Jump to content

KSP2 Podcast Discussion


Rock3tman_
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!
My college rocket team is putting on a podcast called the Midwest Rocketry Forum this fall, and for our second episode I got to sit down with Nate Simpson and Paul Furio of the KSP2 team to discuss the game. Tune in to learn some new things about the game!

You can listen to the podcast on our website here, or on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, which the website has links to.

Let me know what you think, and if you are interested, register on our website to get alerts for future episodes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I need to find time for this. Hopefully I can. I looks interesting!

Guys you need to listen to this, IT'S A MUST LISTEN!

Thoughts thru podcast (includes spoilers): 

Spoiler

-Nice back story. I totally agree with what you said about the value of KSP.

-Wow interesting thoughts from Nate on interstellar travel vs interplanetary. Again the podcast talks about it well.

-Torchships!

-Thoughts on N-body physics are interesting, wow!

-differences of KSP 1 and KSP 2 are awesome. Improvements.

-I like what he said about interstellar vehicles, it makes sense.

-Infrastructures! YAS!

-Multiplayer still secret secret

-Tutorials are a big part of the game I like how Nate wants to point that out

-Nice talking about RO. I think RO is one of the most popular mods too

-Interesting how Paul says they aren't fully ready to talk about mods for KSP 1. I like how he points out the frustration of updating mods. Also them talking to modders is great.

-Nice shoutout to @Nertea

-Playable to Mortal beings! HA HA :D!!!

-Interesting thoughts about progression (and the example of Rask and Rusk is interesting [looks like they will be the difficult planets])

-Keeping up with Elon Musk is the challenge of this game! Ha HA :D!!! 

-Autonomously landing booster thoughts would be interesting. Nice they asked you.

-KSP is a game about rockets, and that part of space exploration is shrinking. Interesting

-Interesting thoughts about making this game about rockets instead of something like breakthrough starshot. And maybe adding those other techs into the future.

-A cool mod devs said would be to make engines in an engine assembly

-Rocket's simulator not launch mechanics simulator

-JPL workers playing KSP at home :D 

-Hardcore players on the Forums!!! :D 

-The story about the teacher is hilarious

-I agree on you saying that space exploration is noble on human history

-Interesting answer on science exploration.

-Dead Kraken at Bop, KSP 1 already had interplanetary life LOL. No comment on search for life for KSP 2

-KSP 2 multiplayer is gonna be lit.

-Finding balance for KSP 2. So not too much departure from the og KSP

-VR thoughts

-Varieties on gameplay styles

-Base roles interesting

-Resource collection!

-Automation after one flight proven. Interesting.

-Interstellar Dust!

-Interesting thoughts about burning through half of trajectory and Interstellar Dust would complicate things very hard.

-So Interstellar Dust will be a mod suggestion interesting.

-I like how Nate tries not to get into trouble. But just having more support is interesting and satisfying enough for now :) 

-Nate being nerdy about Power Energy. LOL

- Nate Simpson, can you share an image of the Starship Enterprise with an X on it? I wanna see

-whoever is discussing about Metallic Hydrogen jump to 62:00 for Nate's Thoughts

-Nate Simpson's views on Metallic Hydrogen are awesome

-Thoughts on powering engines are interesting

-More information on KSP vehicles and importing some mods to be stock

-Adding a divepool to KSP LOL

-I think they might be referencing to Parallax here. Nice mention @Gameslinx.

-Setting a good standard. Thanks for that.

-The one thing you can't do. Good question. (A: Solar Sails interesting ; VR)

-Nice thoughts on deciding classes ahead of time. Good wisdom by Paul.

-I agree with Paul, KSP 2 will be a great game thanks to it's staff

-I'm glad to have Simpson on this team too

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nate Simpson said:

This was a ton of fun to record. Thanks for taking the time to put together such great questions!

Now I need to figure out where at KSC to put the dive pool...

Absolutely, I need to reiterate how awesome the whole KSP team was to work with on this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final Thoughts on the Podcast:

First off, @Nate Simpson (and Paul) and @Rock3tman_ you guys are awesome!

I think good points where made out. I can see how hard it is to make updates and where you have to put the wall to prevent spoilers. So the fact you found things to tease us with is fascinating. I also love the progression of difficulty and personally I can't wait to see the challenges of planets like Rask and Rusk firsthand. I also agree with KSP being a rocket game where the other cool space stuff can be done with mods (I think Subs would be cool but probably not the vibe of KSP 2 rocketry.) Also thank you for mentioning the Metallic Hydrogen. That topic in the forums has been a wildfire and you talking about it was nice. I also love the thinking of finding the right balance for stuff of not going push a button bot but you aren't going full aerospace engineer level.

Also, I would love to see the Kraken at Bop make it's way to KSP 2 :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you @Rock3tman_ and @Nate Simpson, the podcast is a goldmine of new information that I have to add to the "i think they confirmed that in some interview" inventory.

 

Scrolling through my notes after listening the big all-caps are:

  • Infrastructure
  • Location
  • Sandbox

Not going to spoil anything more for the next few days, go listen to the podcast the words mean more than it may seem at first.

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Not going to spoil anything more for the next few day, go listen to the podcast the words mean more than it may seem at first.

Yas guys go watch  listen to it!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nate Simpson said:

This was a ton of fun to record. Thanks for taking the time to put together such great questions!

Now I need to figure out where at KSC to put the dive pool...

The KSC Divepool? Well. I think there would be two. One at the Administarion like the old KSC. And a pool at the astronaut complex. Jeb needs a pool to swim in right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very informative, if you can draw conclusions from incomplete information. Or at least one can speculate from what was talked about. Thanks @Rock3tman_ for posting the interview and thanks Nate and Paul for doing it. Now its just waiting for someone to transcribe it, you know, to use for points of reference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the procedural engines possibilities being thrown out

Perhaps subassemblies will allow part joining to create single parts from multiple sub parts and we could genuinely see mods that allow engine building/designing :)

 

Also...

Quote

We have radically expanded the types of science collection you can do in the game

*Welling sense of hope intensifies*

41:30 Confirmation of no procedural parts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48:00ish

Bases are rigid bodies, how will FPS not slow to a crawl near one?

Also, how will the hopping that ships do sometimes when coming out of time-warp be solved, will there be anchors?  If it isn't sometimes when coming out of time-warp whole bases will hop and that can't end well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

48:00ish

Bases are rigid bodies, how will FPS not slow to a crawl near one?

Also, how will the hopping that ships do sometimes when coming out of time-warp be solved, will there be anchors?  If it isn't sometimes when coming out of time-warp whole bases will hop and that can't end well.

Same way they're going to have 10,000 part interstellar ships. Physics LOD, should be especially effective on bases since the only time you'd need to calculate physics between the elements once setup is if some catastrophic event occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

the only time you'd need to calculate physics between the elements once setup is if some catastrophic event occurred.

It sounded like they'll be simulating constantly, not only upon impact (which is what I assumed before), which is why I felt surprised. Maybe I'm misinterpreting 

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It sounded like they'll be simulating constantly, not only upon impact (which is what I assumed before), which is why I felt surprised. Maybe I'm misinterpreting 

I'm literally listening to the podcast now as I'm working on some Java code, so I'll get back to you once I'm more than 20 minutes in xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~1:14:00 - ~1:17:30

In KSP1 if your ship has 1000 parts; your computer no matter what isn't having a good time.

"That's one of the big boulders we've decided to tackle. And in [KSP2] there's so many more systems, and elements being processed in the background that we need to be sure what you're seeing on screen is behaving in a physically accurate way, but all of these things in the background aren't going straight off the rails as you're progressing. "

It seems they've committed wholesale to getting the basic foundation built, and solidly at that. That above everything else excites me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

~1:14:00 - ~1:17:30

In KSP1 if your ship has 1000 parts; your computer no matter what isn't having a good time.

"That's one of the big boulders we've decided to tackle. And in [KSP2] there's so many more systems, and elements being processed in the background that we need to be sure what you're seeing on screen is behaving in a physically accurate way, but all of these things in the background aren't going straight off the rails as you're progressing. "

It seems they've committed wholesale to getting the basic foundation built, and solidly at that. That above everything else excites me.

I wonder if the stilts the buildings are on will have rigid body or if they can provide a more stable platform

 

Also, when @Nate Simpson was talking about logistics he mentioned it would be managed by automating a ships route after proving they are capable of flying that route. I wonder how this will play out with ships launched from the same platform to the same platform  as prior if the first launch was during a launch window of low dv requirements and the now automated launch is scheduled at a less efficient window.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I wonder if the stilts the buildings are on will have rigid body or if they can provide a more stable platform

 

Also, when @Nate Simpson was talking about logistics he mentioned it would be managed by automating a ships route after proving they are capable of flying that route. I wonder how this will play out with ships launched from the same platform to the same platform  as prior if the first launch was during a launch window of low dv requirements and the now automated launch is scheduled at a less efficient window.

If it's on rails the launch would always have to be at the same time if I'm not mistaken, that's why he mentions that the player would have to fly additional missions to "Create" different routes.

And yeah, they have to have rigid body to interact with the buildings or ground. Otherwise they'd just have no collision and phase thru the ground. We have parts in KSP that don't have collision (All parts attached to the same ship), but still interact with other objects. So it's possible they might be going for something that would become part of the structure when engage (Welded), but still interact with the ground in a more simplified and durable way (Similar to modded harpoons, which still aren't perfect). That way if the kraken did rear it's head, the entire building and it's stilts would move instead of the stilts becoming projectiles and causing failures in unexpected ways.

This would also distribute the "Load" over the entire area, and scale much, much better for larger structures. Just me guessing though; KSP2 using a single layer for terrain makes nailing the interaction between structures and the ground extremely difficult. But they're already aware of this, which is why everything is on stilts. It's literally the only way to do it, even KSP1 colonization mods resort to propping their structures up eventually (Or rather,giving the player the means to do so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

If it's on rails the launch would always have to be at the same time if I'm not mistaken, that's why he mentions that the player would have to fly additional missions to "Create" different routes.

And yeah, they have to have rigid body to interact with the buildings or ground. Otherwise they'd just have no collision and phase thru the ground. We have parts in KSP that don't have collision (All parts attached to the same ship), but still interact with other objects. So it's possible they might be going for something that would become part of the structure when engage (Welded), but still interact with the ground in a more simplified and durable way (Similar to modded harpoons, which still aren't perfect). That way if the kraken did rear it's head, the entire building and it's stilts would move instead of the stilts becoming projectiles and causing failures in unexpected ways.

This would also distribute the "Load" over the entire area, and scale much, much better for larger structures. Just me guessing though; KSP2 using a single layer for terrain makes nailing the interaction between structures and the ground extremely difficult. But they're already aware of this, which is why everything is on stilts. It's literally the only way to do it, even KSP1 colonization mods resort to propping their structures up eventually (Or rather,giving the player the means to do so).

I'm no game developer, but it seems to me that KSP1 doesn't have any "stability" mechanics except for the launch clamps.

Wouldn't it save a lot of performance on surfaces to have the crafts just become static after 10 seconds or so of being, let's say, under 0.1 m/s and then remain that way until you move them and/or collide with them?

I don't think that there's a lot of gameplay to be lost in removing the slow random slide at 1cm/minute during timewarp.

And the same could be said about orbital structures oscillating, under some threshold they should just be considered as stable and still and save a lot of performance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'm no game developer, but it seems to me that KSP1 doesn't have any "stability" mechanics except for the launch clamps.

Wouldn't it save a lot of performance on surfaces to have the crafts just become static after 10 seconds or so of being, let's say, under 0.1 m/s and then remain that way until you move them and/or collide with them?

I don't think that there's a lot of gameplay to be lost in removing the slow random slide at 1cm/minute during timewarp.

And the same could be said about orbital structures oscillating, under some threshold they should just be considered as stable and still and save a lot of performance.

 

KSP doesn't, but mods for it try. Which is what I was referring to. And that could open up a entire new can of worms actually.

Do you know why the wheels and landing legs sometimes fling you back up into space on load? It's because the game thinks they're underneath the surface, but then on load is rudely told it's supposed to be a leg on the ground.

The resulting correction occasionally becomes enough of a jolt to send you hyperbolic. So if you just stopped something moving when it should be rolling down a gentle hill....well in the best case you snapped the former structure in half.

Worst? Potentially game breaking/save breaking bugs. 

That's why stilts work, they keep the structure at a positive height at all times even if the stilts don't quite manage to remain firmly grounded.

For spacecraft though, none of that applies. And I won't be too surprised if the dynamic welding done by the physics LOD system also has the side effects of basically eliminating vibration.

Keeping track of 22 massive "parts" is much, much easier than trying to figure out what the entire 10000 would do to each other. 

But personally I would think that wobble isn't that much of a performance impact by itself, I've flown asparagus spaghetti stacks into orbit and had rock solid FPS. But when part counts get into the several hundreds you get more wobble and less performance.

I wouldn't mind many, many more options for keeping stuff still though in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

So if you just stopped something moving when it should be rolling down a gentle hill....well in the best case you snapped the former structure in half.

Worst? Potentially game breaking/save breaking bugs. 

That's why stilts work, they keep the structure at a positive height at all times even if the stilts don't quite manage to remain firmly grounded.

I was thinking more about something on the line of:

"This thing hasn't moved 1 m in over 15 seconds, now it's considered 'still' its speed compared to the ground is 0 and we stop checking if the ground is there 20 times a second until the player moves it or a collision happens"

 

25 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But personally I would think that wobble isn't that much of a performance impact by itself

I read wobble, sliding and vibrations as a proof that Kerbal continues to check physics even for static objects that aren't doing anything, linking them to the ground, soldering parts and keeping things above ground are just workarounds to the fact that Kerbal treats everything as a moving veichles at all times, isn't that a huge possible source of optimization?

 

Even with building acting as "rigid bodies arrays", that doesn't mean they have to be constantly checked to see if they're stable, you just do the math once when building (to check if you're overextending, overloading or putting the building out of balance) and then consider it a static object until the next build phase or collision.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...