Jump to content

I get to interview Star Theory tomorrow. Give me your questions!


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Snark said:
  • Q:  Will there be tools to aid interplanetary missions?  i.e. transfer window planner, something better than guessing angles
  • A:  Yes, absolutely.  No comment about specific details, though.
  • Q:  Will there be persistent rotation?
  • A:  Yes.
  • 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.

Holy [bunch of words prohibited on this forum]!!! So may good yeses!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  •  
    Quote

    Q:  Will single-player still have all the same familiar game modes, i.e. sandbox, science, career?

    A:  No.  There will be sandbox (pretty much same as now), and then there will be another mode called "progression" which is sort of a combination of science and career modes, aiming for the best of both.

    curious what this could means

  • Quote

    Q:  Will there still be the same sorts of science experiments?  New ones?

    A:  It's changed in a few ways, but not at liberty to say more than that at the moment.

    hope its not still just click do experiment and its done

  • Quote

    Q:  Will we have the ability to refuel or transfer resources to craft on a planet/moon surface without the need to dock to them? A: <knowing nod, he gets why this is important>  Absolutely yes.  No comment on the details, though.

    so resources do need to be transferred

  • Quote

    Q:  Will there be specific hazards to exploration (e.g. sand traps for rovers)?

    A:  Definitely yes (to hazards that is, not necessarily to sand traps).  No comment on details.  By the way, there are lava planets, wink wink nudge nudge.

    Q:  Is there life more than trees and cactus and Kerbals in KSP2?  Can the Kerbals find something out there?

    A:  Get out there and find out!  <grin, wink wink, nudge nudge>

    Q:  Will we see more variety of biomes / geology?  e.g. volcanism, very dense atmospheres, completely liquid planets, etc.

    A:  Absolutely yes.

    cant wait to see this games terrain

  • Quote

    Q:  Will we have any form of automation?  For example, if I were to launch my Daedalus and then swap over to some other craft, would the Daedalus continue accelerating?

    A:  <big grin> Absolutely yes.  That's a really important feature and is a big deal to have.  Continuing to accelerate while switching control elsewhere is a thing.

    Q:  Will it be possible to fly multiple ships in atmosphere at the same time?  For example, to emulate a SpaceX booster recovery?

    A:  Would really like to enable that and are trying to do that.  Still working on it.

    Q:  Will there be tools to aid interplanetary missions?  i.e. transfer window planner, something better than guessing angles

    A:  Yes, absolutely.  No comment about specific details, though.

    wonder if we'll be able to develop launch profiles

  • Quote

    Q:  What about the aero model? Will it be like KSP 1, or something more like FAR?

    A:  We don't want to confuse players who are used to flying in KSP 1, so it'll have a very similar aero model.

    hope they get rid of adding wings inside the fuselage counting for lift

  • Quote

    Q:  Are vessels still a tree structure?  Can there be multi-path / loops?

    A:  Don't have a detailed answer for that.  Things are still in development.

    happy to see theyre looking into this, i could see greater rigidity for ship structures if they can make loops instead of just branching

  • Quote

    Q:  Will single-player still have all the same familiar game modes, i.e. sandbox, science, career?

    A:  No.  There will be sandbox (pretty much same as now), and then there will be another mode called "progression" which is sort of a combination of science and career modes, aiming for the best of both.

    hope this becomes a thing

thanks for doing the interview and bringing back all these answers

Edited by mcwaffles2003
organization
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

so resources do need to be transferred

I don't see why this is significant. How do you deal with resources in one craft that you want to be in another craft, if you can't transfer them in some way between the two craft?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gargamel said:

The KSP player in me who has their 'routine' down also doesn't like this.  It's been like that since I got into the game in the pre-alpha, and dangit, that's the way it should be.   But it's way more realistic, and players will learn to adapt.  I might not like it at first, but I will quickly come to enjoy it I think. 

I fully agree. Which makes the quote that they’re keeping the aero model the same as in KSP1 “to not confuse players” a bit puzzling. People will adapt.

Edited by Kerbart
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

I fully agree. Which makes the quote that they’re keeping the aero model the same as in KSP1 “to not confuse players” a bit puzzling. People will adapt.

It depends on how big the change is, I'd say. Learning new systems is probably fine, and learning small changes to systems is too, but relearning major systems is where stuff gets annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, I'm happy that the idea of air augmented rockets was relayed to them, and that they seemed interested, but its also concerning that they apparently hadn't heard of them

Same with TVC on SRBs. Scott Manley gave star theory a lesson 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Xd the great said:

I feel like this will be fun. A lot of mortified screams with multiple crashes.

Kerbals in general get a lot more fun and "relevant" when they're in IVA.  They're more "engaged" with the actual situation they're in.  Three specific ways I've seen Star Theory improving on this:

  1. Cockpit control interaction.  When you throttle up, Jeb grabs the throttle lever and adjusts it, that sort of thing.  They look a lot more like they're actually flying the ship, now.
  2. G-force interactions.  When you make hard lateral turns, the kerbals get thrown sideways in their seats.  When the G forces pile on, they get kinda squashed.
  3. More depth to emotes.  More emotes, and the emotes feel more relevant to the situation.  For example, when things are going badly, they've got like three levels of escalating panic (from a dismayed "uh oh" face, to a frantic "okay okay I can still fix this" while they desperately start mashing buttons, to full-fledged freak-out (eyes bug out, arms flailing around, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA").  When they pass out, they don't just cut-to-static, you actually see them "relate" (eyes roll up, cheeks bulge out momentarily like they're gonna barf, then they conk out and head keels over).  It's adorable without being annoying (to me, anyway).  They really put a lot of love into this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

@Snark Are you from Seattle or just visiting? If the latter, I hope you enjoy your visit.

I'm local.  Enjoyed the visit anyway, had never been to PAX before, and of course it was awesome meeting the Star Theory folks.

Holy smokes, that's a whole lotta nerds. :)

8 hours ago, Jake_IV said:

Must have been slightly nerve wracking but good job! 

Thanks, and yes.  Yes it was.  ;) Yesterday  @5thHorseman observed that I was posting when it wasn't even 3AM here yet, and I was thinking "dude, suppose they told you that you get to have a whole half hour, all to yourself, to quiz the creative director for KSP2 with anything you want... and then you ask the community for input and they basically hug you to death... would you be able to sleep?!"'

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

wow didnt even think of that... will we be able to saturate our reaction wheels?

I would guess almost certainly not.  They've made it pretty clear that they really don't want to discombobulate new users and people who are used to KSP 1, so they want the overall control feeling of ships to feel pretty much the same.  Saturating reaction wheels (or making them more realistic and not so overpowered) would be a pretty major change to controlling rockets (not to mention making them significantly harder).

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

curious what this could means

Yah, me too.  It means they're seriously re-thinking and re-designing "career", but their lips are completely sealed for the time being about the details.

From the various hints they've dropped, though, it's clear that whatever it is, in broad outlines it's gonna be "you explore more to get more rewards so you can explore more", so in that regard it will be not unlike KSP 1.

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

so resources do need to be transferred

Well, yes, there's still a reason to pump fuel (or whatever) around.  I just like that the "connecting things together on the surface" problem is finally being addressed in stock.  That always felt like a "hole" to me.

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

cant wait to see this games terrain

Even in the pre-alpha state it's at now, it's frickin' gorgeous.  Lots more detail, really nice scatters (that are denser and collidable, so "Neil Armstrong hunting around for a safe spot to land" is a thing), enough procedural variety so that landing in two different spots feels different.  We weren't allowed to take pictures or record videos while we were at their studio, but they showed us a lot of this and it's really impressive.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, I'm happy that the idea of air augmented rockets was relayed to them, and that they seemed interested, but its also concerning that they apparently hadn't heard of them

Be careful not to read too much into this.  Remember, I wasn't interviewing the whole company, nor was I interviewing someone who had tons of time to prepare for it.  I was interviewing one guy, who's undoubtedly frazzled out of his mind right now because they're taking the frantically busy schedule of a game-company-in-dev-mode and adding on the turbulent maelstrom that is PAX, who's been in back-to-back interviews and things for days-- since they finally just announced KSP 2 so recently, and all the media has been hammering on his door, and yesterday he had back-to-back interviews not just with me but with other streamers like Das Valdez and such.  (Try googling "nate simpson kerbal" and see how many hits come up with interviews and things, bearing in mind that this is all just in the last couple of weeks.)  Just because he didn't have something right off the top of his head doesn't say (to me) "this is concerning that 'they' don't know X".

I'm inclined to cut him just a little bit of slack, there.  ;)

1 hour ago, linecrafter said:

Same with TVC on SRBs. Scott Manley gave star theory a lesson 

He did indeed.  But look, guys, they've got a lot on their plate, and they're human.  It's easy to miss a spot here and there.  For myself, I don't worry about the fact that not everyone is a walking encyclopedia-- I mean, heck, I learned quite a bit just hanging around Scott, and I'm not exactly uninformed myself.  Rather, I'm stoked that they're clearly highly motivated to get it right, and when told something they didn't know, they don't blow it off:  they eagerly ask questions and write stuff down.  They're receptive and motivated.

These are the right sort of folks to be working on this project, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of cool stuff! I’m just happy to hear that acceleration and rotation are persistent. No more of this ‘the only ship that matters is the one I’m looking at right now’! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realized that no one asked if there will be better sound effects, because they the game as it is currently is basically muted besides rocket engines and music. No wheels, breathing, footsteps, metal creaking, wind etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

@Snark A bit off topic, but did you do anything else at PAX outside KSP 2? Just curious.

Not much.  It was incredibly busy and crowded, which is seriously not my scene.  I'm an extreme introvert and am uncomfortable in crowded / noisy situations, so just being in the building was "burning through my mana bar" at a fair clip.  I mean, I liked it, but it was exhausting (glad I have the long weekend to recuperate).  So I wandered around a bit and glanced briefly at this and that, but that was about it.  I headed home just a couple hours after finishing the interview.

6RbLr2C.jpg

One thing I did do was go to a panel discussion hosted by Das Valdez, which included Scott Manley on the panel, talking about use of real science in video games.  That was interesting, and also in a nice big quiet room so it was a blessed respite from the hurly-burly of the convention center.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fellow introvert I get the need to get away from crowds. Thanks for going the extra mile! Liquid planets makes me happy. I have a mod in the works for that. No KIS/KAS in stock is a bummer but not insurmountable. I can see that many of my mods can remain in KSP 1, while a few (Heisenberg, Kerbal Flying Saucers) could transition over. Thank you @Snark for making the effort and getting our questions answered! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheFrizz said:

Sad that they aren't taking this opportunity to revamp the aerodynamics model. It's as good as a time as it is ever going to get to change things on players.

Or at least not that we have heard of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snark said:

He did indeed.  But look, guys, they've got a lot on their plate, and they're human.  It's easy to miss a spot here and there.  For myself, I don't worry about the fact that not everyone is a walking encyclopedia-- I mean, heck, I learned quite a bit just hanging around Scott, and I'm not exactly uninformed myself.  Rather, I'm stoked that they're clearly highly motivated to get it right, and when told something they didn't know, they don't blow it off:  they eagerly ask questions and write stuff down.  They're receptive and motivated.

I'm just jealous , who wouldn't want a lesson from Scott Manley in person? I guess I should start making KSP 3 to have a chance 

Edited by linecrafter
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I fully agree. Which makes the quote that they’re keeping the aero model the same as in KSP1 “to not confuse players” a bit puzzling. People will adapt.

Persistent rotation changing is one thing, but the aero model is, while not exactly accurate, is one of the things that makes KSP great.   Granted some prefer a more accurate model, but the model we have allows for some really wacky contraptions, and that's part of the essence of KSP.   Not having persistent rotation doesn't really enhance the game, but it could be argued that the current aero model does. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TackleMcClean said:

 Q:  What about the aero model? Will it be like KSP 1, or something more like FAR? A:  We don't want to confuse players who are used to flying in KSP 1, so it'll have a very similar aero model.

Already answered, the aero model is going to be very similar to KSP 1, albeit with a few changes here and there i suppose.

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...