shdwlrd

There will be dedicated colony and base buildings in KSP2. You won't have to worry about building your own. Glass for canopies and wind screens for custom built cabins, it's a nice idea.

@t_v simple routine communications can be done based on what you're doing. You're right about the languages, that would be a ton of work. You put an example of a routine maneuver that can cause a false trigger. It's quoted below. You're doing a planetary rendezvous. The game thinks you're doing a gravity assist because you weren't fast enough to add the retrograde burn before the audio will play. There's one bug with that. @LittleBitMore you can be very specific of when and how the audio plays, but as I pointed out above, there could be situations where false triggers can happen. That would be more of a annoyance than random comms chatter. Just to be straight, the only sounds I play KSP with is the decoupling, flame out, and useful sounds. I mute the ambient sounds, game music, and patched out all other sounds because I find them annoying and I don't want to go deaf. (Listening to the same frequency all the time, you can become numb to that frequency.) I play KSP with whatever music I have going in iTunes or in silence.

Something like this would work if everything in the game was scripted and all possible random events was accounted for. This is KSP, there are very few routine operations where this could work. The rest is about as random as you can get.

Yeah, the backwards, high pitched Spanish would get very annoying quickly. In game comms would be nice, especially for consoles, but there are other options out there.

I don't think there will be anything that large. Possibly spherical tanks @ 150-200m in diameter, or some engine bells @ about 250-300m in diameter. I can't see any structural parts being more that 20m in diameter and 100m in length. You could build a ship/station that is 2km in any dimension(s), but it would be multiple parts.

There has been many discussions about the lack of depth of science with KSP1 and what changes would be welcomed for KSP2. Everything you're suggesting has been touched on at some point during the discussions. Most everyone agrees that there needs to be a more varied and in depth science.

Platform specific assets made sense for the same game released on different platforms. Basically to add some uniqueness for each game. But as said earlier, it doesn't make sense for KSP2. If you wanted something specific, you could just add it in. Now if there is going to be some limitations between PC and consoles, I can see something console specific. Nothing more than that though.

You're also missing the security aspect too. It's not hard to embed malicious code in image files. The last thing you would want is streaming in files from a public code site with little to no real scrutiny of the files being transferred.

Well, if Nate stays true to his comments, then this feature is the reveal for multiplayer. Then I'm at a loss for what the topic could be.

I'm making the assumption that Intercept will add decent controller support in KSP2. But that doesn't help you if you're traveling with a laptop or don't have access to, or the ability to use a controller to play the game. (Cost, system permissions, or just not allowed.) My Xb1 controller or joystick don't show as valid controller options for KSP1. I don't have the patience to set them up. Without a button map for my Saitek X-52 (the Steel Series X-52 button layout is different and the software is incompatible) it's painful to setup. A lot of trial and error. Edit: Let me clarify, I'd rather spend the time setting up my X-52 with full functionality than spending the time setting up the XB1 controller or generic joystick I have. All are just as difficult.

That's already been confirmed.

Yes, it must happen. Yes I am, it's called a keyboard. I usually use a gamepad, joystick, or hotas for flight, driving, racing, big stompy sims. If I'm stuck using the keyboard, my control goes from competent to spazzy child that doesn't know what they are doing. (I've never been able to competently control anything with a binary on/off control scheme.) That's why I rely on autopilots for KSP1. For KSP2, I'm hoping for better control of crafts with the keyboard by adding assists that 1) insulating the craft from physics inconsistencies, 2) by taking some of the very fine control aspects out of the hands of the player

Well duh... I know that IRL there are tolerance inconsistencies, mass shifting, weather forces, and general physics that affects rockets and aircraft. But KSP isn't a "real life" simulation, it's a "game" simulation. So being a game simulation, they can fudge a few things to make the craft a little easier to control. That's the point. No unexpected weirdness with a properly designed craft.

@Mahagon If you ever built a lander, you've made a VTOL. I've made single engine and multi engine landers. Landers to transfer Kerbals to hundreds of tons of cargo. Varied the vertical location of the CoM compared to the CoTh. All to the same affect, the lander will flip for no good reason. You can see this for yourself. Download Angel-125's KFS mod. Make yourself a basic Flapjack with the gravitic engine. Set your hover at 20m. Now don't touch the keyboard. The craft will flip after about 30 sec. If you balance the craft beforehand, it will take about a min, but it will flip. You can cheat the craft to any planet, you will see the same behavior. Just the timing will change. (The reason for using KFS for this test. The gravitic engine will hover in place despite the craft's orientation. It's the best way to study the odd effects of KSPs physics interactions on the craft.) The only reason is can think of is rouge forces acting on craft. It's these forces that make it very difficult to control a lander and can explain odd behavior when landing a tailsitter.

@Mahagon Yes, what Master39 is showing is more advanced. I can't disagree on that. What I find is that KSPs physics bobbles and timing of craft updates causes unexpected movements of your crafts. (All the times your VTOLs flips over for no good reason. Or your VTOL starts drifting in an unexpected direction. (South instead of west from the KSP runway.)) What I would like to see is to stopping the weird physics interactions with your craft. And instead of balancing your craft on a pin head, you're balancing your craft on an unsharped pencil. It's still hard to do, but a lot more forgiving than a pin head. For stock functionality, the orientation hold for the SAS and isolating your craft from erroneous updates from the physics engine would make life easier when it comes to VTOL craft. (Basically all the mirco forces don't effect your craft.)

We're talking about different methods of SAS. What you're showing is active control to keep the craft in place. What I'm describing is isolating the craft from errors from the physics engine and certain types of craft updates. And also adding a dead zone where the CoM and CoTh is considered centered. (Basically enough to account for discrepancies with the calculated CoM and CoTh from tick to tick.) But keeping the basic rudimentary control the stock SAS. Active control is very useful for unexpected or unusual circumstances. The isolation method doesn't account for unexpected or unusual circumstances. (A sudden asymmetric thrust situation from a loss of an engine for example.)

I'm wondering if there will be any performance increases for KSP2 compared to KSP1?

@Master39 Would you consider advanced SAS functions an autopilot? I'm referring to the pilot assist functions that I've used in the old Microprose flight sims I use to play. They took very limited control of certain flight characteristics to make flying easier. What I'm thinking is a VTOL and aircraft modes for the SAS function. So, what you would have is the standard old SAS function that we all know and have a love/hate relationship with. No changes to it, the way it behaves ok and has it uses. Then the VTOL SAS function that doesn't allow any un-commanded or un-warranted changes to your velocity or craft orientation. Let me explain what I mean by un-commanded changes. When doing the controlled fall of a tail landing in a vacuum, when you thrust to reduce your vertical velocity, your horizontal velocity and direction will not change (if any). Or you when you build a VTOL (helicopter, jump jet, hover chair, etc.) as long as the CoTh and CoM is reasonably well lined up, take off and settle into a hover, you craft will not move. The only perceived motion should be from the Cornelis effect (unless you correct for it). Warranted changes are; contact with an object or craft with enough force to change the velocities or orientation (a Kerbal walking into the craft shouldn't affect anything about the craft, a rover will cause disaster); touching the ground with enough horizontal motion; and if added, wind, if strong enough. Aircraft SAS, it doesn't exactly pertain to this thread, so I won't explain the functionality.

Don't know, the minimum specs haven't been announced yet.

They were the hottest trend in TV tech about 10 yrs ago. Cool idea, worked ok, poor to mediocre implementation though.

You are an evil man. LOL As long as you don't Rick roll us, it shall be forgotten.

[snip] It's not helpful for the topic at hand. I was just thinking, Why must KSP2 be just as difficult to get into as KSP1? Why can't players master the different tasks required on their own terms? Why can't KSP2 offer more of a direct approach to assist players with difficult tasks like landing? Why must anything that directly assists the player be a 3rd party mod? In the grand scheme, KSP is just a game. It doesn't mean anything tangible. It's not worth getting upset about opposing views. It's not going to directly affect your life. So why be so opposed to anything to help the player in a game that is considered very difficult to begin with? Hubris? Being afraid that anything added to the game will ruin your enjoyment of it? The vision of the HarvesteR? Your pride doesn't matter, there's nothing tangible to show for it. HarvesteR isn't involved in the development of KSP2. His wants and wishes can be forgotten. You can ignore any features you don't want to use. So why are you so opposed to having anything added to assist the player again? I keep writing personal reasons to why I can use help with some aspects of the game. I even put down some good valid reasons as a root cause to the problem at hand. But they are just being dismissed because I as a player am not as good as you are. Hmmm... it's sad really. If you willing to add your considerable skill and observations that can actually help with the difficult task of landing. This conversation would be a lot more productive.

You're missing the point. The root cause of my landing problems is the lack of situational awareness. I can overcome my crappy hand eye coordination with timely, detailed information about the situation of the craft. With timely information, I don't have to fumble around the keyboard trying to correct a problem I just realized is happening. (Just making it worse in the process. ) Another cause for landing issues with players is task saturation. There are just too many things going on at once. Different people have different levels of things they can do at once, or in quick secession. Once they reach that point, they can't process what is happening anymore and will make mistakes. (Usually with bad outcomes.) (Fun fact, lack of situational awareness and task saturation was one of the leading causes for airline accidents in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. To this day, those two reasons are still one of the leading causes of general aviation accidents and filings.) Now your slow motion idea may work with task saturation problems. But it doesn't solve the situational awareness problem. For the game to retain new players and help current players, both problems will have to be solved.

Yes, exactly. Anything that can help the player should be on by default. Then you can turn it off if you don't want it. Out of that whole post, why would you choose that line? Are you suggesting that I quit playing KSP because I suck at one portion of the game? Or do you think anyone that doesn't have an innate feel for flight sims play the game? Or did you miss the point of the post? (Which is I have crap hand eye coordination and can't tell depth on a 2d panel if you didn't pick up on that. And I'll appreciate any help I can get from the devs.)

Nailed it. I was the kid who couldn't enter the Konami code correctly. (Still takes a few trys even today.) I've never got far in most side scrolling platform games. (The ones that people thought was too easy/forgiving were the only ones I was able to beat.) I can only button mash in fighting games and only do the simplest of combos. (I have problems with platforming in the Lego games at times, and those are dead simple.) In 1st person I don't have an innate feel of my surroundings. I can only avoid what is seen directly in front of me. I fall off alot of edges in games cause I can't tell where the edge actually is. In 3rd person I lose all sense of depth/movement of the surroundings. So as you can imagine, that creates a whole world of problems when playing a flight sim. I've been playing flight sims since I got my first computer in the mid '90s. So all I need is better situational awareness and I can land safely and precisely. What about people who are new to the flight/space sim genre? Does it make sense to lock anything that can help a new player behind a skill wall? They will quit before they unlock the tools that can help them. If it wasn't for the hand holding in the early days of me playing flight sims. I've never would have continued playing flight sims. Eventually I was able to turn off the helpers and play the sim as the devs intended. (The devs understood that to draw in and keep people to playing the game, they had to make it easier for new players.) In my opinion, have the helpers on by default and leave it to the experienced and veteran players to turn them off or ignore them. Don't force a new player to prove that they are worthy to use them. That is the quickest way to lose players.