Jump to content

Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2


Recommended Posts

This might be a little late to the game, but I just started playing KSP a couple months ago. I have been playing the career mode and one of my big gripes is the description of the parts. Some things are obvious in their usage, but other parts leave me wondering what they are for or how to use them. It's nice to have a funny description "...made in a kerbal pizza accident ..." (not a real example) but maybe have a tab that gives actual usage/purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 12:49 AM, Jacke said:

Any spherically symmetric distribution of mass acts as if it was all concentrated at the centre of the sphere.  And if you "spread" the mass around in a significantly non-symmetric way, you get the effect of Mascons on the Moon: virtually no stable low orbits.  This isn't a good idea at all.

 

On 8/9/2020 at 1:38 PM, Jacke said:

Every time they've put a vessel in orbit and expected it to stay there, orbiting spacecraft, comm network satellites, etc.  Mass concentrations equivalent to the mascons on the Moon prevent stable low orbits.

Mascons only have an effect when you're within a certain percentage of the ratio of the mass distribution over total mass over distance. Orbiting the Moon, because of its small size, relatively low mass, and extremely large mass concentrations relative to that size, orbits below 100km are very unstable... but the Moon is an unusual circumstance. No other major moon in our solar system has that unusual of a mass distribution as a ratio of its size. Even then, orbits above 100km are considered fairly stable over the Moon... and there's nothing that says a "lumpy" Kerbin, or "lumpy" Mun would need to have a large mascon ratio to its size the way the Moon does.

Let's break it down. The moon has a radius of  ≈1,738 km and a mass of 7.342×1022 kg. The problem is that the Moon's mascons constitute nearly 0.1% of its mass. (ref. https://pgda.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/50 ) 0.1% of 7.342×1022 kg is 7.342×1019 kg, roughly the mass of Uranus's moon, Miranda... just as displacement. While no single mascon has a density variance of more than 1% from norm, the Moon has a lot of mascons left over from the Late Heavy Bombardment period. So many that its point center of mass is displaced 2 km towards the Earth.

So if they were to include "lumpy gravity" in the simulation, so long as it was less than or equal to the Moon's unusually high 0.1% mascon distribution, even an orbital altitude of 100km (30 km above the atmosphere) would be fairly stable for months, if not years. This is due to the fact that Kerbin has over 72% the mass as the Moon, (5.2915x1022 kg vs. 7.342×1022 kg) but an equatorial radius of less than 35% of the Moon's. (600 km vs. 1,738 km) Thus, a 100km orbit is 1 part in 16 of the planet's radius, as compared to a 100 km orbit over the moon which is only 1 part in 6 of its radius. Even the Moon's 1% mascons on Kerbin wouldn't be a significant change in vector over time, so long as you're outside the atmosphere. (and inside the atmosphere, they would have a negligible effect compared to the atmosphere's effect)

Most people put Kerbin Observation satellites at an orbit of 250 - 500 km where mascons similar to the Moon's extreme examples would have no noticeable effect over years, likely decades. Communication satellites mostly go in keo-stationary orbit of 2,863 km and would be effectively 100% stable, with 1% mascons having an imperceptible effect over thousands of years. The only reason it's an issue over our Moon is that it has no atmosphere, so you can orbit a lot closer to its surface. (I've personally skimmed orbits at less than 500 meters from the highest equatorial peaks on the Mun) Give the Mun 1% mascons and yes, orbits under 20km will be unstable... but then, shouldn't they be? (those orbits are basically skimming the surface and shouldn't be stable for more than a few revolutions)

All that having been said, I don't think Intercept Games is going to model mascons. (Mod anybody? :D )

I know n-body physics has been ruled out by the dev team, but they are implementing the two-body problem for the twin planets Rask and Rusk. While this will be a special case in vanilla, it opens up the possibility of making other 2-body systems through modding. Imagine the Kerbin-Mun system modeled as a two-body system in a mod... complete with la grange points, orbital instability, and hugely complex high-altitude orbits...

I can't wait!

Things I want out of KSP 2:

1) Run on something other than Windows 10. (Linux, Win 8.1, Mac, etc.) Please don't ham-string players into that awful mess of an OS just to play KSP 2!

2) To be done.

That's it! It's already showing me stuff more than I want, so these two things are all I ask for. I won't bother asking for pie-in-the-sky features that I know won't be implemented... like getting rid of "female" Kerbals. Honestly, I liked it better when every Kerbal was a generic "thing" that the only way you could tell if they were male or female was by their name. (yes, I hate Val! She and the other "female" Kerbals look dumb! There! I said it and I'm glad!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jacke said:

@RobertaME, very good dynamically analysis.

Thanks! :blush:

Quote

I currently run KSP on Windows 10, which I've managed to tame to the point it's not that much of a issue.  I also want to see KSP 2 on other OS.

I won't move to Win10 for personal reasons that I won't get into here. Suffice it to say that I'd rather have a virus than Win10... it's less invasive.

Quote

I don't have any problem with the female Kerbals.

I really don't either... I just preferred the way it was before female Kerbals when there was really no distinction other than name. I mean... when you get down to it, female Kerbals are just another example of Tertiary Sexual Characteristics at best. (like the difference between Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man) It's just silly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that, if I could find any small piece of criticism of KSP that I would like addressed in KSP2, is that the campaign should have a win condition. 

Currently the win condition is, afaik, just unlocking the tech tree. But that means that instead of unlocking parts and tech as a means to do more complex missions, it's the goal itself. I absolutely love the campaign and the way it is set up, so I think it would be nice if there could be a some small box to tick to say "hey, you beat the campaign". For me, I'd like to be unlocking late-game techs as a means to beat the campaign. A win condition shouldn't be too hard to find, you don't even have to pursue the condition if you just enjoy the campaign as it is. Perhaps something like "hey, plant a flag on all of these bodies" or "reach a reputation of 99%" or something. beats me. 

It's not overly necessary. I'm enjoying KSP so much even without an actual goal to pursue in the campaign. But I really like trying to design ships that do something without having access to every part. Like I built an SSTO out of turbojets and rockets. It's payload capacity is probably about 100 kg but I had so much fun trying to accomplish that without Rapiers or Nukes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, incog said:

I think that, if I could find any small piece of criticism of KSP that I would like addressed in KSP2, is that the campaign should have a win condition. 

Currently the win condition is, afaik, just unlocking the tech tree. But that means that instead of unlocking parts and tech as a means to do more complex missions, it's the goal itself. I absolutely love the campaign and the way it is set up, so I think it would be nice if there could be a some small box to tick to say "hey, you beat the campaign". For me, I'd like to be unlocking late-game techs as a means to beat the campaign. A win condition shouldn't be too hard to find, you don't even have to pursue the condition if you just enjoy the campaign as it is. Perhaps something like "hey, plant a flag on all of these bodies" or "reach a reputation of 99%" or something. beats me. 

It's not overly necessary. I'm enjoying KSP so much even without an actual goal to pursue in the campaign. But I really like trying to design ships that do something without having access to every part. Like I built an SSTO out of turbojets and rockets. It's payload capacity is probably about 100 kg but I had so much fun trying to accomplish that without Rapiers or Nukes.

A unique win condition? Nah, but what about an achievement system?

"Complete the tech tree", "put a flag on every body", "bring a Kerbal on every planet and then back from where it started"... Those could be great achievements, giving objectives and challenges to complete to people who can't make up their own while not forcing everybody to the same win condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2020 at 4:19 AM, FleshJeb said:

I’d like the IP sold to Wube Software. I’m done trying to play a great game concept with mediocre developers. I expect KSP 2 to be an absolute train wreck.

I'm a bit late, but...

How do we know that the developers are mediocre? KSP 2 isn't being developed by SQUAD so we can't pre-judge it based on that. Everyone involved with the game that's been interviewed seemed really enthusiastic about making a fitting sequel to KSP. And unlike KSP 1's original developers, it seems that most of them have a real background in professional game development - so there's less chance of the 'technical debt' that built up as the original game was developed.

Sure, the debacle with Take2 gutting Star Theory was concerning to say the least, but work on the game seems to be back on track now and as long as T2/Private Division don't ruin it with microtransactions or other monetisation garbage, I think it'll come out as a polished game. In the end, we have to wait for the game to actually come out and the reviews to roll in - then we'll know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I'm a bit late, but...

How do we know that the developers are mediocre? KSP 2 isn't being developed by SQUAD so we can't pre-judge it based on that. Everyone involved with the game that's been interviewed seemed really enthusiastic about making a fitting sequel to KSP. And unlike KSP 1's original developers, it seems that most of them have a real background in professional game development - so there's less chance of the 'technical debt' that built up as the original game was developed.

Sure, the debacle with Take2 gutting Star Theory was concerning to say the least, but work on the game seems to be back on track now and as long as T2/Private Division don't ruin it with microtransactions or other monetisation garbage, I think it'll come out as a polished game. In the end, we have to wait for the game to actually come out and the reviews to roll in - then we'll know.

I think the Mirco-transaction model might be a bad place to be once the Epic/Apple case plays out of the next 18 months or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The WORST they can do in the monetization realm is to do a Stellaris, and use DLC spam to keep getting money, as I have pointed out before. They probably won't even do that. It goes against the Kerbal spirit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

The WORST they can do in the monetization realm is to do a Stellaris, and use DLC spam to keep getting money, as I have pointed out before. They probably won't even do that. It goes against the Kerbal spirit.

You mean the Paradox Interactive business model?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2020 at 6:30 AM, RobertaME said:

 

Mascons only have an effect when you're within a certain percentage of the ratio of the mass distribution over total mass over distance. Orbiting the Moon, because of its small size, relatively low mass, and extremely large mass concentrations relative to that size, orbits below 100km are very unstable... but the Moon is an unusual circumstance. No other major moon in our solar system has that unusual of a mass distribution as a ratio of its size. Even then, orbits above 100km are considered fairly stable over the Moon... and there's nothing that says a "lumpy" Kerbin, or "lumpy" Mun would need to have a large mascon ratio to its size the way the Moon does.

Let's break it down. The moon has a radius of  ≈1,738 km and a mass of 7.342×1022 kg. The problem is that the Moon's mascons constitute nearly 0.1% of its mass. (ref. https://pgda.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/50 ) 0.1% of 7.342×1022 kg is 7.342×1019 kg, roughly the mass of Uranus's moon, Miranda... just as displacement. While no single mascon has a density variance of more than 1% from norm, the Moon has a lot of mascons left over from the Late Heavy Bombardment period. So many that its point center of mass is displaced 2 km towards the Earth.

So if they were to include "lumpy gravity" in the simulation, so long as it was less than or equal to the Moon's unusually high 0.1% mascon distribution, even an orbital altitude of 100km (30 km above the atmosphere) would be fairly stable for months, if not years. This is due to the fact that Kerbin has over 72% the mass as the Moon, (5.2915x1022 kg vs. 7.342×1022 kg) but an equatorial radius of less than 35% of the Moon's. (600 km vs. 1,738 km) Thus, a 100km orbit is 1 part in 16 of the planet's radius, as compared to a 100 km orbit over the moon which is only 1 part in 6 of its radius. Even the Moon's 1% mascons on Kerbin wouldn't be a significant change in vector over time, so long as you're outside the atmosphere. (and inside the atmosphere, they would have a negligible effect compared to the atmosphere's effect)

Most people put Kerbin Observation satellites at an orbit of 250 - 500 km where mascons similar to the Moon's extreme examples would have no noticeable effect over years, likely decades. Communication satellites mostly go in keo-stationary orbit of 2,863 km and would be effectively 100% stable, with 1% mascons having an imperceptible effect over thousands of years. The only reason it's an issue over our Moon is that it has no atmosphere, so you can orbit a lot closer to its surface. (I've personally skimmed orbits at less than 500 meters from the highest equatorial peaks on the Mun) Give the Mun 1% mascons and yes, orbits under 20km will be unstable... but then, shouldn't they be? (those orbits are basically skimming the surface and shouldn't be stable for more than a few revolutions)

All that having been said, I don't think Intercept Games is going to model mascons. (Mod anybody? :D )

I know n-body physics has been ruled out by the dev team, but they are implementing the two-body problem for the twin planets Rask and Rusk. While this will be a special case in vanilla, it opens up the possibility of making other 2-body systems through modding. Imagine the Kerbin-Mun system modeled as a two-body system in a mod... complete with la grange points, orbital instability, and hugely complex high-altitude orbits...

I can't wait!

Things I want out of KSP 2:

1) Run on something other than Windows 10. (Linux, Win 8.1, Mac, etc.) Please don't ham-string players into that awful mess of an OS just to play KSP 2!

2) To be done.

 

Fantastic writeup, iv'e been buried in too much math (Calc II) homework to do a breakdown like that. Also yeah; even though I'm on windows i would really, really like Vulkan support. Since it makes my V56 much happier than DX11 or 12.

But I'm sure the modding community will have a virtual field day with the additional features in KSP2, assuming they can deliver them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Fantastic writeup, iv'e been buried in too much math (Calc II) homework to do a breakdown like that.

What is this "too much math" thing you speak of? That's like saying you have too much love! (seriously, I LOVE math :wub: and can't imagine a circumstance were calculus is anything but fun... I know... I'm weird! :wacko: )

In all seriousness, thanks for the compliment! I pride myself on my knowledge of physics. :blush:

Quote

Also yeah; even though I'm on windows i would really, really like Vulkan support. Since it makes my V56 much happier than DX11 or 12.

But I'm sure the modding community will have a virtual field day with the additional features in KSP2, assuming they can deliver them.

I just don't want the player base for KSP2 to be hamstrung by Win10. Undoubtedly within a year it would be "updated" and make KSP2 unplayable anyway. (probably on purpose to kill competition with MSFS and Minecraft)

The dev team for KSP2 has repeatedly said that they're going to expose even more of the code than KSP does, making mods even easier to make, more seamless, and more complex. I just hope that Fall 2021 is the last push-back of the delivery date. (now that it's under the Take Two umbrella, I expect it will be, but fingers crossed just the same!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RobertaME said:

What is this "too much math" thing you speak of? That's like saying you have too much love! (seriously, I LOVE math :wub: and can't imagine a circumstance were calculus is anything but fun... I know... I'm weird! :wacko: )

In all seriousness, thanks for the compliment! I pride myself on my knowledge of physics. :blush:

It's cutting into my KSP time D:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RobertaME said:

What is this "too much math" thing you speak of? That's like saying you have too much love! (seriously, I LOVE math :wub: and can't imagine a circumstance were calculus is anything but fun... I know... I'm weird! :wacko: )

I remember Calc II from college - or as I liked to call it 'problem solving for engineers': Here's this formula, memorize it, when the numbers look like *this* plug them in *here*.  Here's the next formula...

I'd liked math until then.

(I don't think that is the only - or best - way to teach Calc II.  It was just the only way it was taught at the college I was at.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I made another forum for this, but I want some of the devs to see it: 

My favorite comments from this video:

"Honestly the cut away view is my favorite. That needs to be an independent thing in the full version. So while in ship view you can click a button and it will give you a dynamic cut away so you can rotate around your ship and see everything in it and how its connected."

"i imagine.... making experiments, opening shelves, using and moving items, seating in seats, repairing things and items...."

"This is brilliant. I really hope that this mod moves further! Imagine controlling a Kerbal around the station and do science! So Cool!"

Just imagine how much more immersive the game would be if you, the player, could get up and move around the ship with ease, doors opening, active experimentation, and challenge. Co-op teamwork on different experiments or setting out to repair the ship. Seeing the game as an actual astronaut would, kerbal to planet. That would be beautiful. I'd even be glad if this was re-modded in KSP2, though it wouldn't be coded officially. The enhanced IVA mod seems so much like it belongs in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO MORE weak joints.

IRL they would calculate what is necessary for the whole thing to stay together.

Seldome does the ship break aprt just like that for nothing IRL. I do not want KSP 2 to be a giggle factory.

So I wish that they just make the joints strong as strong as they have to be.

 

I used the welding mod a lot to avoid this .... that also helped with refueling cause the entire weld is one huge tank.

Unfortunately the welding mod is poorly supported-

 

I wish that KSP 2 team take hints from the mods developed for KSP 1 as in hints what need to be in KSP 2 without mods-

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that when KSP2 is on Consoles, PC, and other platforms that when updates come they will all be the same for updating. And that updates will work and things will be better. Like updates will come to PS4 and Xbox. And if there’s a problem the team works on it. They will make sure to make sure each play across all platforms have the same updates and version history so other players don’t miss on features and parts like with KSP1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

I wish that when KSP2 is on Consoles, PC, and other platforms that when updates come they will all be the same for updating. And that updates will work and things will be better. Like updates will come to PS4 and Xbox. And if there’s a problem the team works on it. They will make sure to make sure each play across all platforms have the same updates and version history so other players don’t miss on features and parts like with KSP1.

I dont know if they are going to do the port work in house.  Theyve already said that it will come for Xbox and PS4 at a later date, so we can expect a similar delay to that of KSP1. This isnt Activision, they dont have 4 studios working on the project at once, they have a single studio, and they contract out another company who specalises in porting to Xbox and PS. They also have to work out the bugs with the parts and everything else before they release it to the contracted company for porting. You probably havent learned all this info yet, because when people say things like this, they are fustrated because they dont understand the behind the scenes work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

Oh. But the last Console update they said in order to play you need both DLCs. Which isn’t fair. I hope they don’t do that with KSP2.

And DLCs don’t work on PS4.

No to for me. And thats why I dont play PS4. lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...