Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 4 - Celestial Architecting


CoolRanchAJ
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Ksp2 could fix that by adding some reflective material to, what they call it, scaled space? of the planets far far away (forgive me messing up technical speak), so you could technically see a bright point in the sky, that unfortunately wouldn't be a planet, only a texture, but that's about it. If needed, I dunno.

It wouldn’t need to literally be the planet itself, even if it is just something in place of it as you described, it would be nice to have.

I don’t recall exactly when, but wasn’t it mentioned that you would be able to study stars from a distance before traveling to them? Instead of just having everything visible in map view in the beginning. Although it isn’t entirely related, being able to see them through a telescope (or just having a telescope pet that scans them) would sort of require being able to “see” objects from very far distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t recall exactly when, but wasn’t it mentioned that you would be able to study stars from a distance before traveling to them? Instead of just having everything visible in map view in the beginning. Although it isn’t entirely related, being able to see them through a telescope (or just having a telescope pet that scans them) would sort of require being able to “see” objects from very far distance.

I believe it was, but I think that it would make sense that you can see the original planets from the map screen. We knew about Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn without telescopes. And Uranus and Neptune with them. I think we should be able to see where the stars are, but not the planets orbiting them. (Without some research.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 5:59 PM, SciMan said:

Do you think the stars we'll actually be able to visit will be clearly visible in the skybox? I would hope that they are

That is certainly possible, and would be nice.

There is a KSP1 mod Distant Object Enhancement that tries to give planets, moons, and our craft, a little bit closer to the correct brightness relative to the skybox.  Then we can see Duna from night side of Kerbin as easily as we see Mars from Earth.  Nearby stars are likely to be brighter than Duna.

The brightness balancing also means that often you cannot see the skybox when a lit planetary surface is in view.  The mod adjusts the brightness depending on what is in view, to show what would be visible to the eye, within the limited brightness range of a computer monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2021 at 9:42 PM, Nate Simpson said:

Yep, that's me.

The new Eve looks awesome.

Should be much more tolerable to be stuck on it's surface now 

On 10/29/2021 at 6:43 PM, Nate Simpson said:

This is Charr -- innermost planet in the Debdeb System. :)

It seems to be glowing from within (because only the low areas are glowing), is if it's internal heat (shortly after formation?) But the comment about it being the innermost planet makes me think it is glowing because it is heated by the sun.

If that's the case, then shouldn't the entire daylight surface glow red, not just the areas closer to the center?

The low areas glowing in the night would be fine.

It would be interesting to have some dynamic changes to the glow as it rotates... Light at dusk the lowlands and mountains both glow, at midnight, only the lowlands, and then just before dawn, nothing is glowing, or the lowlands are at their dimmest...

Also, if that's the innermost planet of debdeb, and Ovin is >10 kerbin masses and in the Deb Deb system: then Ovin must be significantly farther out, meaning it is less likely to have proximity to it's sun as an explanation for how it is not a gas giant at that mass....

Can you elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A suggestion made earlier in this thread sparked a spirited and lively discussion, with many posts.

Though the debate was clearly of interest to multiple people, and certainly pertinent to KSP2 (as a suggestion)... it was only tangentially related to the topic of this thread, and ended up derailing this thread in the process.

Accordingly, we've moved the discussion over into a thread of its own, which anyone who's interested can find over here:

We now return you to your original thread, already in progress.  Thank you for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

DebDeb system is stacked. 

Charr

Gurdamma & Donk

Ovin

Glumo, Merbel, and other unkown moons

Hope this systembis close to the Kerbolar system because it seems so cool.

Is it just me but.. DebDeb.. Donk... Did they run out of ideas for names? :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the worlds on display, but I’m wondering a lot about the rest of the solar systems as well. What are the stars themselves like? If Gurdamma is meant to simulate a Hadean-era Earth, then it would seem to follow that DebDeb is a young star as well. Will it be visibly different in any way? And if we assume that there are at least 2 new systems to visit, could there be a different style of a star entirely? Perhaps a red dwarf, Proxima Centauri-style? Or even a giant?  What would comets look like around systems like that? There’s so much that’s possible that a game like this can only scratch the surface of, but I’m excited to see where all this is headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Aziz I doubt that any of these screencaps are planetary bodies in the Kerbal system. The pics that appears similar Duna has too many craters while Duna is mostly made up of canyons , the second pic I would believe it to be Kerbin either from one of its poles or mountain tops, and I have been to Vall where most of its surface is level and glossy like glass there are hardly any mountain ranges that resemble the screencaps. I believe that all of the screenshots are teases of new exoplanets or at least are meant to be demos of terrains in the new engine. 

Edited by FaceRiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but to feel disappointed with the changes made to Minmus from a icy moon to a rock and glassy one. I understand the idea of making the Kerbol system more realistic in a new game engine but they have claimed in the past that they will leave planets the same as there were in KSP 1. It makes me wonder how they would change other planets for realism such as Laythe for having liquid oceans despite being so far to the sun as well as Eve having oceans while being so close to the sun. To me it didn't matter that the planets weren't realistic because they all have unique challenges. So I guess as long as the Kerbol planets  play the same in KSP 2 it shouldn't matter what they look like. I'm complaining about inane things I'm sure Its just off putting seeing changes to the planets that have been the same for almost a decade and are now in HD.  

Edited by FaceRiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laythe'll likely keep its oceans, you could make an arguement that the orbital perterbations (I think, see the inner most moon of Jupiter) and the insanely salty water coupled w/ volcanic activity give it its liquid oceans. Eve's just it's own special hell, and I'd love to have an asteroid belt where you could predictably fund asteroids and have a few w/ gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

I’d love to have an asteroid belt where you could predictably fund asteroids and have a few w/ gravity.

*cough* Dres *cough*

As for naming the planets etc., so what if they have silly made-up names? Gurdamma, Murble, Debdeb and Donk aren’t any stranger than Callirhoe, Megaclite, Quaoar and Biden (it’s a real thing, look it up!).

Edited by jimmymcgoochie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FaceRiver said:

Duna is mostly made up of canyons , [...] and I have been to Vall where most of its surface is level and glossy like glass there are hardly any mountain ranges

So you know Duna and Vall from KSP1. You've clearly noticed how different some bodies look in KSP2, take the Mun or Dres as an example. So currently there's no way to tell if Duna got some craters like she had a long time ago, or if Vall became slightly more bumpy.

7 hours ago, FaceRiver said:

they have claimed in the past that they will leave planets the same as there were in KSP 1.

This topic was brought up somewhere else recently, but what they said was that they're going to keep the Kerbol system unchanged on a fundamental level. So, Planets are still the same size, going on the same orbits, same general feeling (as in, they won't make a tropical paradise out of Eve, it still will be a purple hell).

8 hours ago, FaceRiver said:

how they would change other planets for realism such as Laythe for having liquid oceans despite being so far to the sun as well as Eve having oceans while being so close to the sun.

Oceans of what? For what I know, Eve could have bodies of liquid made of mercury. As for Laythe? How does lakes of Titan work? I don't think any liquid in ksp1 was specified, though I could be wrong. Not to mention countless theories about how Laythe is this warm so far away (internal heating, tidal heating, greenhouse effect etc)

8 hours ago, FaceRiver said:

as long as the Kerbol planets  play the same in KSP 2 it shouldn't matter what they look like. I'm complaining about inane things I'm sure Its just off putting seeing changes to the planets that have been the same for almost a decade and are now in HD.  

Wasn't that one of the most known complains about the first game? Planets being boring with nothing to do and nothing to see? I wouldn't want the planets in ksp2 to play the same, because there wasn't much play in the first place. Land, plant a flag, grab science, get out. The remakes encourage exploration, make you want to travel beyond the next hill to see what's there.

But about that last bit, of all things that surround you, nothing have changed in the last decade? Why is it off-putting to see progress, improvement? Even radical, but for the better? Several years ago I was very sceptic about the direction of some kinds of technology. I see now how stupid I was. Yes it was new, yes it was different, but I had no real reason to dislike it, and yet I did. Now I know to treat new things with open mind. If Minmus is no longer icy, because there's a good explanation behind it, I don't see why not. Not like it was going to affect my gameplay, and yet, with it being more scientifically accurate, some people may learn from it. I remember old video from the devs, I think one of the first, they said if the game teaches something, and encourage someone to seek for more knowledge, it's job very well done. And it's great.

With all that said, we haven't seen new Laythe yet. Devs, pls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

 

13 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

I’d love to have an asteroid belt where you could predictably fund asteroids and have a few w/ gravity.

*cough* Dres *cough*

 

 

Yeah,for finding asteroids, Dres is actually quite interesting, and you can make cool asteroid bases from it. I really hope that asteroids become useful in some other way than refueling, so that Dres is really worth visiting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

So you know Duna and Vall from KSP1. You've clearly noticed how different some bodies look in KSP2, take the Mun or Dres as an example. So currently there's no way to tell if Duna got some craters like she had a long time ago, or if Vall became slightly more bumpy.

After I posted this I saw some footages of KSP 2's Duna and it does have a lot more creators than the original so Its likely I'm wrong about Vall, she can possible be more bumpy in the KSP 2.

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Oceans of what? For what I know, Eve could have bodies of liquid made of mercury. As for Laythe? How does lakes of Titan work? I don't think any liquid in ksp1 was specified, though I could be wrong. Not to mention countless theories about how Laythe is this warm so far away (internal heating, tidal heating, greenhouse effect etc)

Titian's oceans are frozen on the surface and are made of up of salt and ammonia. Laythe's oceans are pretty similar to Kerbin weather that's because of greenhouse gases is really up in the air. Eve's oceans could be very well be mercury or anything really. My point being that they don't have to be based in reality.

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...