Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 1.5 - Work From Home Developer Update


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Someone on Reddit caught this detail:

b0k5aJP.png

Shown at 4:28 for a few frames

Multiple crafting materials and resources confirmed.

Good idea, but why would a Nose Cone need Uranium? :huh:

Most likely it's not finished.

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

Good idea, but why would a Nose Cone need Uranium?

I think it's intentional, probably it originally had only the "ore" placeholder requirement and they decided to add another, intentionally ridicolous, resource to tell us that there will be multiple resources and the placeholder nature of the written numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a challenge, for when it gets released.

Dont go to space in the first 2 days of getting the game.

25 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Someone on Reddit caught this detail:

b0k5aJP.png

Shown at 4:28 for a few frames

Multiple crafting materials and resources confirmed.

 

Credit goes to u/Rhumernaut on Reddit

Did he notice that you can favorite it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerned about the wings, has the same problem the ksp1 wings have where they don't have much in the way of variation.

Hopefully they switch to a system that is more procedural-like, even if it's "procedural with limitations", as that can allow for a greater variety of design options.

 

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

Concerned about the wings, has the same problem the ksp1 wings have where they don't have much in the way of variation.

Hopefully they switch to a system that is more procedural-like, even if it's "procedural with limitations", as that can allow for a greater variety of design options.

 

Yeah procedural wings would be great, but I think if we get procedural wings and they get rid of control surfaces and replace them with the way simple planes does it, then it might ruin some of the challenge and fun of building wings. Although procedural wings and procedural control surfaces that can still be placed anywhere would be awesome and keep the challenges of making recreations, while making it a lot less janky.

Also, there is a category for "Small" so at least we might be able to get some very small wings, which would still be cool for recreations and allow for more specific shapes and styles of wings!

Edited by FrozenFirework
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like a little bit of procedural salt in my KSP 2 porridge.

  • Tanks. Adjust length and top/bottom diameter. If you don't want to make them completely smooth, allow changes in steps.
  • Wings. Adjust shape and size.
  • Solar panels. Change number of rows and columns.

It'd also be cool if we could design our own engines, SimpleRockets style, by combining injectors, combustion chambers, fuel types, and nozzles.

One of the issues with KSP right now is that there are too many parts, especially fuel tanks, yet there are also "missing" parts --  for example I would often like a different form-factor adapter between two different diameters, or to switch a tank from Lf/Ox to Lf only. This could be easily addressed with part variants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FrozenFirework said:

Yeah procedural wings would be great, but I think if we get procedural wings and they get rid of control surfaces and replace them with the way simple planes 2 does it, then it might ruin some of the challenge and fun of building wings. Although procedural wings and procedural control surfaces that can still be placed anywhere would be awesome and keep the challenges of making recreations, while making it a lot less janky.

Also, there is a category for "Small" so at least we might be able to get some very small wings, which would still be cool for recreations and allow for more specific shapes and styles of wings!

 

Just now, Brikoleur said:

I would also like a little bit of procedural salt in my KSP 2 porridge.

  • Tanks. Adjust length and top/bottom diameter. If you don't want to make them completely smooth, allow changes in steps.
  • Wings. Adjust shape and size.
  • Solar panels. Change number of rows and columns.

It'd also be cool if we could design our own engines, SimpleRockets style, by combining injectors, combustion chambers, fuel types, and nozzles.

One of the issues with KSP right now is that there are too many parts, especially fuel tanks, yet there are also "missing" parts --  for example I would often like a different form-factor adapter between two different diameters, or to switch a tank from Lf/Ox to Lf only. This could be easily addressed with part variants. 

you're forgetting one thing, Landing gear that can be stretched or extended.

 

Ideally "procedural" tanks and wings and landing-gear (not sure about solar-panels) would follow some basic logic:

-there's a variety of tanks/wings that are "procedural" and are differentiated from one another.

-when adjusting for size or whatever specific fuel-selection, or if it's shielded, costs in terms of resources (and/or funds if they're added) scale with the part.. not all parts have all options as I think "exotic fuels" are different enough from "real world fuels" that

-stats like mass, drag, lift, etc. also scale, but here's the catch. this scaling is not linear, nor "universal". it follows curves.

example:

->starter wing: either frame+canvas or fiberglass.. (depending on if they bother including propellers in stock KSP2); designed for specific (mostly lower-speed) flight regimes, it's lift/mass/drag/etc. ratio is optimized for making smaller aircraft and will display increasingly undesirable traits when you expand beyond this size-range (or go to far below it).

->tanks that have structural issues if you "stretch them" too much depending on the amount of acceleration or pressure you expose them to.

but yeah fuel switch, at least for "normal" fuels would be a must IMO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, betaking said:

-there's a variety of tanks/wings that are "procedural" and are differentiated from one another.

-when adjusting for size or whatever specific fuel-selection, or if it's shielded, costs in terms of resources (and/or funds if they're added) scale with the part.. not all parts have all options as I think "exotic fuels" are different enough from "real world fuels" that

 

but yeah fuel switch, at least for "normal" fuels would be a must IMO.

 

Its a cool idea but I quite like having specific, non customisable engines, I like the idea of the size and length adjustment of a tank, although I'm not sure about changing fuel types. It feels like it's crossing over into Simple Rockets territory, and I didn't enjoy that game as much as KSP. Whatever the devs do, I'm sure it they can put it into the game in a good way and I wasn't so sure about the terrain before I saw this video and realised how well they pulled it off!

Edit: also I think procedural engines and fuel types might take away from some of that Kerbal charm, although I'm no OG and only started about a year ago so I'm sure I'm not nearly as familiar with Kerbal as other people.

Edited by FrozenFirework
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first unknown icon is likely to be switching between mirror symmetry and the regular one, since it seems both the VAB and Spaceplane hanger are combined into one off-world, having an easier way of switching between the two (as apposed to the current not so obvious method) would likely help those who are newer to the game.

Edited by Retb
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bombaatu said:
On 6/24/2020 at 6:54 PM, The Aziz said:

Ok, so my quick addition of what I think there is

 

J3wz0Vd.png

Any thoughts?

I suspect the icon under the Symmetry one is Angle Snap.

I think you are right on the angle snap. As for the buttons below, I think they are "click and drag your ship", "attach parts to from side", "attach groups of parts to the side" i.e. merge two subassemblies, and "attach craft file saved separately".

I don't think the radioactivity will be a center, but will probably display a cloud around all radioactive sources that can be reformed based on the shield parts on your rocket.l

 

Edited by nikokespprfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FrozenFirework said:

I like the idea of the size and length adjustment of a tank, although I'm not sure about changing fuel types. It feels like it's crossing over into Simple Rockets territory, and I didn't enjoy that game as much as KSP.

There are already several fuel/propellant types we know of, in addition to the ones we have in KSP 1 (Lf, Ox, monoprop, Xe). The different fuels are already a bit of an annoyance, e.g. when building nuclear rockets. I can't see how they can keep the part count from completely exploding if they don't allow specifying fuel type. 

I agree that KSP shouldn't try to go too far into SimpleRockets territory though -- I like it that they're different, and the "absolutely everything procedural" thing in SimpleRockets would not work for KSP. There has to be a bit of wackiness left in KSP or it wouldn't be KSP, and kludging together parts is a part of the charm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I was proposing would basically be that, but also allow for "fudging" a bit when needed without resorting to clipping, you see each "sweet spot" would be different.

that or there could be "fixed ranges" for certain fuel tanks (IE: you can only make it so much bigger or smaller.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

There are already several fuel/propellant types we know of, in addition to the ones we have in KSP 1 (Lf, Ox, monoprop, Xe). The different fuels are already a bit of an annoyance, e.g. when building nuclear rockets. I can't see how they can keep the part count from completely exploding if they don't allow specifying fuel type. 

I agree that KSP shouldn't try to go too far into SimpleRockets territory though -- I like it that they're different, and the "absolutely everything procedural" thing in SimpleRockets would not work for KSP. There has to be a bit of wackiness left in KSP or it wouldn't be KSP, and kludging together parts is a part of the charm.

Good point on procedural fuel types, with all the new engine types it might become a necessity like you said, and your right about the Simple Rockets point, I love the charm of KSP being a bit messy like you said, and I think that mess is what enables such cool builds and missions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how base building will work? Maybe we could build our own custom habitats like a house looking one and then save it as a sub assembly and use it in future colonies - or maybe we will only be able to use specific buildings given to us? Hopefully we could do both!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

This is a beautiful breakdown,  @The Doodling Astronaut. Many of your guesses are correct! :)

I literally exploded in joy that I got most correct

I'm glad you guys are doing great and staying safe! 

Edited by The Doodling Astronaut
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The launch pad looks like it's going to have the vehicle built inside with an editor, then the vehicle gets raised up to the top to launch, or it comes out of the side and uses the ramp. 2 in 1 VAB/SPH maybe?

Bingo!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

 

Glad to see that @Nate Simpson is on the forums more often now.

Keep up the good work!

I reckon he always was, just not as himself.

He's been playing KSP for years, so my guess is he's been on the forums for quite a while before he started working on KSP2.

Edited by pandaman
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 7:54 PM, The Aziz said:

Ok, so my quick addition of what I think there is

 

J3wz0Vd.png

Any thoughts?

The thing under symmetry multiplier is obviously switch between radial and mirrored symmetry modes. It is currently set to radial as you can see by the 4 parts round the center being radially symmetrical.

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...