XLjedi

Beta Testing Volunteer

Recommended Posts

Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Basically; same thing they do now with planets. On a realistically sized planet making orbit would take much longer, and require about 4X the DV.

So they couldn't scale up the rockets?  Somehow we meager humans manage the DV to put things into orbit on a regular basis.

Basically, they have to fudge the science on one end of the scale or the other... most likely in the interest of gameplay.  A near FTL drive in 1/10 scale is a warp 9 drive in 1:1 scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XLjedi said:

So they couldn't scale up the rockets?  Somehow we meager humans manage the DV to put things into orbit on a regular basis.

Basically, they have to fudge the science on one end of the scale or the other... most likely in the interest of gameplay.  A near FTL drive in 1/10 scale is a warp 9 drive in 1:1 scale.

I mean they're already pretty close; the mass ratios are just completely out of wack. Actual rocket fuel tanks contribute much less dry mass; being almost 98% fuel by mass. Kerbal tanks are around 82% fuel by mass; using SMURFF to correct this makes it relatively easy to make launchers with realistic DV (8000m/s between 2 stages).

So they could scale up the planets (wouldn't even have to go full scale; 3X would still be plenty); which then would make everything further out. But then they have to completely rebalance the game, parts and tech tree, and comes at the risk of isolating previous KSP1 players.

So this means scaling the universe up carries more risk than just keeping the 1/10th scale.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already confirmed in interviews there will be no Warp drive engine in the game.

 

 

11 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

So they couldn't scale up the rockets?  Somehow we meager humans manage the DV to put things into orbit on a regular basis.

The problem is not realism, it's time to orbit. When an attempt to reach orbit its 5 minutes long you can try 12 times in an hour, if the game used a real world scale that would go down to 2-3 attempts per hour and the game wold be too hard on new players and too boring on the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Incarnation of Chaos  @Master39 well... pointing back to the press release it didn't just say "explore the next closest star" it said "Explore new galaxies".  In fact, it's literally the first thing they say in the press release.

https://ir.take2games.com/node/26301/pdf

"Explore new galaxies, build larger contraptions, and discover more celestial bodies with the sequel to the critically acclaimed space simulator"

So I dunno, maybe Take-Two doesn't actually know what a "galaxy" is or how far apart they are?  1/10 scale or otherwise if we are expected to traverse galaxies in KSP 2 there is going to need to be some sort of FTL engine.

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

@Incarnation of Chaos  @Master39 well... pointing back to the press release it didn't just say "explore the next closest star" it said "Explore new galaxies".  In fact, it's literally the first thing they say in the press release.

https://ir.take2games.com/node/26301/pdf

"Explore new galaxies, build larger contraptions, and discover more celestial bodies with the sequel to the critically acclaimed space simulator"

So I dunno, maybe Take-Two doesn't actually know what a "galaxy" is or how far apart they are?  1/10 scale or otherwise if we are expected to traverse galaxies in KSP 2 there is going to need to be some sort of FTL engine.

Not if there's an easily accessible wormhole in the starting galaxy; assuming that they even have anything beyond a loosely bound cluster of a dozen stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Not if there's an easily accessible wormhole in the starting galaxy; assuming that they even have anything beyond a loosely bound cluster of a dozen stars.

I consider a wormhole a form of FTL travel, which fits the context of my original statement.

"FTL travel may be so engaging as to render things like rotorcraft pointless"

...and honestly, do we think the discovery of a wormhole (and successfully traveling through it!) is any less far-fetched than an Alcubierre drive?

I do think wormhole travel would solve the gameplay problems I mentioned and make the gameplay more enjoyable.

 

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I consider a wormhole a form of FTL travel, which fits the context of my original statement.

"FTL travel may be so engaging as to render things like rotorcraft pointless"

...and honestly, do we think the discovery of a wormhole (and successfully traveling through it!) is any less far-fetched than an Alcubierre drive?

I do think wormhole travel would solve the gameplay problems I mentioned and make the gameplay more enjoyable.

 

So does physics, and absolutely yes. We know black holes exist, and we know mathematically some could be wormholes. So if we had the technology to reach them; it's just a matter of using disposable probes to sound them out. 

Warp drive depends on negative energy; which while it may be obtained via the Casimir effect we have absolutely no idea if it's stable or how to contain it. 

And any FTL solution mounted on a ship would bust the game wide open, so I'd personally prefer wormholes myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Incarnation of Chaos  It's still a SWAG on what happens to that first disposable probe.

@Master39

OK, so FTL travel (based on what I've seen in Take-Two press releases) is not off the table for KSP 2.  ...and the devs mentioning of no FTL drives (at least to start) does not rule out FTL travel.  Somehow they have to make the gameplay fun and I suspect it is going to be with some form of FTL travel, whether it be through wormholes or an FTL drive, or some sort of drive that creates a wormhole.

 

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

well... pointing back to the press release it didn't just say "explore the next closest star" it said "Explore new galaxies".  In fact, it's literally the first thing they say in the press release.

https://ir.take2games.com/node/26301/pdf

"Explore new galaxies, build larger contraptions, and discover more celestial bodies with the sequel to the critically acclaimed space simulator"

So I dunno, maybe Take-Two doesn't actually know what a "galaxy" is or how far apart they are?  1/10 scale or otherwise if we are expected to traverse galaxies in KSP 2 there is going to need to be some sort of FTL engine.

And according to the trailer Duna has 90 degrees of tilt and/or the ice caps in the wrong position: 

WZWpcO9.png

 

I don't think a single word from a marketing statement from the publisher can go against everything else we know from the interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Master39 said:

I don't think a single word from a marketing statement from the publisher can go against everything else we know from the interviews.

Did they say in the interview there would be no FTL travel?  ...or did they say no FTL drives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XLjedi said:

Did they say in the interview there would be no FTL travel?  ...or did they say no FTL drives?

Nate did a lot of interviews and then we have the material from the people invited to do the studio tour, I can't remember exactly if there was a specific mention on FTL travel but i found this:

6:54 if the embedded isn't picking up the timestamp.

He specifically says "No warp drives, no warp gates, no magic technology, right? No EM drives".

It would be a bad joke if, at launch, they just put some random FTL tech like Wormholes just saying "it wasn't in Nate's list during the interview".

 

Anyway I think there are other quotes about the game having only a few nearby star systems and FTL not being part of it but it's been 5 months since all of that info dropped and I just can't quote anything by memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Master39 fair enuff…  I'll just be very curious to see how they solve (what I perceive to be) some gameplay issues regarding time acceleration and distances.  If not some sort of FTL travel.

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XLjedi said:

I wasn't referring to literally watching the accel time happen.  Time is time, I would still have contracts expiring regardless of whether or not the warp occurs out of focus?  I don't like the gameplay idea of, "OK, lets finish all contracts so we can accel time.  Now 15 years has passed and we have all done nothing in the meantime waiting for this ship to arrive at closest star."  That kinda feels like a hard disconnect in the gameplay timeline for me.

You know, you can do other missions during that 15 yr wait time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

You know, you can do other missions during that 15 yr wait time

Yeah, but it's still 15 years...  eventually I'm gonna want to time accel to that objective.  There are similar issues in KSP 1.0 that kinda take me outta the game in the same sense.

Share this post


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

Yeah, but it's still 15 years...  eventually I'm gonna want to time accel to that objective.  There are similar issues in KSP 1.0 that kinda take me outta the game in the same sense.

Space travel takes time... And we can skip it with time warp, I don't see the issue. You can do missions during the wait or skip the wait, why does in game time matter so much? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Space travel takes time... And we can skip it with time warp, I don't see the issue. You can do missions during the wait or skip the wait, why does in game time matter so much? 

It breaks the underlying game...  I mean, I guess sandbox alone is OK.

If I pickup a mission in the current game and it's not due for 24 years and pays a whopping 16 science research points, it's pretty much useless to me.  I can get 10 science per day from a science lab twirling around Kerbin at 100km... and my reward for 10yrs of travel to Eve is 16 science?  It just doesn't make any sense.  

No point in trying to explore Eve as a means to further the science/research of my space program.  Extended timeframe missions become absolutely pointless.

Not to mention the base game doesn't have launch windows or the alarm clock tools you actually need to plan and time the launches correctly.  Hopefully KSP 2 will at least ship with the gadgets we need to plan these extended missions.

Share this post


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

It breaks the underlying game...  I mean, I guess sandbox alone is OK.

If I pickup a mission in the current game and it's not due for 24 years and pays a whopping 16 science research points, it's pretty much useless to me.  I can get 10 science per day from a science lab twirling around Kerbin at 100km... and my reward for 10yrs of travel to Eve is 16 science?  It just doesn't make any sense.  

No point in trying to explore Eve as a means to further the science/research of my space program.  Extended timeframe missions become absolutely pointless.

Not to mention the base game doesn't have launch windows or the alarm clock tools you actually need to plan and time the launches correctly.  Hopefully KSP 2 will at least ship with the gadgets we need to plan these extended missions.

Putting the fact that ST has said they're entirely changing career/progression aside and assuming we keep the same format... What gives you the impression a mission to another star would yield ~16 science (obviously exaggerated)? I feel you're being selectively pessimistic and I have no idea why. In this format why wouldn't science scale exponentially with distance just as it has all throughout KSP 1? The star theory devs are experienced developers and have worked on a RTS title (heavily balance oriented) so do you believe we should expect that they will overlook an obviously game-breaking balance? Also, you realize the tech tree is being heavily expanded and exponentially more science will need to be recovered right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mcwaffles2003  We'll see how it goes...  As I've said, I'm cautiously optimistic but very curious to see how they overcome certain challenges in the gameplay mechanics regarding long lapses in time.  And it's not that I necessarily think a mission to a star would yield something very small.  It's just the time involved.  Would I be able to get as much (or as in KSP1) a lot more if rather than accel time, I just farmed science locally?  I'm sure they're smart folks and will figure something out.  The previous devs didn't figure it out on KSP1 though; but different crowd and starting point I s'pose.  

Share this post


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

I can get 10 science per day from a science lab twirling around Kerbin at 100km

That's why I think the science lab is among the most broken parts in the game. I only ever use it as a Kerbal leveling up part. The fact that it's super worth it just for that says something about how broken it is with even more benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

That's why I think the science lab is among the most broken parts in the game. I only ever use it as a Kerbal leveling up part. The fact that it's super worth it just for that says something about how broken it is with even more benefit.

It serves a purpose later...  but my overall point is as long as you have (or don't have) things churning while years are ticking off on accel time, it feels disconnected.  They may have a clever approach to the problem, so we'll see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 6:57 PM, Cheif Operations Director said:

I am only kidding around, I was saying that is is funny to see a fan of a game offer to get the game before everyone else as a beta tester. It is fine It was just funny

Ya, if one person wants to really tests it, everyone will want to "test" it.

Just saying me and my friends think the nav ball should be in the middle not the bottom left... just saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John.A said:

Ya, if one person wants to really tests it, everyone will want to "test" it.

Just saying me and my friends think the nav ball should be in the middle not the bottom left... just saying...

You no you can change it’s position in ksp1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 7:59 PM, Kerbart said:

Surely the KSP community wouldn’t lower itself to volunteering bug testing for that. Right? RIGHT?!

I sure as heck would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 7:00 AM, XLjedi said:

So they couldn't scale up the rockets?  Somehow we meager humans manage the DV to put things into orbit on a regular basis.

It also takes 4 to 5 times longer to get to orbit. I assume you can understand the problem with that when playing KSP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

It also takes 4 to 5 times longer to get to orbit. I assume you can understand the problem with that when playing KSP?

Multiplying whatever accel time x4 or x5?   Moot point though.  I don't recall exactly what we were talking about here a couple weeks ago, but IIRC my argument was something along the lines of extensive accel time breaking gameplay continuity.

This was all prior to the Future Tech engines reveal.  They seem to have addressed the time compression issue with near FTL drives and top speed merely a function of distance.  Although if the universe is all in 1/10 scale, then I guess the speeds we'll be seeing are multiples of FTL travel if scaled up by 10x.  If we can get to 0.1c or 0.2c that would be like warp 1 or 2 in 1/10 scale.  I suspect we'll be able to go faster though.  

I also still wouldn't rule out blinky travel in some other form if not FTL drives.  Like a wormhole discovery or something to span the distance instantly between solar systems.

 

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


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.