Bej Kerman said:

Press alt then >.

Thank you so much!!!!

[bigcalm]

I made some notes ages ago, before KSP 2 was announced --

* Move away from Unity.  While it's a perfectly serviceable game engine, it's not worked out brilliantly for KSP over the years - continued minor bugs in the underlying engine (springs!  floating points!) have caused multiple issues.  Its tendency to lock all assets in memory has also led to problems though I believe that they can sort this out.

* Better graphics.  It's so rare that I recommend better graphics for a game - I still play nethack after all - as it's often the least important piece, but stock KSP could really do with adding clouds, terrain features, just generally making it prettier - other space games do this, why doesn't KSP?

* More things to visit.  Most planets and moons are largely featureless bodies with only slightly varied terrain.  Give us volcanoes, geysers, cliffs, caves, alien structures, methane rivers, subsurface oceans, winds and tides.  Give us magnetospheres, ring systems, Van Allen belts and aurorae.  Give us life to analyse on a couple of bodies, give us Iapetus-like mountains and swamps and scablands and moving glaciers.

* Revamp the career difficulty settings.  Basically, the difficulty levels should be more based around caring about more stuff - e.g. Easy = don't have to care about electricity or antennas; Normal = Have to care about electricity and antennas; Hard = Have to care about life support ; Very Hard = As hard but without reverting flights etc.  As it is, mostly the career difficulty settings are just an excuse to add more grinding of contracts.

* More varied bodies.  Once you've designed something that can work at say, Moho, you can send that same craft to an awful lot of other bodies where it's likely to work equally well (Moho, Gilly, Mun, Minmus, Ike, Dres, Vall, Bop, Pol).  Give us a moon like Tekto (Titan in our solar system) or a planet like Tellumo from GPP (Basically a super-sized Kerbin with oxygen).  Give us a retrograde moon.  I don't think the stock game really requires more bodies to visit - only a small percentage of players will have visited everywhere anyway - but the ones that are there could be more varied.  With regards to what we have right now, structuring it around our basic solar system is good, but it's ultimately not varied enough - all destinations should have a unique challenge - yet another minmus-sized or mun-sized airless rock is not enough.  Moho, Eve, Gilly, Kerbin, Mun and Minmus - all keep, all are good.  Moho is hard to reach, Eve is a great challenge, Gilly similarly for the inclination and difficulty of intercepting and landing on something with so little gravity.  Kerbin and its moons are great to learn the game.  If I could I'd probably do something like give Moho a magnetosphere and more interesting terrain to land on.  Duna and Ike - fine, but needs more to explore.  Would be nice to have higher heights on Duna (Olympus Mons + Canyons), with a reasonable atmospheric pressure at the bottom of canyons to allow possibility of flying stuff (keep the CO2 atmosphere though so no jets).  Dres - drop it and replace it with a giant Kerbin (higher atmospheric pressure and gravity similar to Eve - Tellumo in GPP).  Have rings on this planet, and a retrograde moon a fair way out, similar in size to Minmus.  Jool system - keep Laythe and Tylo, Vall needs a revamp/rethink or possibly to be dropped entirely - a Europa analogue is nice to have but it needs more than what's there currently. Either Bop or Pol need to be ditched - a Minmus sized object is nice to have in this system, but we don't need two.  Sarnus system - rings obviously, and possibly tilt it like Uranus so the pole faces the sun.  Need Titan equivalent, Iapetus equivalent (imagine those equatorial mountains, giant crater and different albedo!), plus a moon that has a tenuous oxygen atmosphere - maybe make it have deep valleys and canyons where jets/planes will work but the majority of the surface you can't.  Eeloo - drop it.

* Give us a MacGuffin.  There's clearly an incomplete one in the game that was planned and then never completed, with vestiges being the various 2001-style monoliths, Duna-SSTV signal, Vallhenge and so on.  Work in ScanSat, contracts and the various moons in the game - and make it properly challenging - make me build a submarine for Laythe, make me go to the bottom of Dres's canyon or into Tylo's caverns to get the next clue, and give me something startling and wonderful at the end, like an undersea alien city on Eve.

* Better failure diagnosis.  For new players, it can be really tough to see what's going wrong, even though it might be obvious to veteran players.  Ideally I'd like to see something accompanying the crash report that suggests possible reasons why you crashed and potential fixes - maybe you became aerodynamically unstable?  Maybe your rocket was simply not rigid enough?  Maybe you had no attitude control?

* Terrain modification - allow me to bulldoze an area flat so I can build a base without fear of it sliding downhill or being attacked by the Kraken.

Here's what works well

* Mods.  The extensibility of the game is part of its lasting power.  Some mods should migrate to the stock game such as Kerbal Alarm Clock, Chatterer, ScanSat, and FinalFrontier.

* The size of the bodies.  If the designers had made Kerbin Earth-sized, launch to orbit would take a lot longer.  Ultimately it was a fudge to get round Unity's precision - but it's worked out so well for the game - launch to orbit is a 5 minute job, transfer times to other places isn't that long - obviously this should be moddable so that it's possible to go "real-world" solar system, but should not be the default - keep the small sizes, even if the physics is a little dubious (density greater than Uranium for example).

* Comedy astronauts.

* The serendipitous and crazy craft.  Sometimes you're designing a craft for a particular job, and in the process of working out kinks in the design, it morphs into something else.  I've build a Mk3 plane that just happened to be an accidental SSTO.  I've built a rover, which turned into a hang-glider like plane half way through.  I love the feeling of looking at a design, having followed the basic design principles and going 'Naaaah, that can't possibly work' and then, it does.

 

Things I don't personally care about -- multiplayer - I genuinely don't see how you have timewarp and multiplayer together without Achron levels of complexity.

[Xd the great]

2 hours ago, bigcalm said:

* Comedy astronauts.

As if kerbals aren't comedic enough, add some "dance moves", tripping kerbals, etc.

2 hours ago, bigcalm said:

Terrain modification - allow me to bulldoze an area flat so I can build a base without fear of it sliding downhill or being attacked by the Kraken.

Doubt so, they said no changing terrain in-game, but individual adjustable landing legs and anchors are what I want.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Xd the great

[DStaal]

5 hours ago, bigcalm said:

* Move away from Unity.  While it's a perfectly serviceable game engine, it's not worked out brilliantly for KSP over the years - continued minor bugs in the underlying engine (springs!  floating points!) have caused multiple issues.  Its tendency to lock all assets in memory has also led to problems though I believe that they can sort this out.

I'll agree it's not perfect and has some issues - but what would you move towards?  That is: What would you replace it with?  No game engine is really designed for what KSP is doing, and I don't think KSP is a big enough game to justify the investment to building their own engine.  (And note that we have a nice long thread on this in this forum...)

[Dirkidirk]

6 hours ago, bigcalm said:

* Comedy astronauts.

 

 

Quote

* The size of the bodies.  If the designers had made Kerbin Earth-sized, launch to orbit would take a lot longer.  Ultimately it was a fudge to get round Unity's precision - but it's worked out so well for the game - launch to orbit is a 5 minute job, transfer times to other places isn't that long - obviously this should be moddable so that it's possible to go "real-world" solar system, but should not be the default - keep the small sizes, even if the physics is a little dubious (density greater than Uranium for example).

I was thinking that the planets sizes could be determined by the difficulty settings. for example, easy difficulty could make kerbin 10 times smaller than earth (it's size in ksp 1), while normal difficulty could make kerbin half the size of earth.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[DunaManiac]

2 hours ago, Dirkidirk said:

 

 

I was thinking that the planets sizes could be determined by the difficulty settings. for example, easy difficulty could make kerbin 10 times smaller than earth (it's size in ksp 1), while normal difficulty could make kerbin half the size of earth.

Suprisingly I am against this idea, I believe that modifying planet sizes should remain firmly in the hands of modders.

[mattinoz]

On 1/7/2020 at 7:06 PM, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

stock mech jeb style autopilot  

Oh and also, same controls. I don’t want to relearn everything 

Or just Jeb and friends being able to learn to fly.

My biggest hope is Kerbals will final be a meaningful part of the game. Not just ballast like the person sitting in the drivers seat of an EV as you push it the last 30m to a charging point.

Saves a lot of the Quirks of current career mechanic if Kerbals become a resource to be kept productive.

[Dirkidirk]

2 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Suprisingly I am against this idea, I believe that modifying planet sizes should remain firmly in the hands of modders.

well I doubt that they would do it anyway.  

[Xd the great]

15 hours ago, mattinoz said:

My biggest hope is Kerbals will final be a meaningful part of the game. Not just ballast like the person sitting in the drivers seat of an EV as you push it the last 30m to a charging point.

They already make you want to crash the ship, but the ability to pilot the ship with autopilot/randomly is better.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Xd the great

[Ye olo]

I hope that it will come missiles and guns for planes.

[SandMan977]

I would hope to see some sort of true (built in) reuse-ability to rockets, you know my space program needs to save those pennies!

All seriousness though it would be great, including with some of the automation built in...obviously you need to monitor it, and as we have all learned with rockets, much can go awry

[Mikenike]

On 1/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, bigcalm said:

I made some notes ages ago, before KSP 2 was announced --

* Move away from Unity.  While it's a perfectly serviceable game engine, it's not worked out brilliantly for KSP over the years - continued minor bugs in the underlying engine (springs!  floating points!) have caused multiple issues.  Its tendency to lock all assets in memory has also led to problems though I believe that they can sort this out.

* Better graphics.  It's so rare that I recommend better graphics for a game - I still play nethack after all - as it's often the least important piece, but stock KSP could really do with adding clouds, terrain features, just generally making it prettier - other space games do this, why doesn't KSP?

* More things to visit.  Most planets and moons are largely featureless bodies with only slightly varied terrain.  Give us volcanoes, geysers, cliffs, caves, alien structures, methane rivers, subsurface oceans, winds and tides.  Give us magnetospheres, ring systems, Van Allen belts and aurorae.  Give us life to analyse on a couple of bodies, give us Iapetus-like mountains and swamps and scablands and moving glaciers.

* Revamp the career difficulty settings.  Basically, the difficulty levels should be more based around caring about more stuff - e.g. Easy = don't have to care about electricity or antennas; Normal = Have to care about electricity and antennas; Hard = Have to care about life support ; Very Hard = As hard but without reverting flights etc.  As it is, mostly the career difficulty settings are just an excuse to add more grinding of contracts.

* More varied bodies.  Once you've designed something that can work at say, Moho, you can send that same craft to an awful lot of other bodies where it's likely to work equally well (Moho, Gilly, Mun, Minmus, Ike, Dres, Vall, Bop, Pol).  Give us a moon like Tekto (Titan in our solar system) or a planet like Tellumo from GPP (Basically a super-sized Kerbin with oxygen).  Give us a retrograde moon.  I don't think the stock game really requires more bodies to visit - only a small percentage of players will have visited everywhere anyway - but the ones that are there could be more varied.  With regards to what we have right now, structuring it around our basic solar system is good, but it's ultimately not varied enough - all destinations should have a unique challenge - yet another minmus-sized or mun-sized airless rock is not enough.  Moho, Eve, Gilly, Kerbin, Mun and Minmus - all keep, all are good.  Moho is hard to reach, Eve is a great challenge, Gilly similarly for the inclination and difficulty of intercepting and landing on something with so little gravity.  Kerbin and its moons are great to learn the game.  If I could I'd probably do something like give Moho a magnetosphere and more interesting terrain to land on.  Duna and Ike - fine, but needs more to explore.  Would be nice to have higher heights on Duna (Olympus Mons + Canyons), with a reasonable atmospheric pressure at the bottom of canyons to allow possibility of flying stuff (keep the CO2 atmosphere though so no jets).  Dres - drop it and replace it with a giant Kerbin (higher atmospheric pressure and gravity similar to Eve - Tellumo in GPP).  Have rings on this planet, and a retrograde moon a fair way out, similar in size to Minmus.  Jool system - keep Laythe and Tylo, Vall needs a revamp/rethink or possibly to be dropped entirely - a Europa analogue is nice to have but it needs more than what's there currently. Either Bop or Pol need to be ditched - a Minmus sized object is nice to have in this system, but we don't need two.  Sarnus system - rings obviously, and possibly tilt it like Uranus so the pole faces the sun.  Need Titan equivalent, Iapetus equivalent (imagine those equatorial mountains, giant crater and different albedo!), plus a moon that has a tenuous oxygen atmosphere - maybe make it have deep valleys and canyons where jets/planes will work but the majority of the surface you can't.  Eeloo - drop it.

* Give us a MacGuffin.  There's clearly an incomplete one in the game that was planned and then never completed, with vestiges being the various 2001-style monoliths, Duna-SSTV signal, Vallhenge and so on.  Work in ScanSat, contracts and the various moons in the game - and make it properly challenging - make me build a submarine for Laythe, make me go to the bottom of Dres's canyon or into Tylo's caverns to get the next clue, and give me something startling and wonderful at the end, like an undersea alien city on Eve.

* Better failure diagnosis.  For new players, it can be really tough to see what's going wrong, even though it might be obvious to veteran players.  Ideally I'd like to see something accompanying the crash report that suggests possible reasons why you crashed and potential fixes - maybe you became aerodynamically unstable?  Maybe your rocket was simply not rigid enough?  Maybe you had no attitude control?

* Terrain modification - allow me to bulldoze an area flat so I can build a base without fear of it sliding downhill or being attacked by the Kraken.

Here's what works well

* Mods.  The extensibility of the game is part of its lasting power.  Some mods should migrate to the stock game such as Kerbal Alarm Clock, Chatterer, ScanSat, and FinalFrontier.

* The size of the bodies.  If the designers had made Kerbin Earth-sized, launch to orbit would take a lot longer.  Ultimately it was a fudge to get round Unity's precision - but it's worked out so well for the game - launch to orbit is a 5 minute job, transfer times to other places isn't that long - obviously this should be moddable so that it's possible to go "real-world" solar system, but should not be the default - keep the small sizes, even if the physics is a little dubious (density greater than Uranium for example).

* Comedy astronauts.

* The serendipitous and crazy craft.  Sometimes you're designing a craft for a particular job, and in the process of working out kinks in the design, it morphs into something else.  I've build a Mk3 plane that just happened to be an accidental SSTO.  I've built a rover, which turned into a hang-glider like plane half way through.  I love the feeling of looking at a design, having followed the basic design principles and going 'Naaaah, that can't possibly work' and then, it does.

 

Things I don't personally care about -- multiplayer - I genuinely don't see how you have timewarp and multiplayer together without Achron levels of complexity.

Please!,

[SynX]

This is what I was hoping for (other than the known features):

1. Better physics: Multi-body Gravitation, Relativistic Effects, more scientifically accurate aerodynamic and exhaust effects (such as a blue or violet shock at high speed entries more than 10km/s according to black body radiation and the change of exhaust plume as pressure changes)

2. Procedural parts: In stock KSP, only the fairings and connectors are procedural, and have quite some limitations. Procedural wings and fuselages will be cool. 

3: Modified advanced Tweakables: able to weld together multiple structural parts and fuel tanks together, making the computer to think them as one whole piece. This will make crafts much more solid and saves computing power, and avoid Rapid Unscheduled Disassemblies.

4. More options in career mode: Such as earning founds by running airline services using newly created spaceplanes.

5.More difficulty options: Either chose the original KSP experience, or hardcore, ultra-realistic experiences

Edited January 25, 2020 by SynX
adding stuff

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 hours ago, SynX said:

This is what I was hoping for (other than the known features):

1. Better physics: Multi-body Gravitation, Relativistic Effects, more scientifically accurate aerodynamic and exhaust effects (such as a blue or violet shock at high speed entries more than 10km/s according to black body radiation and the change of exhaust plume as pressure changes)

2. Procedural parts: In stock KSP, only the fairings and connectors are procedural, and have quite some limitations. Procedural wings and fuselages will be cool. 

3: Modified advanced Tweakables: able to weld together multiple structural parts and fuel tanks together, making the computer to think them as one whole piece. This will make crafts much more solid and saves computing power, and avoid Rapid Unscheduled Disassemblies.

4. More options in career mode: Such as earning founds by running airline services using newly created spaceplanes.

5.More difficulty options: Either chose the original KSP experience, or hardcore, ultra-realistic experiences

#1- N-body was already denied, and they also confirmed they're not planning on departing too far from KSP1 aero; now procedural plumes are in so that's 1 out of 3 D:

#2- I wouldn't mind some procedural wings

#3- The physics LOD system should remove the need for something like this for performance reasons, but as far as preventing noodling ships it wouldn't help.  I'd figure they're going to provide autostrutting like KSP1 does; or even a stock KJR.

#4- I wouldn't be surprised if something like this is already implemented; they confirmed that career and science modes were going to be essentially combined.

#5- While i can't say they denied this outright; i wouldn't get your hopes up for anything like the RSS in KSP2 on launch.

[The Aziz]

I'm late to the party but it struck me today, lemme just put it this way:

I don't mind crashing few probes before I have the tech to ensure safety of actual living organism. So I hope the progression mode gets it right.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

10 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I'm late to the party but it struck me today, lemme just put it this way:

I don't mind crashing few probes before I have the tech to ensure safety of actual living organism. So I hope the progression mode gets it right.

"Career" mode is basically the biggest wildcard of KSP2 right now; since all we know is they're "Combining Career and Science modes"...what the hell does that even mean? Science is just Career without funds and all buildings maxed, but still the need to go get science to unlock nodes. Career has funds, contracts and all buildings are LVL1, so it's already intergrated science mode in essence while also adjusting it to be a bit more difficult and adding career-specific features.

So are they going to just have a roll-your-own career menu? Where you can adjust the level of buildings, science earnings, funds or disable them completely?

Are they going to manipulate the Tech Tree to be more realistic? Probes before crew, Aircraft parts early etc?

Are they going to completely re-do it?

We don't know; which i actually finding exciting.