Incarnation of Chaos

So I actually kinda do this with a bit of Roleplaying in my Career games. About half way through I'll install SMURFF to reflect advances in tank construction.

Would it even be possible to construct a "Suit" that would allow someone to move on the surface? Assume we're reserved to just throwing mass at the problem at this point, since the only similar environment (pressure wise; literally nothing else) would be the bottom of the Marianas trench. And they used a thick walled steel sphere to survive that descent. You'd also need some form of air conditioner/heat exchanger/acid neutralizer/literally hell to slightly annoying conversion magic spell box to keep a passable environment. And then powering all of it; you'd probably just need to be tethered to a vehicle with some way to generate it's own power. Main reason I'm curious is that I've seen multiple suggestions for a manned mission already, and if anything goes wrong doomed doesn't even describe how **** they would be (Though with CO2 levels so high, they could just vent the capsule to ambient and let Hypoxia and eventual asphyxiation kill them well before hitting the gnarliest bits). I'd honestly be amazed if you could pull it off with anything short of a powered exoskeleton, but that's just me.

Funniest part is that I'm not even talking about a star system, the volume of one planet in KSP is enormous compared to something like Minecraft. There's a very, very good reason KSP represents planets as essentially textured shells over a point singularity, despite all of the bugs and limitations that introduces. And it's 1/10th scale! And Icebergs are a pretty good example of something you could add procedurally while still remaining in the limits of the current system; you just have to define areas for them to be and use the scatter system to spawn them (Or something similar; KSP2 might have a far better way of doing this especially for bespoke objects you'd want in a single biome).

I'd try removing mods one by one and see what happens. This could be triggered by a incompatible mod.

To be fair; even IRL we don't xD I even "Cheat" by using the probe cores to target the docking ports, but that only works if i get the encounter just right. So i get it; i was just kinda curious about your experiences for the most part. And i couldn't ever figure out how to use MJ personally, so i just got good at doing it with the probe cores/LVL3 pilots. I'd be rather shocked if they didn't have some kind of automation in KSP2 though; they've already mentioned it for colony operations.

Developer interviews confirmed this wayyyy back. Also in all the teaser material the bases have been on stilts, raised on platforms, etc. So there's no underlying surface beyond the textured shell, because otherwise a true anchoring system could be developed. They're pretty much committed to it, but hard-coded isn't how I'd describe it. You could change it, but now every single planet in every single system must be changed alongside that change. Any part, vessel or function that references terrain now must also be updated and made aware of the new terrain layers and how to handle them, and therefore all of your previous saves are incompatible. And all previous versions, planets made for them are now incompatible. Both due to the new terrain layers not existing on those previous versions, and those references in the code not existing in those previous versions. So this as an update would be a hard break from whatever KSP2 was up to that point, basically KSP2.5. KSP2 is being made because there was so much legacy code, outdated API cruft and other dependencies that it is easier to make a new game than bring KSP1 up to even half of what KSP2 could. This is similar; in that by the time you would even consider an update like this it would break so many things that you would seriously start looking at KSP3 as the easier option. Now again i want to be crystal clear here; there's plenty of ways you can spice KSP2 up with procedural elements and work around the terrain system. There's also nothing preventing them from making hand-made canyons, caves, or other objects and blending them into the layer to work around this limitation partially. But a fully procedural KSP2 planet generator would be exceptionally general. Similar to the mods for KSP1 in most aspects. This is a compromise they made intentionally, mostly because I'd think even if we went with minecraft "Chunks" that the sheer size of the planets would overflow your datatypes even if we just represented them as 4 vertices with texture panels. Oh and forget physics calculations between them, that would literally demolish any computer not owned by NASA or CERN.

Idk about this, but in my experience with docking any "Drift" is either the result of attempting to dock earlier than orbital parameters would allow or a lack of control authority.

KSP2 is using a single layer for terrain, so none of that is possible in KSP2. Procedural or not.

Doesn't exist, but there's no technical reason why it can't. Nobody has sat down and written the code for it is all.

No it doesn't; especially since we've seen nothing but handcrafted planets in the little bit of teaser material we've seen. And mind you "big" isn't hard to get relative to KSP1. Even if they are making everything by hand they have an entire team, and the advantage of a game built from the ground up for multiple systems. So until we get direct confirmation, assume KSP2 isn't using procedural planets. It might have procedural elements, atmosphere or they might even be using procedural tools for the bulk of the work. But that's a far cry from the entire thing being procedural. It's their own personal system for time-stamping posts. Pretty sure it was discussed in another thread.

As far as we know all the planets in KSP2 are handmade. A procedural system using templates could be implemented using mods, and would allow challenges in the form of "take specified craft to eve-like planet" But procedural planets are beyond the scope of KSP2.

That's why i qualified it with "And is intended for the player to discover via gameplay" Information about Colony mechanics, Interstellar Travel, new engines etc. i wouldn't consider under this umbrella, but if they implemented a system that say triggered a specific unlock upon visiting a specific planet. Then that would be in my eyes, basically i was mostly saying keeping the information as general as possible is the best way ahead for everyone. Giving people the general outline won't spoil things, but saying that if you go to X planet it will unlock Y would.

I just wish there was clear water to dive around here xD it's all lakes. But yeah I guess that's a reasonable question if I stop being a jerk. What I'd consider a spoiler would basically be anything that wasn't in KSP1, and is a unique or new mechanic the player is intended to discover via gameplay. Everything else is fair game in my opinion.

Go to your local diving shop; grab a tank of nitrox with about 40% oxygen and take a deep breath or three. No but seriously; they'll release information when two conditions are met. The first is that they're far enough along that they can be confident that it won't change significantly, and the second is that the pace of development has slowed down enough to allow them the luxury in the first place. In the meantime just chill. Speculation about why they're not releasing more when the reason why is clear and simple just comes off a bit desperate.

All indications point toward issues in the beginning of development, a studio change mid-way, and then the final snag with the contract negotiations falling flat. So i heavily doubt any of the delay was to expand the scope of the game or implement "Suggestions", and personally it doesn't resemble anything good looking back at other development cycles. And mind you; star.theory did try to bargain. And when they did; 2K laughed them out of the room and pulled out of their arrangement while also sending offers to the existing staff to join the new "Intercept games". So no, i don't think they were in any form of bargaining position. The simplest explanation to me is that KSP2 wasn't ever that close to release, and further business/office politics dealings and machinations combined with whatever technical issues they had made them slip well behind. And 2K used their position to force them back on the rails rather than let the work done and money spent go to waste. It's a pretty classic story in game development, and most often ends up without anything ever seeing the light of day. That's all just my opinion, combined with speculation and the little info we know. But everything we've seen doesn't make me think KSP2 is in any state we'd want at this moment; even if they had a playable build there's likely scores of issues we're not seeing(Hell it might be downright unplayable not hooked up to a debugger/IDE). Staff are having to be brought up to speed, on top of all the reorganization. The good news is that there does seem to be progress being made, and whatever happened behind closed doors has KSP2 on track to at least a somewhat stable release at first.

Well CDProjectRED has been spoling me ever since how wonderfully CFX scaled on TW3, but i honestly haven't been paying too much attention to CP2077 after they announced the 2nd delay personally. But as for KSP2's development; i personally don't think we're liable to see much until at least CES in January. You don't delay a game that was slated for release in a few months by nearly half a year so you can spend it making promotional materials. Would it be nice to have more information? Sure, but I'm not too broken up either way at this point.

As long as it doesn't come at the cost of performance; which would be my biggest worry. But KSP2 has been performance-minded since day one it seems, so i'm not too worried. And meh; i'd rather get another development blog entry. But that's just me.

Eve's atmosphere is certainly pretty distinct, especially when combined with it's gravity. Duna also is, and Ike is legendarily notorious for being the monster of a vacuum cleaner that it is. Sure; they all use the same basic components. But by combining them in different proportions you get very unique outcomes, and that was my point with a Black hole without Relativity. You can accomplish the exact same thing by just making it a neutron star, with far less work. Which then makes it pretty hard to justify in my mind.

Pretty sure there's also a workaround involving docking ports, so it's by no means insurmountable. Just more makes me curious how they've handled in on the back end.

Yeah i got hung up on the word "Subassembly" and forgot entirely about the fact they mentioned muliple editing recently xD

I personally didn't think that they had any real reason to lie about their time logged in KSP of all things to be honest, my gripes were mostly with their understanding of some of the more fine points of the things within it. Like they didn't understand that SRB's had gimbal until Scott Manley pointed it out to them during an interview....then again SQUAD apparently didn't either because they went back and updated several ones to have a gimbal range a time later. And yeah; I'm pretty curious about the implications of this. Not from a usability standpoint, but from a structural/computer code POV. One of the reasons KSP craft at times felt so strict was they're stored as tree structures, which while limiting in some ways is one of the faster data structures out there. And it has another advantage as well, since the "Tree" contains all the information needed to lookup and "Rebuild" the craft in any other KSP install it makes sharing them easy and storage requirements for the files relatively light (Some forms of data compression rely heavily on trees). If i remember from previous discussion, there's ways to keep the tree structure and allow multiple "Parents" for lack of a better word. But that comes at a cost of complexity, and if not designed carefully can easily negate the performance benefits from using the tree. It's undoubtedly a boon from a user standpoint, and something that i would use often now that you put it in context. But i wouldn't mind Nate clarifying some of the more nitty-gritty back end stuff at some point.

You don't need it, but without it then Black Holes become nothing more than a visual spectacle without anything unique to differentiate them. This is distinct from the difference between Patched Conics and N-body, since while the latter is more realistic you don't need N-body to get unique and different experiences in KSP as it stands. Nor would you in KSP2, though i suspect they have some form of it or Rask and Rusk. But that's somewhat unconfirmed (They're shy about details :P). N-body would add more unique elements (Lagrange points, Decay, "Lumpy Gravity" etc.), but it's not required for the base experience. Black Holes without relativity are just a super dense, compact planet with a pretty texture and a kill sphere; which since i don't actually want Relativity in KSP2 i think Neutron Stars would be a better choice as discussed earlier.

Not really; KSP's sub-assemblies are the least used of all of it's features for me. And if KSP2 allows you to have a VAB on a ship, then sub-assemblies become even less useful. At that point you can just use standard craft you have saved back, but this is all assuming that there's nothing in KSP2 that makes sub-assemblies more attractive. Because as it stands in KSP1, all they are is standard craft with more limits. There's no advantage in using them over just making a "Craft" that's essentially what a sub-assembly would be. Then again i haven't used any of KSP's Sharing features, so I'm hardly indicative of what KSP players as a whole do.

I'm almost positive that RP-1 isn't more expensive than Hydrolox; not only are the production processes for Hydrogen much less efficient and uncommon. But while RP-1 doesn't require too much special storage (If i recall the tankage must be a certain standard to prevent contamination, but that's with most everything for a rocket). The infrastructure to support Hydrolox requires much more setup, and operation is subject to a constant energy cost. But in all honesty; depending on CKAN isn't a good idea in general. There's a slew of issues it brings, and while i can understand using it to get your feet wet with KSP modding i feel like you're well past that point. That's besides the point though; especially since the Author himself said he'd get back to you in time. In the meantime however; most of your desired changes could easily be accomplished with some custom Module Manager patches if you wanted to dabble with that. The modding subfourm would be more than happy to help instruct you on how to make them, it wouldn't be too hard to reduce the cost of LOX/HydroLOX for instance. And you could easily add back in engines/tweak their cost (Though if they were hard-deprecated you'd need to grab their models from the last version that had them). Then you could use a mod like Janitor's closet to remove anything you thought "Redundant", and as a bonus save a bit of RAM while doing so!

The only way any EM radiation before the end of the UV side of the spectrum can hurt you is via heating, they cannot knock electrons off of atoms and cause them to become excited. Nor can they penetrate your skin and damage DNA, this isn't just something that's "Told to us" by big corps that we believe on faith. The Photon Energy required to cause these things is well-understood, and solvable mathematically. As for the latter; the mind is incredibly powerful. This is why we do double-blind, placebo controlled studies; because it's incredibly easy to trick yourself into feeling the effects you believe should be occurring. And then create "Tests" that produce the result you expected to confirm your pre-concieved notions. Also most phones aren't designed to be held for hours, i have big hands and holding any phone makes them hurt (Wireless or no wireless xD). Rectangles really aren't a ergonomic shape for our hands. This specific video is about 5G, and he goes into a lot more detail about extraneous information (Like cellular repair, cancer etc.). The portion where he begins explaining why even Visible Light (Which is several times more energetic than even the strongest Radio/Microwaves) can't damage DNA begins at 9:50 after he reads a Canadian Study. You can watch the entire video if you want, or not a single second of it. But i feel like putting the information out there regardless.