shdwlrd

I don't see that as being a requirement for stock play through, but as a community challenge, sure why not. I've seen other challenges of the same flavor before.

If asteroids and comets are in the game, I would think you could use them for exploration. But it would probably be easier and faster to use one of the planets to slingshot a probe into the direction you want to head to.

To go back to the colony construction phases, so we know that phase one colony parts we be shipped in from off site. Phase 2 colony parts will be constructed from local resources. Would there be any more phases for parts? How would the different phase parts affect orbital colonies? Will there be a completely different parts palette for ground based and space based colonies? Could there be a parts overlap between ground and space colonies?

Exactly

@Pthigrivi Since there are threads already dedicated to science, I'm not going to go too deep into the subject. Science would be needed for colonies. You would need to know where to start building bases, place resource collectors, and later in the game, to figure out how to land on a planet. The only way to do all that is science. So science won't be leaving KSP, but it's roll in the game will change. Since Nate and the devs haven't really say anything of meaning on the subject, there have been some quips around the subject. One I do remember is that science won't be the only thing you need to unlock new tech. That indicates there will be other metrics needed to unlock tech and progress through the game. What does that mean for science, nothing it will still need to be done. But with the inclusion of colonies, there can be more depth to it. You can only research some topics in zero-g, some topics require the super dense atmosphere of Eve, or the waters of Laythe. The roll of science in KSP will change, but how and to what purpose, only the devs know and they aren't talking... yet.

MKS with life support wasn't easy, but it did a good job showing how hard it can be to colonize another planet. (I won't get into the difficulties with the changes that were made version to version.) I agree with your assessment and possible expansion plans. But I think most players first major colony will be in the Kerbin SOI either or both the Mun and Minmus. It really doesn't make sense to start expanding into the solar system until you have the ability to produce crafts and colony parts off world. From there, I can see expanding to Duna or Dres and so on. If the devs do make the colony and resource game play like Factrio or Satisfactory, that could make an interesting combination and fuel continued game play. Even if you don't want to follow the devs game plan, you still need to adapt and expand to reach the interstellar portion of the game. Once you reach a new solar system, you will have to do it again if you want to go further. I'm on the fence with funds though. In the beginning they maybe necessary, but after a certain point, they will become useless. But I can see players grinding out funds so they don't have to do the work to expand though. That is something the devs have said they don't want. So I don't know where to go on that. Maybe they will set a required interstellar tech to a point where you just can't buy it, you have to build it. Only the devs how they are going solve that one.

Fair enough.

With the use of mods, you already have the features of a flexible docking port. The mineshafts from Pathfinder come to mind for that. I think it was D'magic that has something similar too. MKS had frames that would allow you to adjust the height of your base parts and move them into position. If you have the Breaking Ground dlc, you could use the pistons or the hinges to help level your base and to raise or lower the base as necessary. There are solutions to the problem. But without the bg dlc or the use of mods, it's very limited to what you can actually do in KSP1. The KSP2 devs know about and understand the limitations of base building and resource transfers. They are adding solutions to make it easier to build functional bases and to do resource transfers without turning it into a chore. The BAE will allow you to assemble or edit your base with local and delivered resources. The devs have said they are planning to automate resource deliveries. All this is pointing to a good possibility that you won't have to dock a vehicle to a base to transfer resources. You won't have to manually dock base components together. The only reason to dock vehicles together is because you want to, not because you have to. And for the rare occasions you will have to transfer resources from one vehicle to another, there are valid solutions mentioned in the post. You don't need to create a rule for a part that will have a very small use case that most people won't care about.

And that would be a very good assumption. The problem is that it's an assumption. I've been burned by thinking something that is perfect reasonable and helpful would be put into place, but isn't. So I won't say anything about a feature until it's mentioned or shown. There's a saying about assumptions. They make an ass out of you and me.

You can add the planet revamps from KSP1 to this. I have a suspicion that the revamped planets in KSP1 will be the low fidelity versions of the Kerbol system in KSP2. Intercept and Squad are sharing resources.

@Pthigrivi again without quoting your huge wall o' text. I do have to agree, it's very complicated thing to figure out the right balance of vehicles, distances and times. I've done your Jool example on a smaller scale within the Kerbin system using MKS. Moving resources around and from the surfaces of the Mun and Minmus was easy. Moving resources from orbital stations between Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus was kind of a pain, but doable. Where everything started to fall apart was when I setup a mining outpost on Duna. Trying to ferry resources from Duna to Kerbin to process them to usable stuff was nasty, but trying to setup a routes to ferry supplies to Duna so the life support doesn't run out was ridiculous. (The primary reason I made some freighters with huge transport capacities. Huge capacities, less transfers, reduced number of crafts, less overall costs.) I still had to do a few transfers a year, even when the transfer window wasn't optimal. So please bare with me if I'm skeptical about any logistics system until the devs actually detail how it works. Because if you want your colonies running efficiently, you need to bring in supplies from another planet until they large enough to supply all the operations within that planets SOI.

Yes it would, but I'm not assuming that the klaw will be ported over to KSP2 until they confirm that asteroids will be in the game and will be mineable. I do hope that asteroids and ways to capture and relocate them is a thing in KSP2. I'm not going to setup an senerio without the devs at least hinting to the existing of a feature. The only reason I'm playing along with this is the planetary rings will have individual elements you will have to account for. (Aka giant rocks) Which can mean that you can build a base by them, and they maybe useful. So, yeah, that's my reasoning for everything.

Yes you can, but eventually they will drift apart. You would have to grab it of trap it to keep them in place. If you're mining the asteroid and taking it to the station, eventually the constant impacts with start pushing them around.

But it would show you which pods have fuel and which ones don't. I'm thinking it was used just for that screen cap. I've already spotted at least 2 new command pods, and maybe they didn't want to show them yet.

@Pthigrivi without quoting your whole post, yes you are correct, it would be complicated. But instead of managing the Joolian system, I'm thinking of the Kerbol system as a whole. Instead of dodging Jool when the moons are on the wrong side of their orbits, imagine the cost of dodging the sun and the possible situation where the planets are at the opposite sides of their solar orbits. Now put the freighter in context, the stock one is designed for 300 tonnes of cargo with a dv of 3800 m/s, non nuclear. By reducing the cargo tonnage, disabling engines, changing the thrust values, you can significantly change the dv without physically altering the vehicle itself. Here is where everything is hazy. How would a system handle a non-recoverable, extremely variable dv craft? What types of systems could handle that? I get the idea of distribution networks since I work within the transportation industry, but a lot of those variables are set. Certain equipment is used for certain jobs, the distances are set and don't change. How would you plan for the infinite types of equipment that could be used and the huge variations for the distances?

Danny 2462 likes to break games, which I can see him trying to do, and more than likely doing so. Do we need to start up the whole hunt for the Intercept Studios devs aliases again?

There may be, there may not be a klaw analog in KSP2. Since we haven't seen anything attached to an asteroid, or asteroids in general, we can't say for certain. By no means the klaw is necessary to build a orbital colony in a way to trap an asteroid within the structure. Hence the statement, if not officially supported, someone will do it anyway.

Probably not officially, but I can see someone doing it anyway.

That what you said is correct and very to the point.

This. Also asteroid and comet harvesting would be a valid way to get resources for your orbital colonies. It would be easier than hauling everything up from a planet's surface.

Since colony construction will have it's own editor, I don't see a reason to worry about docking base components together. For transferring resources I can see the bases being able to spawn and recover vehicles within a certain radius of the base, or from a specific part. (A hanger, garage or what not.) The only reason I can see docking ground vehicles is to help the poor guy that ran out of fuel or supplies. At that point having a hose would be enough. Or they can use a close proximity connectionless resource transfer system like the WBI mods do.

Most command pods have monoprop. That's the reason you're seeing fuel as a sorting option for pods category. Over all, the sorting of parts for KSP1 is usable. It's not the best system I've seen. The addition of tags helped me out a lot. But that can only help so much. A way to drum down the options you want can be helpful. One option they can do is add subcategories to the main ones. One example would be pods. You can add categories for probe cores and manned command pods. Another example would be the ground category. You could add subcategories for wheels, tracks, landing gear, landing legs, skids, feet. Or the items can be grouped together by the categories.

@mcwaffles2003 @Brikoleur So, both of you are saying the same thing. If I have a freighter that can brute force a planetary transfer, then it should be acceptable to automatically send a transfer anytime I need it to.

Ok, I understand the surface to orbit part. What about orbit to orbit. Over the years playing with MKS and Pathfinder I've created a small collection of stock and modded freighters that are never ment to leave space. How would that affect the system? So by that theory, I should do my initial transfer at the worst possible time to create a profile that I can launch a transfer anytime that is needed. PS. I know this is getting more into the logistics side of colonies, but its still apart of colony operations, right?

Ok, I see what you mean. That makes me wonder how early game transfers will work. Surface to orbit and vice versa is easy enough. Planet to planet transfers I can see as a sticking point until you get better engines.