shdwlrd

Yes they did. You will have to start to slow down well before you reach your target or you will overshoot it. You can try this in KSP if you want. From Kerbin's orbit, do a direct thrust to the mun. If you don't turn and slow down well before it, you will either overshoot it or crash on it. If you don't want to try it yourself, I know that Scott Manley has a video of him doing the to the mun and back challenge which demonstrates what in talking about.

I'm not saying that they should add it. I'm saying they could add it if they wanted to.

It would be useful to have something that tells you when to flip and start your retroburn. You know, so you don't overshoot the planet/star you're going to. Interplanetary transfers you can eyeball it if you must. Interstellar transfers, the scales required for the zoom could lead to large errors and you could miss your target.

Bingo... I'm not focusing on the specifics, I'm focusing on the end effect. I'm thinking about the in-game physics, not real life physics. I'm thinking about how you have to tell the game engine how you want the physics to work. Where in reality we can't dictate how the laws of physics works. KSP isn't training simulator where everything must mirror real life. It's a game that approximates real life. So if the devs want to add the circular explosion rotational detonation drive, they can. And they have the honor of telling the drive how to work within their construct called KSP2.

You can do that already in KSP using the cheat/debug menu or a simple config edit. But those options are completely optional. You can use them if you want or not use them at all. How will it change gameplay? Is the change in gameplay going to be a boon or burden for the majority of the user base? I'm asking these questions because you can't just think about your own opinions. You have to think about people who will be using it. You're lobbying for a change that isn't necessary. Turbine engines can run on any fuel that burns, internally or externally. Rocket motors can use any fuel that burns. The only reason they use specific fuels, is they are designed for that fuel. It doesn't mean they can't be made to use another fuel. So with that thought, why change something that doesn't need to be changed? Just to add more pieces to the puzzle?

The science side of KSP needs some more depth. The addition of ground and space based telescopes could be fun to play with. (Pretty pictures you know.) They also would be necessary for finding the new solar systems. The more routine experiments should have an option to automate the data collection. (Eg. Record the temperature data every hour.) But only help fill in the general info with detailed info from the local area. The science values for Kerbin should be worth next to nothing. (Maybe the occasional large gain of points?) The tech tree should be unlocked with funds, time, and the occasional experiment that needs to be done by the player.

@The Aziz i don't want to sound dismissive to your argument, but as I said to Master39, I don't care about the different petroleum and cryogenic fuel fuel types. If they want to change what fuel works with the Nerva, I wouldn't have an issue with it. It never made sense to me that they had it working with jet fuel and not LH2 or hydrogen.

@Master39 you're assuming that everyone will play through whatever the devs decides will be the progression for the technologies. I play KSP in sandbox, period. Not because the career and science modes suck, or whatever KSP2 adds for a progression mode. It's because I want to use whatever parts I want, and do anything I want. Which in turn, means I don't care if a motor uses Kerolox, Hydrolox, Methalox, or whatever. If the motor or engine requires a liquid fuel and an oxidizer, it's LFO in my mind. I don't care about the different physical and chemical properties of the different petroleum and cryogenic fuels. Now if a motor or drive doesn't use LF or LFO, then yes, it needs it's own fuel resource. This is the mindset in pointing my disagreement on. It punishing the people who just wants to be creative and do what they want, which is the spirit of KSP.

I agree with most of of this. I highlighted the part I disagree with the most. I don't want the precursor motors to work with only specific fuels. I don't want to add that headache to the game. The new motors and drives need new fuel types, and that is understandable. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is changing something that doesn't need to be changed.

No, KSP was just a "build a rocket and launch it" simulator when first released. It has grown over the years to include planets, moons, and space agency stuff. The aircraft parts were an afterthought. Kerbin's atmosphere was not a priority for several years. Drag and lift wasn't a thing until after .9x. Science and career modes were only introduced a few years ago. The relic parts lying around were the original models used for the game. That's the reason why there is such a resistance to the added complexity for realism sake. I for one would like to have reasons to build colonies, need rings on long-term space voyages, and such. But not at the expense of needing to spend long periods of time planning, nitpicking parts to make sure they can be used together, creating spreadsheets for supplies and such. I just want to slap together a mission and just go and do it. Minimal planning, minimal fussing about. I think everyone understands that there will be some more added complexity, but what most people are suggesting is going overboard. Extreme realism is no fun. Games are about fun. You keep saying go play simple rockets if you want to launch cool rockets. In my opinion, simple rockets sucks compared to KSP.

Isn't the same concept, just using very different methods to achieve the same thing. Or does the laws of physics differ because one is using rotational motion to create thrust and the other is using an explosion? Yes it did, some type of plastic explosive on the demonstrator back in the 50s. I'm pretty sure they didn't use mini nukes for a proof of concept. (I hope they didn't anyways.) Are both uncontrolled reactions? One in the atomic level and the other at the molecular level. In the end, the effect is the same, a release of energy and a pressure wave in atmosphere. Magnitudes of difference between the energy levels for the reactions I will admit. Yes I am and that is true. The closest thing the orion drive relates to is a PDE. Please see above. The end effect is the same. Don't you think they would build that into their estimate?

The reason you don't hear a ton of players crying for complexity is the players are content with the way things are. If you're happy, you won't complain and remain silent. Think about the player base, the number of players calling for more complexity, and the number of players saying no. Now the silent part is either happy the way things are, or could care less what happens. (Until something happens they don't like, then will say something.)

Easy enough when you're in a system. But traveling interstellar, you would want something to say you need to start slowing down.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. My point is that if KSP2 is going to use a Orion drive, the developers would have to program a delay into the thrust profile. Instead of using a long delay and a massive amount of thrust, they can use a very short delay and little thrust. In real life, they are both completely different concepts. But in game mechanics, they can be produced using the same techniques. I know what Nate said about the bomblets with the Orion drive, but there are ways to fudge the destructive effects and thrust generated in game.

Ok, I'm confused? What types of engines are you trying to compare? ICE is an acronym for internal combustion engine that encompasses "all" piston and gas turbine engines.

So detonating liquid fuels to push the craft forward can't be the same concept as detonating an explosive to push a craft forward? Both are using a pressure front/wave to push the craft around. Yes, there is a marked difference in the strength of the pressure wave, but both are using the exact same concept. Did you work on any of the projects? Do you know someone who is working on the project? Did you read the papers published on the project? As far as I know, rotating detonation propulsion hasn't made it out on the lab and all numbers are hypothetical. Much like all the numbers for the Orion drive. The Orion drive has never been built. So how do we know for certain what the actual numbers are? PS. Have you ever seen the pressure wave from a FAE? It rivals that from plastic explosives. Look up fuel/air explosives and you will see what I mean.

Building crafts and modules is confirmed as part of the colony system for KSP2.

Since it's the same basic idea as the Orion drive, I can't see a reason not to add it at some point.

The hard part is knowing when to flip and start your retroburn so you end up in a nice orbit.

Until you have a craving for that hot sauce and must have it everything. I agree, no Ironman system is perfect, but if someone wants to find a way around it, they will. But people who are playing ironman in KSP is doing by choice, there's always that too.

This. I get the idea, you need something to force you to play more conservatively than you typically would. In my opinion, KSP2 would need a bunch QOL features to be able to do an Ironman mode. Other people posted a need to run simulations before you even launch. That would necessary to find faults with the craft, mission, and such. But there would also need to be a good stock autopilot, scripting, mission planning features, and full flight info outside of the IVA. I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible, but I don't see it being a stock feature, at least when it releases anyway.

Ironman mode wouldn't work well for KSP. Outside of saves you can revert to when you mess up. There would be many opportunities to recover when you mess up, so much so that it deems the Ironman mode moot.

I agree. Let the devs figure it out.

Hmm... if that is what you want to go with, more power to you.

Why do you say that?