Features that are mentioned for KSP2 (Added photo rendition of Current KSP2 UI)

[sgt_flyer]

On 8/27/2019 at 2:07 AM, 5thHorseman said:

I would be very shocked if this was true. Also unhappy, unless they have a great UI and a way to guarantee an orbit is stable forever.

I expect that instead they will have some sort of on-rails system that allows for binary planets. I don't know what yet but something akin to Sigma Binaries would work. Hopefully they'll have one that allows for Lagrange points. Even just having L4 and L5 would be enough for me though it'd be cool if you could "nail" a craft at the other points for X period of time using Y units of fuel without any player intervention until time/fuel runs out.

We won't know until they tell us or the game is released.

Yeah - if they use n-body , they would need to recalculate all of orbits in the kerbol system (which is unstable in nbody) (Unless they mix on rail and n-body ?)

[Drakenred65]

Probably a mix of rails and n body. But even that will be a poodle

Edited August 29, 2019 by [email protected]

[Talavar]

8 hours ago, Xd the great said:

I suspect Danny2462 is among the devs.

    Hmm.... He would be a great a Playtester.  Can you honestly think of a better person to test the limits of  KSP2? lol

Edited August 29, 2019 by Talavar

[Xd the great]

4 hours ago, Talavar said:

    Hmm.... He would be a great a Playtester.  Can you honestly think of a better person to test the limits of  KSP2? lol

*Testing orion drive on kerbals

*99% of KSC blew up, but jeb survives being thrown into air at supersonic speeds

UNACCEPTABLE.

[Talavar]

On 8/29/2019 at 8:14 PM, Xd the great said:

*Testing orion drive on kerbals

*99% of KSC blew up, but jeb survives being thrown into air at supersonic speeds

UNACCEPTABLE.

Any time Jeb survives, it wasn't a successful test.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Talavar

[Terwin]

On 8/28/2019 at 2:05 AM, Talavar said:

 I had actually thought about the "(invisible planet) barycenter" that you're suggesting, and realized that barycenter would be like a warp drive if you went past it.. lol... anyway for the 2 rails solution.. Doing that  would mean that they would only orbit each other once per orbit around the sun, as They are apparently "In a dance of death" orbiting each other. It's a cheap trick, but It would work.. however, the picture they show has them pretty close to each other. The speed at which they would orbit each other wouldn't be very convincing. lol .. not only that, their separate orbits would show up in the rails system on the map. This actually really excites me, as I want to see how they did it.  They did rewrite a large portion of the base code for KSP, according to the guy in one of the videos. So I'm just going to go out on the wing here, and say they probably added regular Binary capability to the existing conic rail system.
 

There is no reason the size 0 planet at the barycenter would need to have a mass above zero, and then you just have 2 moons on the same orbit opposite each other, with (almost?) touching SOIs.  

On 8/28/2019 at 11:01 AM, Talavar said:

  Hmm..  I get what you're saying. There actually is no way to add it into the existing rail physics engine. You'd still need a barycenter, which would cause some warp speed wips if you got near it.. The only thing I can think of is to have them on rails, which themselves are on a rail with no bary- center. but then you could never have their gravity wells touching.  This basically makes it to where you MUST have some kind of N-body physics system.

Why have the barycenter with a mass over zero?

Or perhaps they added a 'minimum effective distance' for gravitational effects from bodies, so that the barycenter only has an effective mass if you are outside the orbit of the moons?

This gives you 2.5 SOI: 1 for each 'moon', 1 for outside the moons orbits, and a mass-less half-SOI for inside the moon orbits(but not somewhere you can hang out without being thrown around by the moons as they rapidly circle each other).

(there might even be a 'reverse' soi inside the orbits that actively pushes you out, but that would mean SOI with more than one possible parent/exit SOI)

Edited August 30, 2019 by Terwin
typo

[Talavar]

On 8/30/2019 at 1:25 PM, Terwin said:

Or perhaps they added a 'minimum effective distance' for gravitational effects from bodies, so that the barycenter only has an effective mass if you are outside the orbit of the moons?

 

 I had thought of this as well, but then you end up with pockets with no gravitational pull beside where the barycenter would be. It's a conundrum. I guess it would be something like this... (quick and dirty)

[Snark]

On 8/26/2019 at 4:58 PM, chaos_forge said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . KSP2 is gonna have n-body gravitation

They specifically won't.  We asked them point-blank whether there would be N-body, and they said no.  "So how will you handle the binary thing, then" was the obvious follow-up question, to which the answer was that they're still working out the details but likely it'll be a special case that they add on to the basic system.

So, no.  No N-body.  Not a thing.  They're aware that binaries are an issue and we asked them about that, no word on how they're planning to handle that.

 

On 8/27/2019 at 4:55 AM, Psycho_zs said:

Sadly, no realistic exhaust plumes... yet.

On 8/30/2019 at 8:38 PM, Snark said:

• Q:  Will sound be muffled as you gain altitude?
• A:  Yes.
• Q:  Will rocket plumes change with gaining altitude (i.e. pressure-dependent)
• A:  Yes.

 

On 8/27/2019 at 3:58 PM, Dragon01 said:

There's one more thing that I noticed. If you look at the Orion spaceships in the trailers, you'll see a lot of familiar parts... In blue and red, depending on the ship in question. The same parts appear to be shown in black and white elsewhere. Either they really went overboard with texture variants, or they have some sort of part recoloring system in place.

Part recoloring system is in place, confirmed.  Pretty much all parts will have selectable primary and secondary colors, so you can have whatever paint scheme you like.

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, Talavar said:

 I had thought of this as well, but then you end up with pockets with no gravitational pull beside where the barycenter would be. It's a conundrum. I guess it would be something like this... (quick and dirty)

My idea was to have the gravitational pull in the black zone start go down and become zero at the barycenter and the two green SoI did not touch. 
In short tweak the blue/ black area so you could set up an 8 shaped orbit, no it would not be stable as in you would not return to you starting point
Not sure how an 8 orbit inside the SoI would look like but guess it would work somehow again not stable. 
You could also hover at the barycenter L-point but it would also be metastable as you would feel gravity outside it just like L1,L2 and L3 even if you miss by an millimeter. 

Realistically The two planets are far outside each other roche limit, their problem might be tidal heating because orbits are not circular or some other body tugs them. 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Part recoloring system is in place, confirmed.  Pretty much all parts will have selectable primary and secondary colors, so you can have whatever paint scheme you like.

Yes, note that this is pretty common in games, you have an base texture and you can paint over it with 1-3 colors. Sims 3 had it. 
It still has an underlying texture, distortion and spectacular map and I imagine stuff like engines outside mounts and covering can not be painted. 
 

[Psycho_zs]

If you think about it, thrust in timewarp and orbiting a binary system are technically similar in that both are a replacement of conic formula in trajectory calculation.

[Talavar]

On 9/2/2019 at 12:56 AM, Psycho_zs said:

If you think about it, thrust in timewarp and orbiting a binary system are technically similar in that both are a replacement of conic formula in trajectory calculation.

It definitely throws a wrench in the normal systems.

[Talavar]

On 8/27/2019 at 7:55 AM, Psycho_zs said:

Sadly, no realistic exhaust plumes... yet.

 Saw an interview the other day where they said plumes will be volumetric. Also, here's a shot of the "CURRENT" UI

[DStaal]

54 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 Saw an interview the other day where they said plumes will be volumetric. Also, here's a shot of the "CURRENT" UI

To be clear: This is a photoshop mock-up by someone who saw the current UI, it's not an actual in-game screenshot.

[Superfluous J]

On 9/2/2019 at 12:56 AM, Psycho_zs said:

If you think about it, thrust in timewarp and orbiting a binary system are technically similar in that both are a replacement of conic formula in trajectory calculation.

Thanks @Talavar for quoting this, I missed it back on September 2 for some reason.

It is a very interesting idea. They could list a 2nd world as the binary of a world. So for Rask there would be BINARY=Rusk somewhere in the definition. If that BINARY is defined, a constant acceleration is applied to your craft in the same way that they do the constant acceleration in time warp, only it will be equal in direction and amount to the pull felt by that other world. Though it would suffer from degridation of quality based on simulation step size.

And it probably wouldn't work when still in the pair's SOI but far from each, unless one world was set as the primary and had an SOI large enough to contain both worlds' actual SOIs. But still, an interesting idea nonetheless.

[Talavar]

12 hours ago, DStaal said:

To be clear: This is a photoshop mock-up by someone who saw the current UI, it's not an actual in-game screenshot.

 I hope you're correct. From my understanding this was a 1 to 1 rendition for the pre-alpha look (supposedly). So basically what we would "currently" see. While it looks clean, it feels... well... I dunno.. cold.
  That aside, I renamed the post, so there's no confusion.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Talavar

[runner78]

Here are better images:

The Image comes from here:

 

[Talavar]

11 hours ago, runner78 said:

Here are better images:

The Image comes from here:

 

 Thanks for that link runner.

[Xd the great]

14 hours ago, Talavar said:

While it looks clean, it feels... well... I dunno.. cold.

Perhaps of the lack of explosions?

Because, you know, fire and warmth...

Spoiler

Serious mode: perhaps of the shiny rocket.

 

[Talavar]

7 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

Perhaps of the lack of explosions?

Because, you know, fire and warmth...

  Reveal hidden contents

Serious mode: perhaps of the shiny rocket.

 

 lol.. maybe so..
 Nah, what I meant was the way the UI looked, but the shots that runner linked looks a bit better.

[Talavar]

Anyone heard anything new that's not on the list? It's been a while since this has been posted.