Jump to content

KSP 2 Ideas that don't merit their own thread.


Recommended Posts

I would like to see, optionally, a hybrid between KSP1's Science Mode and Career Mode. Basically what KSP1 Science Mode is except with a money-budget as well.

In this option, players wouldn't have to manage a base-budget, reputation, or the base-upgrades and such.

Players would be assigned missions, and I like the idea of a running money budget where money saved on a mission gets carried and added into the next, while others might like it where coming in under budget doesn't add any benefit to the next mission budget (but perhaps increases the players score/reputation. - I don't like managing reputation for a base, but perhaps the player has a reputation with KSP. Fail too many missions and you lose? Succeed and get a score. Succeed while coming in way under budget, and get a high score!)

I like being able to unlock things in the tech tree, and the tech tree doesn't change.

I also like the idea of an optional mode where the tech tree unlocks randomly, making it so that I don't get to decide how the technology advances and have to work with what I get. - There would need to be a bit of logic to it so the missions be accomplished, or at least the missions that get assigned would need to be assigned based on what is unlocked.

I also think it'd be neat if we had to test things before they got unlocked, and that while testing items had a chance or higher chance of failure. Having to run each piece of equipment through it's paces before it's unlocked completely would be interesting.

Or perhaps, a mode where things have a chance of failure, but the more a player uses them, the lower the chance of failure for that type of item becomes. The more you use it, the more reliable it becomes and more perfected.

On 10/15/2021 at 4:34 PM, SOXBLOX said:

I was thinking about camera angles and stuff...

If there are going to be cameras as science parts or something, then could we set them as our viewpoint? That way we could see exactly what Mission Control would see. I think it might be a nice touch...

It'd be fun to have a mode where you can only play through camera angles when there's no Kerbal on board. Kind of like how you can play with complete loss of control on probes in KSP1, partial loss, or no loss.

There could be a step-further hardcore mode, where it's like that and then when a Kerbal is on board, they're basically just another camera. Like first person mode that already exists in KSP1, except in this hardcore mode you have to use it or the other cameras you've attached.

On 10/21/2021 at 4:59 PM, TLTay said:

Could we get a landing radar part for use when landing in the dark? It could display the ground in a low fidelity green phosphor grid pattern or something on screen so we have some idea where we are in relation to the features around us. Bonus points for short range and conical fov.

I think I'd like a red color, so maybe color adjustable. But great idea!

On 11/19/2021 at 6:56 PM, tremonthedgehog said:

like you can install mods without using file explorer kinda like steam

Does the mod folder in KSP1 even work? So many mods say to use the main KSP folder and the ones that install themselves put themselves in the main folder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to be able to add objects symmetrically, and then have them each on a different control group.

So, if I add three experiment-instruments around a ship, I can do it easily and have them properly balanced around the ship, and each on a different action group.

On 8/13/2021 at 10:20 AM, pandaman said:

Sorry, but I disagree.  I don't want to have to perpetually 'nurse' all my comms and survey sats (70+ currently).

I just 'assume' orbital decay happens, but that a team back at KSC constantly monitor and make minor tweaks to keep them all stable.  Ok I know fuel should deplete over time if that were actually simulated, but it's a game, and I want to do 'cool stuff', not housekeeping.

One person's 'yes,' and another person's 'no' in a video game can be the developer's on/off option button in a menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 10:20 AM, Pthigrivi said:

One thing I'd love to see is a sensible way to save recovered vessels or recycle them for scrap.  This isn't a big deal in KSP1 because you're just recovering them for cash on Kerbin, but with off-world bases and stations and using raw building materials I think it would be useful to scrap and melt-down a vessel entirely (at some loss), or recover it to the the local VAB to be refueled or modified and then relaunched. Any parts added would be considered made from scratch at cost at launch, and any parts removed would be considered scrapped. This would let players take advantage of reusable vehicles and still let them refurbish or augment them over time. 

I've had this sort of thing happen to me several times: There's the prefab ship where it's a plane that you can launch a rocket from under it's middle... I was playing around with it, launched my rocket, and then the plane got deleted by the time I got the rocket into orbit. I tried it the other way around, and the rocket usually crashes before I can land the plane, or gets deleted.

I strongly suspect it's due to technical issues and difficulties.

However, I think it'd be really cool to be able to fly one of the craft, do whatever needs to be done with it (either put it into orbit or land it, whatever), and then rewind time and fly the other craft while the first craft goes through the motions that I just did with it. Essentially controlling both craft in-game simultaneously, but asynchronously-simultaneously.  - Crashing into the 'first craft' with the 'second craft' would break the pre-programmed path it would take from the time I flew it beforehand, but other than that, if the crafts don't interfere with each other, I can then fly my rocket up into orbit while my jet lands itself, because I already landed it (and then rewound and am now flying the rocket).

Optionally, if I could stick a parachute and a sensor or AI module onto something, and then if it's going to be deleted, it gets counted as fully recovered instead.

It requires the cost and weight of the parachute, as well as the cost and weight of tiny sensor(s) that would trigger the opening of those parachutes.

Another optionally, an advanced enough onboard computer or experienced enough Kerbal should be able to land a craft without me.

I get that the style of the game is that we pilot the craft, not MechJeb (nice mod! that I don't use) but, if I'm piloting a craft... why not (at least with an experienced enough Kerbal or onboard computer) be able to assume the craft lands itself instead of losing it? - I mean, if the craft has to be deleted... Make it an upgrade that we don't lose (and the crew on board) it when it's deleted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the VAB user interface, it has essentially been confirmed that you can keep the parts from a ship to minimize cost. I would also like a good way to complete multiple synchronous missions, even though with multiplayer you can have the other person pilot the other half. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 10:50 PM, Sasuga said:

I would like to see, optionally, a hybrid between KSP1's Science Mode and Career Mode. Basically what KSP1 Science Mode is except with a money-budget as well.

Devs already said that there won't be a Career Mode, but there will be an Adventure mode which won't have credits but uses your advancement in space exploration for the progress. It sounds pretty much like what you are describing. You can probably search for the term on the forum for threads with more information.

So now we should actually hope not for the new modes but for the Career to come back, because many players actually like an additional challenge of making cheapest effective rockets and maintaining the space program. Maybe it could be implemented as a DLC. Of course mods will add it soon after the release but mods that add such complex systems from scratch usually have troubles with maintaining, consistency and being up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 7:00 PM, desert said:

So now we should actually hope not for the new modes but for the Career to come back, because many players actually like an additional challenge of making cheapest effective rockets and maintaining the space program. Maybe it could be implemented as a DLC. Of course mods will add it soon after the release but mods that add such complex systems from scratch usually have troubles with maintaining, consistency and being up to date.

We don’t really know how Adventure mode is going to handle all this or whether money will be a thing or not but there are other ways to handle part costs, through mass and raw materials. I guess we’ll see. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has been suggested, but a a second persistent autosave that is every hour, so that if you made a major mistake while being too caught up to remember to save yourself, you have a chance to recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Can we have the Project Orion engine as an enormously expensive low tech solution that gets quickly obsolete? 

In terms of stats, it has a higher isp than the NERV and a much much higher thrust, so it will probably be in the middle of the tech tree, rather than near the bottom, although hopefully with a lot of engines above it. 
 

Also, for recurrent missions, I’d like a menu where you can manage the frequency of missions or even cancel them to balance resource transfer rates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2021 at 12:32 PM, t_v said:

In terms of stats, it has a higher isp than the NERV and a much much higher thrust

I really don't understand this.  I'm no expert, but I can't imagine how a pusher plate design would be superior to a static nozzle.  You're losing most of your energy out the sides of the plate, and bombs are less efficient to store than liquid fuel, as well as being harder to move around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you lose a lot more energy proportional to the amount of energy that your propellant releases, but you get a lot more energy out of your propellant. Or at least that’s my understanding of it. Essentially, the reaction going on in the NERV produces less energy than a small nuclear explosion per unit of fuel, which is enough for the pulse engine to have a higher isp than the NERV. In terms of bombs vs liquid fuel, the packing density makes less of a difference than the material that you use. Remember, NERVs heat up regular fuel via a small amount of nuclear catalyst, whereas the Orion engine contains fuel that is almost entirely fissile material, packing a much higher energy density than the fuel.

One thing to note is that as you get into fusion engines, those engines will rapidly outpace the isp of the Orion and the NERV, because fusion creates a lot more energy than fission per mass of reactant (at least I think so). If you have played modded, the powerful nuclear engines that you have probably played with are fusion, and in those cases having a nozzle (or at least a magnetic nozzle) is helpful for capturing all of the energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense now, thanks. 

On 12/5/2021 at 12:11 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Can we have the Project Orion engine as an enormously expensive low tech solution that gets quickly obsolete?

This is an interesting issue.  They are (for reasons that I now understand) very powerful, but they're not that hard to make.  From what I understand, the only reason we're not using them today is because of nuclear test ban treaties.  I think they could have been built with about Apollo-era tech, because they're just not that complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2021 at 9:07 AM, Ember12 said:

You're losing most of your energy out the sides of the plate

Yes, but for high explosive bombs that doesn't really matter, and shaped charges are a thing. A high yield shaped charge could focus most of the blast on the plate.

On 12/7/2021 at 9:07 AM, Ember12 said:

bombs are less efficient to store than liquid fuel

Bombs are not less efficient to store than liquid fuel, especially given that most rocket fuels are cryogenic. You could feasibly stick lots of small high yield bombs on a rack, and feed them out one by one. 

One reason is why the orion drive is so useful is because it would have a phenomenal payload to propellant ratio. Pretty sure it is 1/3 or 2/3rds payload.

I think a bigger problem would being what you would do if the pusher plate broke.

Edit: Casaba Howitzer

Edited by Admiral Fluffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add, nuclear fission is, by weight, extremelyinsanely efficient. NTRs simply use 'waste' heat from a reactor to get 'hot hot gas' out the nozzle. It's a very controlled procedure, and extra care must be taken not to let the reactor get too hot. In all, however, NTRs aren't true exotic engines. They simply do what chemical engines do already but more efficiently. 

NPP just blows it all out the window. Normal explosives would be less efficient by weight, but nuclear weapons are a few orders of magnitude better. It's not even close. The drawback of NPP is that it doesn't lend well to miniaturization. In fact, you get better returns the bigger you go (though you eventually hit pretty big engineering walls soon enough). I'm really looking forward to using NPP in KSP2, actually (unless they changed their mind since the showcase video).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2021 at 7:49 AM, Dientus said:

Some may not like this, and it's similar to other ideas previously, but I think it could be interesting if in MP if you do not have a clear line of communication to the other players location you can not communicate with them, or its garbled.

 

Yes I realize ship switching could circumvent. LoL just a thought.

 

I don’t know if I got this wrong but maybe you can’t chat(assuming that there is chat.)or maybe you can’t see the other player’s location but only the last seen location.

If there is build in discord-like system the that system will be disabled in till they regain contact. Of course this could get very annoying and could be disabled in settings (assuming there is server settings).
 

This will also be doable by mods but sounds very difficult for modders as well as time and dedication to get that working in a mod.

Well I’m out, Big thanks to the Devs for listening to the community. Keep doing great work for the game’s franchise and make sure this is worthy for my 60 buckaroos!

On 12/10/2021 at 7:08 PM, TheOrbitalMechanic said:

Kerbals growing their hair out on long missions!

Maybe, but I’d find that quite annoying.

On 12/4/2021 at 9:43 PM, DJDoesKSP said:

 Better animations, basically just give more things animations so it seams more alive.
For example: capsule doors

EVA science!

taking off helmets and neck rings 

personal parachute deployment 

Also in the trailer there is a centrifugal ring. Could we see kerbals moving around in there? As well as kerbals walking around colonys.


This is probably something that need it’s own tread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2021 at 4:41 PM, Admiral Fluffy said:

Yes, but for high explosive bombs that doesn't really matter, and shaped charges are a thing. A high yield shaped charge could focus most of the blast on the plate.

Bombs are not less efficient to store than liquid fuel, especially given that most rocket fuels are cryogenic. You could feasibly stick lots of small high yield bombs on a rack, and feed them out one by one. 

One reason is why the orion drive is so useful is because it would have a phenomenal payload to propellant ratio. Pretty sure it is 1/3 or 2/3rds payload.

I think a bigger problem would being what you would do if the pusher plate broke.

Pusher plate repair:  100 repair kits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raytracing support.

Raytracing support is fairly useless in most games, but games that include a lot of reflective surfaces, glass, and areal lights will make use of raytracing.

KSP happens to have all of them. Rockets are made of metal, and you can leave it unpainted and it will be reflective. all cockpits will be glass, as well as space suit helmets. The closer you are to a star, the bigger angular area it will take on the screen making the shadows softer. Implementing a blackhole will definitely make it look slightly more accurate too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2021 at 1:01 AM, Admiral Fluffy said:

In the colony construction, let us make monorails that can take Kerbal diffent places, or even another colony. 

The rails would be fairly cheap, but the train part would be much more expensive.

The part manufactutear would be KNRF, or Kerbin National Railway Foundaion.

I'm trying to make a monorail in "stock" KSP (without monorail or trains or railways mods) on Minmus using the Ground Anchor. Results planned in one year or so.

Also, I won't forget KSP1 for KSP2, as KSP1 is and will remain my favourite video game after HyperRogue.

Edited by Nazalassa
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...