Will I be able to make crafts as complicated as KSP1 (example within) in KSP2?

[Anth]

What about modular base assembly using a forklift?

In pieces:

Fully Assembled using the forklift:

What about being able to get a forklift unloaded into a shipping container and deployed from a shipping container (and reloaded...)?

What about transporting an entire base in pieces in shipping containers to the Mun surface? (Test Video for editing)

I moved everything to Minmus and accidently crushed a piece with my dropship (which is also a crane). I had to send a replacement from Kerbin to complete the mission:

This is the completed base: Except for the destroyed segment above and the shipping container I needed to send the replacement, all of it was landed and assembled on the Mun first.

My most enjoyable times in KSP is doing things like this, not career or science mode

 

 

Here is something even more complicated that I want to replicate and make even better in KSP2:

I present the Physwarp Paddle Boat:

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Anth12

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, Anth12 said:

What about modular base assembly using a forklift?

It was discussed in another thread that hopefully, we will get crane parts (and forklift parts, I did not think of that before!) to assemble early base modules, because they mentioned you would have to build up a surface base a bit before it could become a colony with access to the BAE.

1 hour ago, Anth12 said:

What about transporting an entire base in pieces in shipping containers to the Mun surface? (Test Video for editing)

Better yet, using inflatable parts to minimize the size needed for the container(s).

Hopefully we will get better methods of large cargo (like actually built things, satellites, base modules, rovers, etc.) storage, instead of staging with 0 force and then grabbing it with some other method (which is the only method I am aware of right now).

[Anth]

Inflated parts is an interesting idea however I was more talking about complicated crafts. Besides players are always going to want to put bigger and bigger things inside containers regardless of how big they are

[SunlitZelkova]

9 minutes ago, Anth12 said:

Inflated parts is an interesting idea however I was more talking about complicated crafts. Besides players are always going to want to put bigger and bigger things inside containers regardless of how big they are

Most certainly then! One thing I am concerned about however is that the devs apparently said that while stock and Making History parts from KSP1 will be available, Breaking Ground ones will not.

I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps Breaking Ground will once again be a DLC, but for KSP2?

[Anth]

As long as KSP 2 is good I have no problem with paying for DLCs. In fact I hope they come out with a good number of them to keep Intercept Games in full swing.

If Breaking Ground parts are missing from KSP2 initially I have no problem with that but please add them in a DLC sooner than later. (please remove the drift first though...please, pretty please!) Nonrobotic KSP will only hold my attention for so long

Heres my Lift/Elevator...Krakentech will still be a thing in KSP2? (I could make it work without kal controllers if I had to)

 

 

[Ashandalar]

8 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Most certainly then! One thing I am concerned about however is that the devs apparently said that while stock and Making History parts from KSP1 will be available, Breaking Ground ones will not.

I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps Breaking Ground will once again be a DLC, but for KSP2?

I'm fairly sure this information comes from the media round following the initial 2019 announcement of the game. At the time of KSP2's initial planning and development, Breaking Ground wasn't yet released, and while there was apparently some communication between Squad and (then) Star Theory, it wasn't so comprehensive that they were synchronising assets between the two games. I think it's safe to call that information stale at this point.

[shdwlrd]

I can't see why you wouldn't be able to build complicated crafts. Outside of the big question if robotics will be stock or not. Even a moderately useful station can start getting complicated. Thinking about the interstellar ships, those will be complicated because you will need to bring everything to start a colony once you reach your destination.

Kraken tech is questionable at this point. I'm sure you can find weird physics reactions if you look long enough, but no one knows how useful it would be until we get the game. From my understanding, the big aim for part interactions is to totally remove kraken inducing behaviors between the parts.

Edited December 18, 2021 by shdwlrd

[Anth]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

From my understanding, the big aim for part interactions is to totally remove kraken inducing behaviors between the parts.

I don't think that Krakentech  is attracting kraken inducing behaviours. Krakentech is about the interaction of multiple crafts together. Like my lift that uses airbrakes

[shdwlrd]

Kraken tech is using the strange physics reactions to game the system. An example would be using the docking port drives.

The elevator you made is what would be considered cleaver use of the parts that don't break the physics systems. An example of that is using thermometers as bearings for pure stock propellers or rotors. You should check out some of Azimech's contraptions to see what I mean. None of that I would consider kraken tech.

[Anth]

35 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

The elevator you made is what would be considered cleaver use of the parts that don't break the physics systems. An example of that is using thermometers as bearings for pure stock propellers or rotors. You should check out some of Azimech's contraptions to see what I mean. None of that I would consider kraken tech.

Azimech's techniques are described as Kraken Tech. What I am doing with the elevator is Kraken Tech.

Krakendrive technology might be what you are talking about. Use of landing legs/wheels/docking ports to create thrust?

This is Krakentech from 2016 before robotics

@luizopilotosup....

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, Anth12 said:

Azimech's techniques are described as Kraken Tech. What I am doing with the elevator is Kraken Tech.

Krakendrive technology might be what you are talking about. Use of landing legs/wheels/docking ports to create thrust?

LOL... what is the definition of kraken tech these days? Because the abuse of colliders and joint strength to make contraptions that wasn't intended or expected to be in KSP but didn't break the physics engine wasn't considered kraken tech last I looked into it. (The last time I cared about anything like this, someone make a stock monorail.) 

Kraken tech was creating a contraption for controlling a physics bug/exploit last I heard. 

[Anth]

These days? That video by luizopiloto is from 2016. I watch EJ_SA on twitch and everyone would agree even now that its as I have stated for at least that long.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Kraken tech is using the strange physics reactions to game the system. An example would be using the docking port drives.

The elevator you made is what would be considered cleaver use of the parts that don't break the physics systems. An example of that is using thermometers as bearings for pure stock propellers or rotors. You should check out some of Azimech's contraptions to see what I mean. None of that I would consider kraken tech.

Agree, kraken tech is stuff like the docking port drive or kerbal on ladder.
Regarding stuff like the forklift it depend on stock robotics, has made cranes using KAS long before that however. Also done orbital assembly to make bases more practical. 

[Guest]

I think that just like in life support and resource management there's a threshold in complexity after which you start to leave KSP territory and invade the space of games like ONI or Factorio, the same goes for this. I certainly hope that we get robotics at least as good as the ones in KSP1, but I also hope that we won't have to manually assemble forklifts out pistons, hinges and structural beams to build bases, that seems to me to be a little too much and going into gameplay mechanics better covered by games like Trailmakers or Besiege.

I'd love to still be able to do that, but I want them to give us things like proper containers, a good base building system (the BAE) and a recovery system that rewards perfection but allows for some error (example: 100% recovery on the pad, 95% within a KM from the base and rapidly going down past that) rewarding players that go that last mile with perfect landings or wheeled transports but still focusing on the overall gameplay.

[SciMan]

I agree for the most part, things like forklifts and cranes shouldn't need to be made of individual pistons and hinges, they should (like robotic arms for orbital work) be something where the player inputs are simplified down to something approachable by the layperson instead of having to spend 20 minutes just figuring out which angles to set what servos to in order to get the blasted thing into a configuration resembling something that lets you get work done, let alone actually get anything done with said contraption.

That's why I personally haven't approached the robotics things. Too much set-up time. I guess I kinda want to skip the middle bit, in that I want to use the thing to set up my base, instead of spending 24 hours making the thing to set up my base.

This is why I assemble my bases in orbit where I can use a small number of simple probes that have some RCS on them to get all the parts of the base assembled, and then use a large skycrane type thing to actually soft-land it on wherever I was going to put the base. The constraint is always getting the base modules into LKO, in a way that doesn't create all kinds of drag right at the front of the launching rocket, and you only have fairings so large so you must launch in multiple pieces.
Nobody said you had to LAND it in multiple pieces, and robotics as it is in KSP 1 is so dang fiddly that I just get frustrated with it, so I land THE WHOLE BASE instead of doing it part-by-part, that way I can avoid using the robotics parts.

Now this is probably too hard to code, but if I could build a robotic arm and the game would just "know" how to use it (make the end of it follow my mouse pointer for example), then I'd be much more likely to build cranes and the like to assemble my surface bases.
That's why I think that cranes and forklifts and robotic arms should be "one part solutions" where the very most you have to do is figure out where to attach it to your vessel and what kind of thing you want to put on the end of the arm (be that a claw or a jr docking port).
This would also make transferring fuel between surface vessels so much easier, because right now if you design a fuel tanker it will have a different ride height when full and when empty which makes docking it to a stationary surface base a real pain in the butt.

[Anth]

7 hours ago, SciMan said:

Nobody said you had to LAND it in multiple pieces, and robotics as it is in KSP 1 is so dang fiddly that I just get frustrated with it, so I land THE WHOLE BASE instead of doing it part-by-part, that way I can avoid using the robotics parts.

It was a personal challenge to myself. I could have done it in way easier ways. Covid and then lockdown hit just after I got my forklift licence so I thought is a forklift possible in KSP?

Then:

• How does a forklift work on another planet
• How do I get this forklift to another planet?
• Ok that worked, what's a cooler way to get a forklift to another planet
• Well I haven't made a proper base in KSP how can I do that with a forklift. Modular design? ok.
• Then I thought how can I get the same forklift from one planet to another? 
• Shipping container? ok.
• Drop ship? ok. (this was one of the hardest parts of the development)

Etc etc.

 

KSP can be played in all sorts of ways. I just wanted a real challenge, and I got it.

My biggest advice for newer players: Make it as simple as possible.

My guess of my amount of hours in KSP is 7000+ hours. No way I could have done this when I started playing KSP (or even at a 1000 hours) and it took me months to get it to a point that I was happy with attempting the mission for real.

 

 

[SciMan]

Been playing KSP on and off since 0.13.3 (they had just added Minmus, meaning that all there was was the Sun, Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus), and I can tell you this much about the robotics parts:

They have always needed a better way to control them. KAL controllers aren't quite enough.

What I meant when I said the robotics parts are too "fiddly" is that I don't want to have to spend an hour fiddling with every little slider of every single joint just to make it go where I wanted it to go without it wobbling all over the place (even just under Minmus gravity!) or causing a Kraken attack.

It needs to be streamlined and simplified at least a little bit, because at the end of the day this is a video game not a training simulator for real NASA astronauts, and IMO the point of KSP is to "Mostly have fun but maybe accidentally learn something along the way".

What I'm trying to say is that there's a bit of magic missing. That magic is called Inverse Kinematics.

You see, I'm not talking about having problems with one robotics joint. I can handle that easily. What I have problems with is when I have say a combination of 5-10 joints and pistons on one thing that I'm calling a "remote manipulator arm" or "crane" and I can get the thing within say a foot of where it needs to be with just one minute's work, but to get it to actually do anything that's not good enough, you need much higher precision for things like making docking ports connect without using the magnets in the docking ports, and you can't use the magnets in the docking ports because if you do well the servos are holding the docking ports apart but the magnets are trying to force them together and the physics engine decides that that means you basically just made a Kraken drive so your whole base starts moving or flipping or just shakes itself so hard that it breaks itself against the ground.
Does anyone really think that's fun? I sure don't.
It might be a "unique" challenge, but that doesn't mean it's any fun to play the game like that.

My point is that I'm not happy just "existing playing KSP", I want to be accomplishing things when I'm playing.
And when I have to fiddle with a dang robotic arm for an hour just to get it to connect two pieces together on a base on the surface of a planet or moon, I don't feel like I accomplished anything, I feel like I was getting nothing done for an hour and it's all the game's fault.
I know how to do these things IRL, so not being able to do them in a much simplified video game is intensely frustrating.

At the very least, we should have a few more analog control axes that we can configure on a joystick and dedicate to JUST robotics parts. Then things like realistic construction equipment would be possible, and I'd be able to set them up so I can control them with a couple of joysticks like you do when you're in the cab of said construction equipment, instead of having to spend an hour messing about with sliders on robotics parts. It's absolutely infuriating, and that's why I avoid it at all costs.

Plus, the game doesn't even properly save the state of those robotics parts when you quicksave, so if you switch to the tracking station and time warp some, and then come back to that vessel again, who knows what position those robotics parts are going to be in!?!? Again, this is infuriating, and needs to be addressed before I'll ever touch robotics parts.