General Apocalypse

A few essential things

Recommended Posts

I hope that KSP 2 will keep in minds the following :

#1 The realism level should not be under KSP 1 quite the contrary . For  newbies a few options can easily do the trick.

#2 The home system should have more bodies to explore.


#3 Doing a Falcon Heavy like launch with stage I recovery should be possible without mods. It's 2020 surely we can have Picture-in-Picture.

#4 Some of the KSP 1 mods like Mech Jeb , SCANsat and mods that allow orbital shipyards should definitely be in the base game.

#5 No online only , cosmetics bull if you want more revenue do a Paradox and put out a DLC per year , we'll buy it if it's good. Heck you can even incorporate some popular mods via DLCs and it would be fine. I'm all for DLCs that incoporate mods and therefor provide bug support without a single moder giving his life away for the benefit of the community.

#6 If possible mods like TweakScale should be baked in the base design of the game. This would lower the number of parts and make things more interesting.

#7 As an advanced player I'd love to be able to integrate some subsystems in the base parts - tweaking weight , strength , cooling and many other great things.

#8 Weather would be lovely - lading in a thunderstorm would provide some epic cinematics and quite a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 4:34 PM, General Apocalypse said:

I hope that KSP 2 will keep in minds the following :

#1 The realism level should not be under KSP 1 quite the contrary . For  newbies a few options can easily do the trick.

#2 The home system should have more bodies to explore.


#3 Doing a Falcon Heavy like launch with stage I recovery should be possible without mods. It's 2020 surely we can have Picture-in-Picture.

#4 Some of the KSP 1 mods like Mech Jeb , SCANsat and mods that allow orbital shipyards should definitely be in the base game.

#5 No online only , cosmetics bull if you want more revenue do a Paradox and put out a DLC per year , we'll buy it if it's good. Heck you can even incorporate some popular mods via DLCs and it would be fine. I'm all for DLCs that incoporate mods and therefor provide bug support without a single moder giving his life away for the benefit of the community.

#6 If possible mods like TweakScale should be baked in the base design of the game. This would lower the number of parts and make things more interesting.

#7 As an advanced player I'd love to be able to integrate some subsystems in the base parts - tweaking weight , strength , cooling and many other great things.

#8 Weather would be lovely - lading in a thunderstorm would provide some epic cinematics and quite a challenge.

#1 okay, but I believe it should not be full on Realism Overhaul level realism.

#2 sorry, but they explicitly stated that the home system would not be changed, other than a few facelifts.

#3 okay, sure.

#4 While I agree with something like SCANsat, some people believe that Mech Jeb is cheating, and orbital shipyards are already confirmed in the game.

#5 for me, DLCs are perfectly fine, as long as it is original content, the liscensing would be a huge no-go for Star Theory, and who would want to buy a DLC if you could get a mod?

#6 possibly, but I like the lego style building better than procedural parts.

#7 For me that would add only complexity but not actual gameplay.

#8 I dislike weather, if it is graphical fine, but it should not be able to interact with your ships, because random events destroying your ships would more often then not cause you to rage quit than actual serve gameplay.

Edited by DunaManiac

Share this post


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

I hope that KSP 2 will keep in minds the following :

#1 The realism level should not be under KSP 1 quite the contrary . For  newbies a few options can easily do the trick.

#2 The home system should have more bodies to explore.


#3 Doing a Falcon Heavy like launch with stage I recovery should be possible without mods. It's 2020 surely we can have Picture-in-Picture.

#4 Some of the KSP 1 mods like Mech Jeb , SCANsat and mods that allow orbital shipyards should definitely be in the base game.

#5 No online only , cosmetics bull if you want more revenue do a Paradox and put out a DLC per year , we'll buy it if it's good. Heck you can even incorporate some popular mods via DLCs and it would be fine. I'm all for DLCs that incoporate mods and therefor provide bug support without a single moder giving his life away for the benefit of the community.

#6 If possible mods like TweakScale should be baked in the base design of the game. This would lower the number of parts and make things more interesting.

#7 As an advanced player I'd love to be able to integrate some subsystems in the base parts - tweaking weight , strength , cooling and many other great things.

#8 Weather would be lovely - lading in a thunderstorm would provide some epic cinematics and quite a challenge.

#1 yes, definitely.

#2 I would like that, but as DunaManiac said above, they won't be doing that.

#3 Yes

#4 YES

#5 YES!

#6 YE... maybe, depends on where it is Implemented.

#7 Yes

#8 Yes, it should be toggleable in the settings. (lading? stop using big words)

 

Spoiler

now that I look at it the word "yes" looks pretty weird, actually all words look pretty weird

 

Edited by Dirkidirk

Share this post


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

I hope that KSP 2 will keep in minds the following :

#1 The realism level should not be under KSP 1 quite the contrary . For  newbies a few options can easily do the trick.

#2 The home system should have more bodies to explore.


#3 Doing a Falcon Heavy like launch with stage I recovery should be possible without mods. It's 2020 surely we can have Picture-in-Picture.

#4 Some of the KSP 1 mods like Mech Jeb , SCANsat and mods that allow orbital shipyards should definitely be in the base game.

#5 No online only , cosmetics bull if you want more revenue do a Paradox and put out a DLC per year , we'll buy it if it's good. Heck you can even incorporate some popular mods via DLCs and it would be fine. I'm all for DLCs that incoporate mods and therefor provide bug support without a single moder giving his life away for the benefit of the community.

#6 If possible mods like TweakScale should be baked in the base design of the game. This would lower the number of parts and make things more interesting.

#7 As an advanced player I'd love to be able to integrate some subsystems in the base parts - tweaking weight , strength , cooling and many other great things.

#8 Weather would be lovely - lading in a thunderstorm would provide some epic cinematics and quite a challenge.

  1. In what sense should it be more realistic? Too much and the game will simply be tedious instead of fun
  2. Why? we're getting whole new systems to explore already, why change the home system and ruin the consistency?
  3. Yeah stage recovery should be a thing, at least with parachutes if not full on FMRA (obviously only available in single player as resetting in multiplayer seems impractical). As for PIP that would require a huge extension in physics range, or multiple physics bubble (alrready being done for multiplayer to exist), But I see this in the end being a possible source of lag... prove me wrong though :)
  4. Agreed, especially since it's confirmed that mined materials will have more diversity than just 'ore'
  5. Agreed, and hopefully the original modder would get paid for it. Could possibly incentivize more modders to make high quality mods hoping theirs gets picked up
  6. Personally not a fan of tweak scale, feels like cheating if I shrink the NERVA to fit 0.625m parts. A better categorization system would be nice though; for instance, the ability for sorting engines by size, thrust, mass, or ISP. Maybe have procedural parts as a sandbox only feature or make it an endgame tech.
  7. 50/50 on this. I like the restriction of specific parts but the ability to make your own to best fit your ship could be nice as well. Similar to simple rockets engines
  8. I like weather graphically everywhere. As for physical weather... just not on Kerbin. I dont want restricted launch windows from the home pad, but as an obstacle on other planets I would love this challenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

would love weather. would add an extra element to operations, i.e. wait for the hurricane to past before landing. 

I'm fine with it always being calm on Kerbin since it's like the kiddy pool where people learn how to play but dust storms on Duna would be the shizzle >:P 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say weather I also mean solar storms , dust storms on Duna . All kinds of crazy stuff on Eve , Laythe and so on.

Plus weather on exoplanets could also be the birds. Desert planets, arctic planets, monsoon planets, volcanic planets and all kinds of wonderful stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, General Apocalypse said:

When I say weather I also mean solar storms , dust storms on Duna . All kinds of crazy stuff on Eve , Laythe and so on.

Plus weather on exoplanets could also be the birds. Desert planets, arctic planets, monsoon planets, volcanic planets and all kinds of wonderful stuff.

If birds are weather, then can this too be considered weather.

Image result for swarm of drones

and these mayflies

Image result for swarm of mayflies
Spoiler
Birds on exoplanets. BIRDS, living on exoplanets!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds is an autocorrect of the forum the original word a synonym for female mammaries [snip].

Edited by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

In what sense should it be more realistic? Too much and the game will simply be tedious instead of fun

In another sense the KSP1 abstractions make the game tedious as well. Take resource units - not using real units in the game interface makes it hard to reason about those units in game. Requiring spreadsheets and web tools to mission plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 9:34 PM, General Apocalypse said:

It's 2020 surely we can have Picture-in-Picture.

It doesn't matter if you don't have 6 hands, 3 keyboards, 6 eyes and having very good multitasking skills

On 2/3/2020 at 10:33 PM, DunaManiac said:

#8 I dislike weather, if it is graphical fine, but it should not be able to interact with your ships, because random events destroying your ships would more often then not cause you to rage quit than actual serve gameplay.

I think atmo landings are boring currently. Pop the chutes and you're good to go.

On 2/3/2020 at 10:33 PM, DunaManiac said:

#4 While I agree with something like SCANsat, some people believe it's cheating, and orbital shipyards are already confirmed in the game.

I think SCANsat seems more balanced than the stock orbital scanning mechanics, less RNG too.

14 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

but dust storms on Duna would be the shizzle >:P

Unfortunately, Duna has a very thin atmosphere. Except for slightly degrading the solar panels, the wind would do nothing and would be about as effective as a rat's fart at tipping your ship over.

On 2/3/2020 at 11:21 PM, Dirkidirk said:

now that I look at it the word "yes" looks pretty weird, actually all words look pretty weird

Oh for Kraken's sake...

Edited by Bej Kerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It doesn't matter if you don't have 6 hands, 3 keyboards, 6 eyes and having very good multitasking skills

I was thinking more on the lines that you preprogram the maneuvers before launch and only guide the main payload. The subsystems would be guided by a hopefully integrated MechJeb. 

Besides being extremely satisfactory to replicate the Falcon Heavy launches it would also be a huge selling point. God only know Musk would tweet about it giving the game some serious exposure.

Share this post


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

In another sense the KSP1 abstractions make the game tedious as well. Take resource units - not using real units in the game interface makes it hard to reason about those units in game. Requiring spreadsheets and web tools to mission plan.

When I think of the term "realism" a simple unit change isn't exactly what comes to mind, but also, I dont see how it makes the game more tedious either. How does adding "Kg" or "KWh" after the numbers provided in any way fix the problem you're talking about? It's similar to saying if we did things in km instead of meters things would be less tedious. It's just a unit conversion.

 

4 hours ago, General Apocalypse said:

I was thinking more on the lines that you preprogram the maneuvers before launch and only guide the main payload. The subsystems would be guided by a hopefully integrated MechJeb. 

Besides being extremely satisfactory to replicate the Falcon Heavy launches it would also be a huge selling point. God only know Musk would tweet about it giving the game some serious exposure.

Sounds like mod territory to me, personally. Cool mod idea though

Share this post


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

I was thinking more on the lines that you preprogram the maneuvers before launch and only guide the main payload. The subsystems would be guided by a hopefully integrated MechJeb. 

Besides being extremely satisfactory to replicate the Falcon Heavy launches it would also be a huge selling point. God only know Musk would tweet about it giving the game some serious exposure.

Nate said something on the line of "we're looking into enabling this kind of thing" in some interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 10:34 PM, General Apocalypse said:

#1 The realism level should not be under KSP 1 quite the contrary . For  newbies a few options can easily do the trick.

I agree, but fear that it won't be. Numerous things make me fear we're getting magic tech and unrealistic planets (although the Jool System and kerbin's moon system are already fairly unrealistic)

Quote

#2 The home system should have more bodies to explore.a challenge.

I wouldn't call this essential, but something like OPM wouldn't be bad... but we have new star systems to place new planets... but still some moderate power drives would work really well with fast travel to distant bodies in the same system, such as a Neptune/Eris/Sedna analogue.

Quote

#3 Doing a Falcon Heavy like launch with stage I recovery should be possible without mods. It's 2020 surely we can have Picture-in-Picture.

Well, you can do it already, if you are careful with your designs such that you avoid having the first stage get deleted before you can switch back to it. I don't find it so practical in stock KSP, but when I re-scale the KSP system to 3x (with 1.25x atmosphere height rescale, because the atmospheres are way too thick relative to planet diameter) it becomes quite practical to have a booster put something up to about a 120km apoapsis (at about a 45 degree angle), switch to payload and start doing a circularization burn (with a bit of radial in, because time is limited), and switch back to the (now very light because payload is gone) booster to reverse horizontal velocity at Ap, and send it on a trajectory back to KSC - Although now I prefer to use a very high TWR winged rapier carrier plane to climb steeply while accelerating, then light the rapiers to boost Ap, circulatize payload, switch back to the plane, turn it around when it gets in the lower atmosphere, light the rapiers in open-cycle, and fly back to base. When orbital velocity is >4,100 m/s, and you use stock parts, SSTOs aren't very attractive, and reusable 2 stage designs are.

That said, if it makes proper use of multiple cores, I don't see why it can't have 2 physics bubbles open at once, and even without a mechjeb, just SAS holding prograde should be fine.

I don't need 2 windows with 3d rendering, but a window showing orbital parameters, throttle, fuel, altitude, navbal, and staging of the other craft being simulated at the same time should be fine for controlling both for the purposes of re'usable boosters.

Quote

#4 Some of the KSP 1 mods like Mech Jeb , SCANsat and mods that allow orbital shipyards should definitely be in the base game.

Scansat like mapping over the orbital survey we have: yes. Orbital shipyards: confirmed. Mechjeb... meh, that's still a "leave it to mods" for me.

However, I would like probes and Crews to be able to auto execute planned maneuvers- so I could give a probe a sequential set of maneuver nodes taking place on the far side of Mun when the probe is still in contact, and it will execute then even on the far side after it loses contact (assuming no com relay is set up yet).

However, something like Kopernicus for editing the celestial bodies (I like my custom system) is a yes, and from what I've heard, its basically in- in that modding planets can be done with a text editor (now it requires Kopernicus, and then text editing)

Quote

#5 No online only , cosmetics bull if you want more revenue do a Paradox and put out a DLC per year , we'll buy it if it's good. Heck you can even incorporate some popular mods via DLCs and it would be fine. I'm all for DLCs that incoporate mods and therefor provide bug support without a single moder giving his life away for the benefit of the community.

#6 If possible mods like TweakScale should be baked in the base design of the game. This would lower the number of parts and make things more interesting.

#7 As an advanced player I'd love to be able to integrate some subsystems in the base parts - tweaking weight , strength , cooling and many other great things.

Sure, why not. Also , I think its confirmed its not online only.

Quote

#8 Weather would be lovely - lading in a thunderstorm would provide some epic cinematics and quite

Its confirmed that this is NOT going to be in.

Edited by KerikBalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

When I think of the term "realism" a simple unit change isn't exactly what comes to mind, but also, I dont see how it makes the game more tedious either. How does adding "Kg" or "KWh" after the numbers provided in any way fix the problem you're talking about? It's similar to saying if we did things in km instead of meters things would be less tedious. It's just a unit conversion.

 

Sounds like mod territory to me, personally. Cool mod idea though

KSP 1 isn't really km verse m. More like Hamhooks of fuel verse say kg or tonnes. Or isobars of electricity verse kWh. Made up units don't feed the curiosity beyond the game or even feed on the fact kids seem to love space almost as much as Dino's these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mattinoz said:

KSP 1 isn't really km verse m. More like Hamhooks of fuel verse say kg or tonnes. Or isobars of electricity verse kWh. Made up units don't feed the curiosity beyond the game or even feed on the fact kids seem to love space almost as much as Dino's these days.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for showing real world units. Just I dont see how having different units would make the game less tedious or change your need for "spreadsheets and web tools to mission plan"

I never needed spreadsheets to plan my own missions though and don't know why someone would, so you're playing the game differently than I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, you can do it already, if you are careful with your designs such that you avoid having the first stage get deleted before you can switch back to it. I don't find it so practical in stock KSP, but when I re-scale the KSP system to 3x (with 1.25x atmosphere height rescale, because the atmospheres are way too thick relative to planet diameter) it becomes quite practical to have a booster put something up to about a 120km apoapsis (at about a 45 degree angle), switch to payload and start doing a circularization burn (with a bit of radial in, because time is limited), and switch back to the (now very light because payload is gone) booster to reverse horizontal velocity at Ap, and send it on a trajectory back to KSC - Although now I prefer to use a very high TWR winged rapier carrier plane to climb steeply while accelerating, then light the rapiers to boost Ap, circulatize payload, switch back to the plane, turn it around when it gets in the lower atmosphere, light the rapiers in open-cycle, and fly back to base. When orbital velocity is >4,100 m/s, and you use stock parts, SSTOs aren't very attractive, and reusable 2 stage designs are.

That said, if it makes proper use of multiple cores, I don't see why it can't have 2 physics bubbles open at once, and even without a mechjeb, just SAS holding prograde should be fine.

I don't need 2 windows with 3d rendering, but a window showing orbital parameters, throttle, fuel, altitude, navbal, and staging of the other craft being simulated at the same time should be fine for controlling both for the purposes of re'usable boosters.

 

They'd need legs that wouldn't crumple under a decent stack though for it to be worth it, but i'd be giddy even if they just wacked FMRS into stock KSP2 completely unchanged from it's KSP1 mod form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Sounds like mod territory to me, personally. Cool mod idea though

Not really the technical requirements on the game engine are far bigger than any moder or mod team can handle. You need official support.

6 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, you can do it already, if you are careful with your designs such that you avoid having the first stage get deleted before you can switch back to it. I don't find it so practical in stock KSP, but when I re-scale the KSP system to 3x (with 1.25x atmosphere height rescale, because the atmospheres are way too thick relative to planet diameter) it becomes quite practical to have a booster put something up to about a 120km apoapsis (at about a 45 degree angle), switch to payload and start doing a circularization burn (with a bit of radial in, because time is limited), and switch back to the (now very light because payload is gone) booster to reverse horizontal velocity at Ap, and send it on a trajectory back to KSC - Although now I prefer to use a very high TWR winged rapier carrier plane to climb steeply while accelerating, then light the rapiers to boost Ap, circulatize payload, switch back to the plane, turn it around when it gets in the lower atmosphere, light the rapiers in open-cycle, and fly back to base. When orbital velocity is >4,100 m/s, and you use stock parts, SSTOs aren't very attractive, and reusable 2 stage designs are.

You can't , actually FH uses at one point 4 simultaneous instances. You simply can't replicate that. Given that KSP 2 wants to go interstellar they better learn how to walk first.

As for MechJeb it is essential . Rocket missions always use a computer guided preplanned trajectory , there isn't some guy mashing a controls in real time while the rocket engines roar. I was honestly shocked the first time I got into KSP and saw that there was no array of flight planning tools. Even as a kid flying model rockets I had a flight plan , unmoded KSP just gives you your joystick and that's it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 9:34 PM, General Apocalypse said:

Mech Jeb [...] should definitely be in the base game.

*cue flame war over MJ, again™*

I have issue with what I believe is (a) a valuable learning tool, (b) completely awful at many manoeuvres about 50% of the time and (c) KRAKEN-DAMNED CHEATING being integrated into the base game. Also, I consider kOS equivalent to MJ in terms of function, and that won't be in the game, so why should MJ?

MJ is annoying as it frequently messes up. As for the realism of computer pre-programming, surely in real life that is done by computer programmers? I believe that in real life we are more kOS-equivalent, but also that it isn't likely to be in the base game as it's very complex and you'll have your hands full with your own flying when learning the ropes, and not everyone is a programmer.

Finally, I think that adding MJ to the game would be a subversion of one of the core aims, keeping the experience as close to KSP1 as possible. And kOS is superior to MJ as it's all your fault if you mess up, and you can change it. Which is the KSP ethos. (apart from MOAR BOOSTERS, which you can do anyway).

Edited by fulgur

Share this post


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

*cue flame war over MJ, again™*

I have issue with what I believe is (a) a valuable learning tool, (b) completely awful at many manoeuvres about 50% of the time and (c) KRAKEN-DAMNED CHEATING being integrated into the base game. Also, I consider kOS equivalent to MJ in terms of function, and that won't be in the game, so why should MJ?

MJ is annoying as it frequently messes up. As for the realism of computer pre-programming, surely in real life that is done by computer programmers? I believe that in real life we are more kOS-equivalent, but also that it isn't likely to be in the base game as it's very complex and you'll have your hands full with your own flying when learning the ropes, and not everyone is a programmer.

Finally, I think that adding MJ to the game would be a subversion of one of the core aims, keeping the experience as close to KSP1 as possible. And kOS is superior to MJ as it's all your fault if you mess up, and you can change it. Which is the KSP ethos. (apart from MOAR BOOSTERS, which you can do anyway).

https://software.nasa.gov/software/GSC-16824-1

IRL mechjeb :)

it even plans out grav assists for you

Edited by mcwaffles2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As written by someone / several someones, who spent hours doing it, like one spends hours perfecting a kOS script.
Also that's Transfer Window Planner-equivalent which should be in the base game. KSP1, not just KSP2.

Edited by fulgur

Share this post


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

As written by someone / several someones, who spent hours doing it.

MJ was written by someone :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it was not written by me, and I don't trust them to make my orbital manoeuvres.

Share this post


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

But it was not written by me, and I don't trust them to make my orbital manoeuvres.

I just use the planner to find the best places, always manually maneuver. Hate how it always fires at maneuver instead of prograde, such a waste of dV

Share this post


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

https://software.nasa.gov/software/GSC-16824-1

IRL mechjeb :)

it even plans out grav assists for you

Let's not turn this into into a flamewar about Mech-Jeb.

(But I do think some of the autopilots take away from KSP's unique experience, and should not be added into KSP because: Just look at the above posts).

Share this post


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.