KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Stoup]

Just now, The Aziz said:

Then you need to print it, and then take a photo of the paper, preferably in terrible light, like some yellow lamp, where half of the print is in your own shadow.

Hang on, I think I still have some candles lying around here somewhere...

[Wheehaw Kerman]

30 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Then you need to print it, and then take a photo of the paper, preferably in terrible light, like some yellow lamp, where half of the print is in your own shadow.

With the paper on the floor with your unclipped toenails and bunions in the frame?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[whatsEJstandfor]

2 hours ago, Casellina X said:

Much more preferable than taking a picture of your screen with another device... or the tried and true path to the picture on your local machine.

Speaking of, check out this leaked screenshot of the official patch notes and release date! C:\Users\ej\Pictures\secretLeak.bmp

[Stoup]

Not really a discovery worth hashing into its own thread, but... Can we talk about how eclipses darken the surface of bodies now? I just discovered this while searching the Mun for anomalies, it's wild. Sun still has a lens flare but the mun's dayside surface is significantly darkened

 

Ohhh, okay! Doing a little more discord digging, cause I seem to be unable to stop myself from attempting to gleam every little nugget of information possible about this game According again to Dakota, we might get a little more insight into the process of how the team approaches releases. Not that they haven't already communicated that they prefer bigger patches over a bunch of small ones, but, a little more elaboration on that will be nice.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Stoup

[The Aziz]

Regarding eclipses, I discovered the opposite. No sign of shadow from the Mun or Ike. At least in orbit, not sure about surface.

 

[cocoscacao]

Just out of curiosity... what exactly causes vehicle wobbliness? I made a very long plane with 10 crew parts in a single line, so no decouplers which usually are the main suspects, and it... moved like a snake through the air.

[Stoup]

14 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Regarding eclipses, I discovered the opposite. No sign of shadow from the Mun or Ike. At least in orbit, not sure about surface.

 

I was able to notice it from low orbit over the Mun, as the Mun moved behind Kerbin relative to the sun the surface became very dark. Not as dark as the nightside, interestingly, but definitely way darker than daylight. Though now that you mention it it is odd not to see more eclipses on Kerbin of the Mun, if this kind of effect is being modeled!

Edited March 10, 2023 by Stoup

[Jacke]

3 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

Just out of curiosity... what exactly causes vehicle wobbliness? I made a very long plane with 10 crew parts in a single line, so no decouplers which usually are the main suspects, and it... moved like a snake through the air.

This is me recalling what I've read in other posts here.

It comes down to the strength of the interpart joints in KSP1 or KSP2.  In Juno, joints between parts are completely rigid unless the craft has a collision, maybe large aerodynamic loads (haven't played Juno yet to be sure when they fail).  In KSP1 and KSP2, there's a global joint stiffness adjustment that can help, but it can only do so much.  The Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod for KSP1 changed the connection between two parts to be 3 connections in a circle between them as well as raising the stiffness.  KSP1 in stock eventually introduced autostrutting which adds non-part struts between parts in a way to bind the craft together more firmly without increasing part counts, though it may add load to the simulation.

I am starting to think that Juno, if it allows parts to break due to collisions and aerodynamic loads, actually did joints right.  That this wasn't done with KSP2 I'm starting to think is a real problem.

(My thoughts may be coloured by my painful starting experiences in KSP v0.23 when the joints were very loose and floppy rockets almost broke me.  I managed to fly one rocket to orbit and was completely exhausted.  The only thing that saved me back then was MechJeb which could fly the floppy rockets better than I could.  Later with better firmer joints, I have no problems flying a rocket to orbit manually, or doing other things like manual rendezvous and docking.  But like Rocket Pros, I prefer to let autopilots do those jobs.)

[cocoscacao]

15 minutes ago, Jacke said:

I am starting to think that Juno, if it allows parts to break

If... I mean, this is a very obvious flaw. There's got to be an explanation why they went with it. Does higher rigidity introduces a problem elsewhere, so it's a fair tradeoff? Dunno... I'm just curious.

[Jacke]

6 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

If... I mean, this is a very obvious flaw. There's got to be an explanation why they went with it. Does higher rigidity introduces a problem elsewhere, so it's a fair tradeoff? Dunno... I'm just curious.

I think it was because the original KSP pushed the default joints in Unity to a limit that other games didn't.

The only tradeoff from rigid joints I can think of is no silly wobbly rocket videos.  Frankly, I think wobbly rockets are tiring and stupid.

I really did almost quit KSP1 when I started on v0.23's stupidly wobbly rockets.  What good the comedy if it drives away players?

If the game goes for rigid joints and covers both collision damage and rockets breaking up at high aerodynamic loads (like pulling to more than ~5-10° AoA in dense atmosphere) then it's got it all covered.

[cocoscacao]

20 minutes ago, Jacke said:

If the game goes for rigid joints and covers both collision damage and rockets breaking up at high aerodynamic loads

Again if... I guess devs would know best.

Fun side note, now that you mentioned stressful maneuvers... I'm hoping that Kerbals will die from over the top G forces in this game, rather than just passing out.

Edit:
I'd also like to see yet another building at KSC. A memorial center dedicated to all Kerbals who gave their lives in the name of curiosity, science and progress. So just as you can add notes to the flag, you could add tombs with engravings like: "The brave team of Eeloo mission that cannot possibly fail a 3rd time knew that the Kraken may await at the end of the journey. Although they faced that possibility without batting an eye, their eyes are now closed forever. May they rest in pieces"

Edited March 11, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Jacke]

10 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Again if... I guess devs would know best. Fun side note, now that you mentioned stressful maneuvers... I'm hoping that Kerbals will die from over the top G forces in this game, rather than just passing out.

This is getting into a rather dark topic for what's supposed to be a fun game, with or without wobbly rockets.

Most maneuvers that rockets and aircraft can pull will not be fatal to the crew.  It may cause them to pass out.  For a craft being flown by a pilot without an onboard autopilot or probe core with comms to have remote control, passing out should mean the player has no control until the pilot recovers; that along can lead to loss of the craft.  The most common source of fatalities is hitting the ground very fast, whether it's dirt or water.

[cocoscacao]

8 minutes ago, Jacke said:

This is getting into a rather dark topic for what's supposed to be a fun game

Don't get me wrong... I don't like my Kerbals dying , but I also don't revert screw ups from my side. It adds a lot of realism to the game, and attaches me to little green adorable creatures even more. The last one I've lost was returning from Eeloo. He burned up in Kerbin's atmosphere due to last resort aerobraking maneuver.

Edited March 11, 2023 by cocoscacao

[LHACK4142]

"goal is to lower the minimum requirements over the course of EA."

-Dakota

WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! HOPE FOR MY 1650!!!

[Alex76]

I have the first game with all the add-ons. I installed mods for graphics, world diversity and others. I can’t force myself to play for more than an hour. For some reason, it’s not interesting. I can play KSP 2 all day. I liked everything very much. There are errors and shortcomings. But somehow the soul lies in this part and there is interest. It can be seen that the guys still tried to make the game. Landing on the moon under the drums is something) Then everything will only get better. I'm sure!

[Space Kadet]

8 hours ago, Alex76 said:

I have the first game with all the add-ons. I installed mods for graphics, world diversity and others. I can’t force myself to play for more than an hour. For some reason, it’s not interesting. I can play KSP 2 all day. I liked everything very much. There are errors and shortcomings. But somehow the soul lies in this part and there is interest. It can be seen that the guys still tried to make the game. Landing on the moon under the drums is something) Then everything will only get better. I'm sure!

thats dopamine of the sniney new thing, the basis for capatalism :p

[DwightLee]

Yeah, the only KSP I am interested in anymore is KSP 2 

Not for what it is at the moment, but for what it is becoming. 

It really comes down to why you are playing, if it is only for personal enjoyment, then by all means Play KSP1, in fact an Early Access is probably not right for you in any case.

Some of us want to be on the ride from here, to what we see KSP 2 becoming. 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

55 minutes ago, DwightLee said:

Yeah, the only KSP I am interested in anymore is KSP 2 

Not for what it is at the moment, but for what it is becoming. 

It really comes down to why you are playing, if it is only for personal enjoyment, then by all means Play KSP1, in fact an Early Access is probably not right for you in any case.

Some of us want to be on the ride from here, to what we see KSP 2 becoming. 

Yup.  I can do all sorts of things in KSP1 that I can’t do in KSP2… yet.  But I have done all those things before in KSP1, and the fun is lessened and the elements of challenge and the unknown just aren’t there to the same extent.  We’re all still learning KSP2, and the unknown and the challenge are back.

[Chilkoot]

2 hours ago, DwightLee said:

Some of us want to be on the ride from here, to what we see KSP 2 becoming.

Sometimes, just engaging in a cultural event is part of the enjoyment.  When my kids were very small, we would line up to buy the newest Harry Potter books at midnight, for example.  They of course were asleep before we even got home, but that's not what it was about.

Being a day-one fan - even if the game is pretty rough right now - is important in its own way for some people.  The act of being in the moment and engaged in the discussions, hearing the feedback, looking at the oddball early designs... it's all part of the experience, along with feeling the pain of the bugs and performance problems with the current release.

I don't have any regrets dropping the $50 for the first EA build, even if I wouldn't give it a positive review - it's not ready for general consumption yet, IMO.  But if I frame it around the old adage, "Spend your money where you spend your time", it was definitely a good buy.

[DwightLee]

1 hour ago, Chilkoot said:

Sometimes, just engaging in a cultural event is part of the enjoyment.  When my kids were very small, we would line up to buy the newest Harry Potter books at midnight, for example.  They of course were asleep before we even got home, but that's not what it was about.

Being a day-one fan - even if the game is pretty rough right now - is important in its own way for some people.  The act of being in the moment and engaged in the discussions, hearing the feedback, looking at the oddball early designs... it's all part of the experience, along with feeling the pain of the bugs and performance problems with the current release.

I don't have any regrets dropping the $50 for the first EA build, even if I wouldn't give it a positive review - it's not ready for general consumption yet, IMO.  But if I frame it around the old adage, "Spend your money where you spend your time", it was definitely a good buy.

Same, zero regrets

[Stoup]

https://discord.com/channels/1039959585949237268/1039965578754007060/1084973240931319869

• still locking this down. won't be in patch 1.

Just some confirmation that reentry heating won't be in patch 1! We'll have to wait a little longer on that.

https://discord.com/channels/1039959585949237268/1039965578754007060/1084971545627205714

• The gamemode Is still in development, but as of now player/craft interaction is one of the core pillars for multiplayer.

Vaguely put! But this was among a debate about how multiplayer will work. Goal is to have it be feasible to have players interacting with one another within physics range for things like races, rendezvous, etc.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Stoup said:

still locking this down. won't be in patch 1.

Still locking 'what' down?  Link doesn't show anything but a login/join request

[Stoup]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Still locking 'what' down?  Link doesn't show anything but a login/join request

Yeah I tried to give it a little more context but I suppose it's more proper if I explain it outright!

This was in reference to somebody asking if reentry heat etc was gonna be in patch 1

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 minutes ago, Stoup said:

Yeah I tried to give it a little more context but I suppose it's more proper if I explain it outright!

This was in reference to somebody asking if reentry heat etc was gonna be in patch 1

Thanks

[InterstellarDrifter]

Does anyone else agree with my opinion that wobbly rockets, or anything else long and cylindrical in shape, in-game, are actually modeled this way on purpose because that's what happens in real life?

I think we think since rockets are made of metals and composites that they shouldn't bend, but this actually is far from the truth. Real rockets can bend. And if not designed correctly, they absolutely would wobble. 

Thought experiment: Take a 30m long tube of thin-walled steel at a 3.75m diameter and stick it out horizontally anchored at one end. How much do you think it would deflect. Answer: way more than you think.

Now, don't get all upset. I'm not saying KSP2 didn't get it wrong. I'm just pointing out that it is a simulator that is trying to simulate many physical behaviors, including extension, flexion, compression, and tension of materials and their construction, in order to deliver a more authentic engineering experience and aerodynamic behaviors of our rockets, in flight and when they crash.

Just something to think about, maybe ask a dev directly(if anyone can grab their attention) if the current rigidity model is what is intended?

P.S. KSP-1 rockets still wobble too if they're aspect ratio is not sufficient.