Incarnation of Chaos

I'd be extremely careful with this if i were you; even Squad doesn't have full ownership over some models due to their involvement of third-party modelers at points. Now if all you want is to whip up a proof of concept for your own personal use using a Module Manager patch to create a "New" part using a copy of an existing one as a base, that's fine. If you want to redistribute that patch even, that's fine. But if you want to ship a mod with models, textures, and complete parts; that's likely where you'd run into trouble and need to create (Or commission; I'm sure there's a number here who'd be happy to make you models for some compensation) your own original assets. Now I'm going to be crystal clear; you absolutely should pursue this if you want. Just giving you a heads up on this particular point.

By the time you can get to other systems; you're at the point where you can just use fusion to make fissionable material if you absolutely have to (Via Neutron Irradiation, not directly fusing them). Though i would start to question the utility at that point, and yeah iv'e known the Moon/Mars have them for a while (Most of the disscussion/debate is concentration). Asteroids are chock full of heavy elements (Iridium, Gold, Platinum), but as you mentioned at low concentrations throughout. I was mostly just trying to say there's a little bit of "Wiggle room" for the abundance of many of these things due to the nature of it. Also you could always have localized areas that are much higher/lower; just like Ore concentrations in KSP 1.

Also I'd like to point out that between traditional Fission reactors (Which you'd need for exploration outside the inner solar system realistically beyond probes), and Fusion reactors (Which we know are in KSP2 due to the presence of fusion-based ship designs). The Lack of fissionable material isn't actually a BAD thing; this would provide a decent mechanism to limit usage of large atomic ships until later in the game where "Breeding" large amounts of fissile material becomes incredibly easy. Though i will say i wish we knew more about the composition of the outer planets; yes we can derive very general ideas of what they're made of from just their surfaces and the conditions they formed in. But i think assuming too much could be pretty dangerous also, Earth is chock full of materials that really shouldn't be here in abundance that were delivered or concentrated via various impacts or geological processes. So finding Fissile materials in the outer systems may be easier than we currently think, but this is speculation at best.

I mean you could just have a procedural system for anomalies, and spawn them at random in certain biomes. Then you could have a system similar to spore where a scanner could pick them up, or something more complex involving satellite mapping, surveys etc. This would be a cool DLC if nothing else.

I'm not sure how that would be handled in all honesty; since Mercury's "Atmosphere" isn't that far off from vacuum. Like i guess there wouldn't be anything preventing you from defining such a tenuous atmosphere, but at that point i would kinda question why unless the entire reason was "LEL MOAR KERBAL".

No; keep it as is. They want the Kerbol system to remain the same for commonality between KSP and KSP2, and much of what you're describing can be handled by just making other systems. But i wouldn't object to free DLC or official "Mods" that were completely optional and implement a version of OPM, or change around the Kerbol system in other ways.

Right; i forgot that I'm on the internet and that Poe's Law holds. FORGIVE MEH!!!!

IRL Mercury is likely to have a massive (Over 60% of it's total mass) iron core, and as you mentioned plenty of solar power. So i could see it becoming a late-game industrial center, simply because it has the most basic materials available for constructing infrastructure, plentiful power, and if you're even at the point where Orion is a possibility then the DV requirements to get things there isn't that big of a deal. Ideally you'd just build most of the infrastructure and launch it to L1/L3, but in stock KSP2 that's unlikely to be an option for the Kerbol system. So i could see it, but almost as a Min/Max situation where someone was willing to put in the work for the potential gains instead of dropping a few extra colonies.

Then they could show it, and be very clear and concise that it's an optional feature extending what can be done on a single screen. If they did, and it was clear that they wouldn't have major issues with support then i would completely reverse my position. But that's the same with quite a bit of KSP2, the lack of information makes me tend more towards the cautious side.

Which is why this is the most useless statement in tech support, because it doesn't help me isolate what my problem may be or rule out anything. It's just clutter, and is one of the things i was talking about. Also that remains to be seen, even if they have code for MP that could make the synchronization easier it's not safe to assume it could be dropped in without any issues to support multiple monitors. Also you don't want to run a full server client just for a display utility, so you'd have to at least remove it's network functionality and the like. This all takes time, resources, and most importantly doesn't help the main goal of KSP2.

Um; i wasn't really commenting on the wording of the poll. More just saying that a poll on this fourm is going to diverge significantly no matter what from a poll sampling the general audience interested in this game regardless of how you word it.

Alright, so I'm just gonna say this. I don't think any fourm polls are actually representative of what the "Majority" wants, because any fourm regulars are basically mega-nerds or heavily involved in community projects/modding/all of the above. Which also would correlate with second screen use pretty heavily, and thus i would expect the KSP fourms to show a massive bias towards multi-monitor usage. All of that said, I'm not actually against multiple-monitor support in theory. But in practice; unless it's basically free to implement and doesn't suck up too much developer time and resources i wouldn't want it. And this is why i voted "No"; because even if they were able to recycle significant portions of the project from multiplayer code and use Unity's API's i still think people are asking for way more than they could potentially deliver. So they'll spend weeks/months wacking this in, debugging it, and then when {Insert pet feature} isn't present people will take a big old steamer all over them for not including it. Where if they don't include it at all, then they'll get over it since the expectation won't ever be set in the first place. And there's a second element here, and that's really outside their control. Which is OS and Driver interactions; i used to use a second screen on a regular basis. But Windows couldn't clean up the virtual displays afterwards, both AMD and Nividia's drivers are absolute trash at handling multiple displays. And if you have any differences between the resolution, refresh rate, aspect ratio it all just makes this house of cards even worse. So as a result, not only will people not be satisifed. BUT now they're gonna get support overhead and hate for issues that aren't even their fault. To me, it just doesn't seem worth it at all. Even if they implemented it, and it was everything people wanted and MORE. I wouldn't use it; just because the software stack outside of KSP2 wouldn't allow me to do so reliably. My desktop is already enough of a "Project Car" as it is xD

I'd want a Pole colony just for the large sheets of ice serving as decent runways alone

And i guess that's the key; it should be almost a "Halo Tech". It should only be there for the 1% of players that would play long enough and hard enough to require it, and essentially be their reward. That's how iv'e always thought about it anyway, but i think the fact that KSP mods exist that add it in more or less as a cheat (Some are much more realistic implementations mind you.) Does kinda poison the well of discussion around it, and that was one of my main reasons for posting that. Because KSP2 allows us to put Scale as a obstacle in front of things like this, and deal with their implications.

Hey; iv'e been seeing a lot of discussion about "Warp drives" and the like here. And i'm not sure if it's alright to drop here, but i'll do it anyway. In the Spoiler is a interview between the guy who runs the channel and Dr. Miguel Alcubierre who's the author of the famous paper that proposed our much-talked about IRL warp drive. It's nearly an hour long, but i'd consider it worth a listen. He breaks it down, addresses the FTL/Time Travel issues (There's geometries that don't allow Time Travel, but do allow FTL that can be solved for. He also does admit that the same math can be used to solve for ones that make it into a time machine). They also go into the issues with Negative Energy, creating it, mass etc. But once you parse thru it; i think that some opinions may change (Or be revised; i'd love to see rebuttals all the same). Now back to the topic at hand; i voted for the bottom two and the one that includes warp. Why? Because while I'm a staunch believer in the idea that we should view the possibilities in the lens of what's possible with current science and understanding; there's also the fact that KSP2 will allow us to achieve scales much larger than current human civilization. Generating large amounts of Antimatter or Negative Energy even via inefficient processes looks very different as a Type II civilization than it does now. And on many occasions as we got access to more and better industry, and practical applications of science were used it turned out that our predictions needed to be revised. This doesn't mean that we should throw all current understanding to the wind, but that these current obstacles could simply transition from a gray area to a engineering challenge. And their application could very well reveal new physics that would further assist in developing these technologies. And while i wouldn't say KSP2 should speculate too much on "New Physics", i think transitioning these into essentially late-game manhattian project esque endeavors could be a worthy compromise.

Yeah all RT hardware is are Matrix Units from what iv'e seen (Specifically I'm pretty sure they're 4X4) ; they're just accelerating existing calculations that would take too long on the GPU/CPU (Nividia uses them for Denoising of the rough RT scenes last i checked). So i wasn't thinking they're magic; just trying to think of something that they could be leveraged for that most everyone could benefit from. But from your description it sounds more like an issue created by how KSP handles the pipeline in the first place, rather than a lack of a workable solution. Thanks for the answer anyway.

I'd imagine there won't be hard limits, but similar to the science labs and science in KSP each planet or even resource might have multipliers that would encourage you to get off world fairly quickly (In theory; we know this didn't really work in KSP.)

As harsh as this is, i kinda have the same feeling. Like I'm glad the dude is enthusiastic and all, but i can go and find 3-4 "Planet packs" from them in various states of completion. I get being a bit ADD and never being able to sit down and focus on one thing for long, but it would really be nice if there was more than just an outline here. Regardless; i wish you luck Noah on actually completing this monster. It would be a sight to behold when completed.

I actually have somewhat of an related-unrelated question here. One of the persistent issues in KSP is that there doesn't seem to be a good way to determine where a light source (I.E a star) is coming from, and i know that while workarounds exist for this i was actually wondering if RT related technology could help here. Now I'm pretty sure making every star cast enough rays to properly illuminate everything would set anything barring a large supercomputer on fire, but would there be a way to have a more bespoke solution? Like being able to "Request" a Ray to strike an object on demand with a function; just to get the proper magnitude and direction so doing things like solar panels and the like is easier? Though...now that i think about it, a Vector could do that. But i was thinking the benefit of using a Ray would be that if you split a panel into individual elements, and each one made a call that the Ray would occlude when necessary and make situations where only a sliver of the panel is shaded but the entire panel generates no power much less common. Only reason i'm curious is that KSP2 will have multiple systems from the start, so they'd have to have a solution for solar panels from the beginning.

Oh and as for the topic at hand ; I'm almost certain that KSP2 will use 1.X notation going from release. KSP is already on version 1.10, and the gap between KSP and KSP2 is only going to get wider as time goes on. So i don't think there's going to be as much confusion as people seem to be worried about.

Near future suite and specifically Kerbal Atomics and Near Future Electric has some Uranium Reprocessing kit that can turn Depleted Uranium into Xenon. And you can use the same reprocessor as IRSU for mining and refining Enriched Uranium, but how you end up depleting it is the bigger question. (Though technically most of the output should be "Depleted Uranium" since that's what's left after seperating the fissionable isotope).

Not going to lie; i thought by "Develop" he was implying "Build up a potential colony on" and that this was going to be a rather interesting speculation thread. Now i'm just sad xD

I mean it would be more work on your end, but why not just make a set of lego add on tanks so you can stretch the craft as needed for various fuel/mission requirements? That way people who want to fly the X-33 as close to a replica of what would've been can just use the standard set. And those who want to use alternate fuels or experiment with it can have some fun. I was even thinking about taking a crack at making an adapter section for the rear, there's quite a bit of unused space back there if you don't use your aerospikes (Lovely engines btw) that could be exploited for extra fuel. And it would also cover up the rather bad amount of part clipping i needed to stuff the emancipator in the back xD Just a thought of mine though; i understand if you don't want to make any major additions at this point though.

And mind you; the way KSP loads is a massive part of the issue there. i wouldn't be surprised if a heavily modded KSP2 is much faster on the draw all things considered.

That's actually something i hadn't even considered; if they built a robust system for their multiplayer servers then they could easily reuse significant portions of it for any potential multi-window support.