Jump to content

KSP2 Hype Train Thread


GregroxMun
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SciMan said:

Easy. All capsules probably still have small monopropellant tanks (they might have even increased the capacity of the monopropellant tanks because that reduces part count).

If that's still the same-old Mk1-3 capsule that I think it is, then it should store 30 units of monopropellant.

If you're really good at rendezvous and docking, that's way more than you technically "need" to dock probably 1 or 2 times.

I generally don't put that much monopropellant on my craft. The RCS is only used for docking and OCCASIONALLY to prevent an extremely seriously sideways landing attitude from becoming a landing that flipped on its side.

As for what happened to this particular lander, I can only imagine that since the terrain is relatively flat that they tried to contact the ground while still having some significant sideways velocity (my estimates are in the range of 3-5 m/s horizontal velocity at touchdown). This then caused the classic "flip over and oh crap shut off the engines" response, when they should have seen that they were tilting sideways when they touched, mashed "full throttle" while the craft still had the engines pointing "sort of down" engaged the RCS and corrected attitude to pointing up again, cut throttle, point retrograde, and tried for landing again.
EDIT: This would have resulted in them likely having an "eventful but largely successful" landing
EDIT 2: I know that this is the right thing to do because I've had a very similar situation happen to me on more than one occasion.
It's a lot like landing on an aircraft carrier. If you miss the arresting cable, you don't cut throttle. You go to FULL AFTERBURNER as quickly as the engines can do that, because you're not gonna be able to stop, your only choice is to go around and try again.

 

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

What happened is the picture was probably the rock on the right.

cannot wait for a 3 hour mission making a rocket, making it all reusable on a hard mode, just to land on the mun, the get ultra pwned by a large rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strawberry said:

Wonder if the feature vid will be tomorrow 

I'm betting on the 30th. They've released things on the last Friday of the month before, and it still falls within the estimated window for release.

Although I'd be happy to be wrong.

Edited by TheOrbitalMechanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we aren't being told KSP2's big gimmick. Sure, interstellar is a big part, but it feels like there's something we aren't be told. This maybe be a little conspiratorial, but what if the progression mode is that thing. There have been a few passing mentions of an "Adventure mode" but nothing more.  THe adventure mode could be a huge adventure from the start of the kerbal space program to interstellar. It could be like the making history missions, but you have more choice and control. Instead of "Get to 100km orbit then perform TLI etc..." it would be a thing having you do a mun mission your own way. A few missions you could be flying premade "Commercial" spacecraft. I think adventure mode is the secret gimmick of the game, but my description was just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, darthgently said:

We definitely need ways to blast or move big boulders to make roads if anything like Parallax is to be standard in KSP2 

1) wheels and friction physics in KSP1 are a nightmare, KSP2 should have that improved

2) unlike parallax, KSP2 scatter is collidable only beyond certain size, so most likely the rubble you see on the left, has no collision mesh.

3) even if it does, there's plenty of stone-free surface to drive around. And I'm pretty sure navigating around rough terrain is a part of exploration everywhere. See: Mars rovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

1) wheels and friction physics in KSP1 are a nightmare, KSP2 should have that improved

2) unlike parallax, KSP2 scatter is collidable only beyond certain size, so most likely the rubble you see on the left, has no collision mesh.

3) even if it does, there's plenty of stone-free surface to drive around. And I'm pretty sure navigating around rough terrain is a part of exploration everywhere. See: Mars rovers.

This is true. BUT, I'd like to state the implied thing about what darthgently said: build things ourselves on EVA missions.

I really really hope there's some level of "Minecraft"/"Vallheim"/"No Man's Sky" in the building bases and multiplayer aspect of it. It would be kind of lame if building a base is just gathering X amount of science and press a button. Because that would kind of make it less immersing, and repeat "the problem" with Ksp long term gameplay mechanics: the lack of having stuff to do in other planets.

Now, of course I'm not asking for the same level of detail and time consumption in building bases or gathering resources as those games, but just having enough aspects of it so that you can actually have something to do with your friends online, or just build gigantic interstellar ships you can actually mess around/decorate inside with your friends.

Edited by Sesshaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

This is true. BUT, I'd like to state the implied thing about what darthgently said: build things ourselves on EVA missions

I hate to break it to you, nothing said on the subject of base/colony building suggests that you will need to be EVA to build them. (Maybe the initial start of a base you'll need to be EVA, but afterwards you'll be using the building assembly editor (BAE) for construction.)

2 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

I really really hope there's some level of "Minecraft"/"Vallheim"/"No Man's Sky" in the building bases and multiplayer aspect of it. It would be kind of lame if building a base is just gathering X amount of science and press a button. Because that would kind of make it less immersing, and repeat "the problem" with Ksp long term gameplay mechanics: the lack of having stuff to do in other planets

The games you are referencing are all manual place objects in 1st person view. That's not how KSP2 is going to do it. It's already been determined that the BAE will be the method of building anything larger than a "space tent" or space camp site. Luckily it's already been confirmed that you can edit existing bases to how you want them. 

3 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

Now, of course I'm not asking for the same level of detail and time consumption in building bases or gathering resources as those games, but just having enough aspects of it so that you can actually have something to do with your friends online, or just build gigantic interstellar ships you can actually mess around/decorate inside with your friends

That has already been confirmed. It's been said that colonies are subservient to the idea of building and flying rockets. So I don't expect anything  more than is needed to serve that purpose.

With multiplayer, I haven't thought about it to much. I'd expect some consideration will be given for multiple players working on the same colony. I have no thoughts on specifics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Aziz said:

1) wheels and friction physics in KSP1 are a nightmare, KSP2 should have that improved

2) unlike parallax, KSP2 scatter is collidable only beyond certain size, so most likely the rubble you see on the left, has no collision mesh.

3) even if it does, there's plenty of stone-free surface to drive around. And I'm pretty sure navigating around rough terrain is a part of exploration everywhere. See: Mars rovers.

You know... now I'm worried about the 'random generation' thing.  If you successfully land a rover amidst randomly generated scatter, where 'rocks above a certain size' are collidable, what happens the next time you load into that area?

Will the rocks be in the same space?  Or is it possible that once the system 'unloads' the area and has to reload (whether via a save or a subsequent landing) do the 'rocks above a certain size' get randomly distributed again?  This brings up a possibility of rocks clipping into a previously landed ship - or even bouncing/knocking over the thing you managed to land or left the last time you were here.  

 

So many questions!

 

 

Ummm... this picture doesn't say "Pre-Alpha Capture"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

You know... now I'm worried about the 'random generation' thing.  If you successfully land a rover amidst randomly generated scatter, where 'rocks above a certain size' are collidable, what happens the next time you load into that area?

Will the rocks be in the same space?  Or is it possible that once the system 'unloads' the area and has to reload (whether via a save or a subsequent landing) do the 'rocks above a certain size' get randomly distributed again?  This brings up a possibility of rocks clipping into a previously landed ship - or even bouncing/knocking over the thing you managed to land or left the last time you were here.  

 

So many questions!

 

 

Ummm... this picture doesn't say "Pre-Alpha Capture"

 

I'm sure it is pseudorandomly generated from a seed. If the same seed is used the result is the same.  Once generated in a game the same seed is used when returning is the normal way to do this type of thing.  For multiplayer all players would use the same seeds 

Edited by darthgently
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on which part of the trailer. But as a whole, don't think so. Modern GPUs still can't render graphics in real time on the same level as they do with prerendered material. Cutscenes will always look better than gameplay, so will the trailers and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Do you think with current graphics tech the game could actually look like the cinematic trailer?

(This post will be unpopular with some)

Could? They could make it look similar, sans the full path traced lighting and very high poly counts.

Will they? Not a chance. They're trying to make it run smoothly on decade-old tech. 

I wrote a 4 paragraph long opinion piece on my thoughts on the recent teaser postings  and screenshots compared to modded KSP with parallax 2, but I decided it's better not to instigate that kind of upset on this thread.

I'm sure we will get a workable game with mod potential eventually. I'll buy it on day one, but might need to wait for modders to bring graphics (and parts packs) up to tier one specs... I can't play stock KSP anymore, so I guess I should expect the same with KSP2. 

Still excited for colony, in-situ, and construction functionality for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TLTay said:

(This post will be unpopular with some)

Could? They could make it look similar, sans the full path traced lighting and very high poly counts.

Will they? Not a chance. They're trying to make it run smoothly on decade-old tech. 

I wrote a 4 paragraph long opinion piece on my thoughts on the recent teaser postings  and screenshots compared to modded KSP with parallax 2, but I decided it's better not to instigate that kind of upset on this thread.

I'm sure we will get a workable game with mod potential eventually. I'll buy it on day one, but might need to wait for modders to bring graphics (and parts packs) up to tier one specs... I can't play stock KSP anymore, so I guess I should expect the same with KSP2. 

Still excited for colony, in-situ, and construction functionality for sure.

Would you please Dm that to me? I'd like to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Would you please Dm that to me? I'd like to read it.

I deleted it since this wasn't the thread for it. I accept that raising the bar too high would be too demanding for most of the target market's computers/consoles, and in interest of making the game a financial success, it needs to be carefully optimized and balanced. I'm just not hyped about it, is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Do you think with current graphics tech the game could actually look like the cinematic trailer?

You know i thought about this, and how well they could make it as it stands.. mind you with everything in  "alpha" what i can say will be changed

 

 

Spoiler

The start of the video, near kerbal with the rocket ship, the parts, in my mind leads me to believe those are all real parts that are ingame assets not that it is real gameplay, but the assets will look very similar to when the game comes out, most if not all parts show have polygon "straights" for it being a circle... then we see the kerbin planet with the mun, both of these seem very likely that at the end product it should look very similar to it, we already have a show and tell about the mun rework, and we have a show and tell about the clouds, and we have seen kerbin planet to be very similar in the artemis recreation at time stamp of 0:45 so that entire first 0:00-0:30 seconds could be almost totally possible ingame but would require:

  • A camera placement mod
  • Tweak of the visuals such as DOF, Shine, Color, Ambient Occlusion etc.. (Im pretty sure TUFX in ksp 1 can get almost perfectly close to it)
  • Reflections to be really cranked up (*should state not really but compare to ksp 1 yes)

 

that being said it seems only the star and the star shine and background would only be different.

 

0:30-0:34,

we have no real baseline on how the internals will look, how they will preform etc, i do know that we would most likely need what the first segment needed, heck i can just say it now, most all of the video will need those little bullets... I say this part is plausible but we just don't know we haven't seens any gameplay from "inside" the cockpit...

 

 

0:34-1:14

Pretty much the same thing as the beginning with what is shown ingame so far we could almost make a perfect recreation of it, (besides the kerbals falling off) but looking at kerbin and the landing etc, pretty much everything can easily be done in ksp 2, however i doubt that we will see "landing marks" unless they are very nice to us about that, and aswell as the "spotty dust" on the machine, that will be perhaps a noise map that would need to be added unless they are working on that rockets/etc will get dirty... reflections on the otherhand seem way to noisy and ray traced in a way, i doubt that we would see THAT much reflections on the hull, but we can be proved wrong., and the machine just falling apart aswell i doubt that will happen

 

1:14:-1:18

would be very plausible that this can be recreated almost perfectly in ksp 2, besides the clouds (we haven't seen an update on the clouds so we don't know how it looks)

 

1:18-1:31

All that shown is a huge, it could, we have seen that we might have shock cones, we haven't seen separations, we haven't seen collisions, etc, all that could be plausible but more into ground of "it could happen with enough work" due to lack of information

 

1:31-1:37

Yeah, that will be pretty much within a degree of understanding that videogame and trailers are different will be almost identical to what it would look like in game..

 

1:37-1:40

This is somewhat a mixed bag in my mind, we have seen visuals almost to the degree in alpha shots talking about terrain, we have seen some parts of the colonies, we haven't seen anything about "tires" in the game and the suspension physics etc... This will also look like it will require that they implement vortex lines, and aswell as weather which the weather was hinted at when talking about the creation of planets, so its plausible within the mind of our imagination (and how optimized the game is)

 

1:40:End

it is possible that we will get visuals comparably to thing, but not exact it would be very difficult to make the game have all the things they show... things with like direct rocket ships, and there effects could be possible, planets with the "mothership" in the background is completely 100% possible that it could happen like that with again a degree of understanding that cinematic trailer/prerenders' will always look better overall compared to a real life game but i can see max settings with the bullets i put in the start it can get very very very close to it...

We have seen parts getting damaged/destroyed so seeing it break part with the sparks are pretty real to the base game we have seen... but things like colonies breaking apart i think they said they will not break apart like that for balance reasons (shouldn't really)... at the 1:56 mark its not really understandable what's going on, is it a part failing or what?

 

Conclusion..

I think being able to recreate the trailer is a B- in plausibility, however i will state some things that makes it possible or not 

 

  • Kerbals, within there own entirety of the video will most likely not be able to behave like this, this is one of the parts that will be very hard if not impossible to replicate ingame as of the information we have about them right now.
  • Things such as rockets and plume/visual effects and planets, colonies, will be able to almost perfectly be able to replicate with visual fidelity with some visual tweaks to the game such as camera placement visuals such as DOF, Shine, Color, Ambient Occlusion, Reflections, Weather.
  • Crashing of ships or damage of ships will probably not be this extreme however we haven't seen the "fine details" yet of the game due to being in alpha still, i still would say within a degree of gameplay reasoning that some of the finer details will be like that.
  • Reflections i will doubt will look that good ingame without them doing ray tracing which i hope they do, but its doubtful.
  • Planet Shine is something that we have already seen multiple times so seeing it in the trailer to that extreme would be pretty accurate of how it will be in game.

TLDR: its not entirely impossible but certain things will always look worse than a pre rendered item, and we should see how capable the game is when the game is released to see the "difference" but overall with some mods that aren't really "performance hitting" you will be able to get very close to the trailer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im also just not personally as fussed about how a game looks as how it works. If it was just KSP1 with atmospheric scatter and clouds Im good. Im mostly interested in how progression and colonies will work and how tight those mechanics are. Lots of really good games don’t look like much of anything. All that matters is they’re fun and make you think. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im also just not personally as fussed about how a game looks as how it works. If it was just KSP1 with atmospheric scatter and clouds Im good

Same, I was just asking

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...