Incarnation of Chaos

I legit thought you were talking about Kerbals being able to fly around Anthem style for a second. Then read the description, and voted no. Mods will take care of this in KSP2 without a doubt.

The issue with this is that we don't actually know what Resources will be needed in KSP2, and that means it's rather hard to predict ahead of time which will be needed. See this thread. Most of the same arguments here also apply to this; especially the 2nd post by Master39. We don't have any idea what Resources we'd need, if we'd need them or etc. With all of that said; i'm going to say what i think Star Theory/Current Developers could do to make modders lives easier in terms of Resources. Because i think the idea of asking modders what they think we should standardize on before we even know what tools they would have, what Resources are lacking or what mods we're going to make is jumping the gun.

Since modders can make whatever resources they want who else would standardize in this case?

No it's not; unless you have a compact fusion reactor with magic radiators that don't get wrecked in the atmosphere to rid yourself of all the heat it would generate. And then all of that equipment can't weigh so much that your TWR becomes so low you can't even get off the ground (Planes don't need a TWR >1, but there's still a consideration here). And that's all assuming this scales up, and even the author had doubts that would be plausible.

If you had all parts available from the beginning of a career save would there still be that challenge? I doubt there would be. The limited selection of parts is only a single component of KSP's "Challenge", and not a major one. The primary challenge in KSP comes from balancing those individual parts to produce an optimal vehicle for a particular mission profile, and that profile is what gives most of the challenge we see in KSP. Procedural Parts could easily be balanced against LEGO parts during early-mid game by restricting how you could dimension them, what sizes were available or even what applications they could be used for. And you could also balance them by just tweaking what mission profiles in KSP2 exist from the beginning. I don't see a mun mission really having much advantage with procedural parts over LEGO/Standard parts, but for a interstellar ship? And that also brings us to the tech tree and funds, which could be additional levers to adjust the balance of procedural parts. Nothing says your first procedural parts have to be the same cost as a similar lego part, making custom tankage is expensive and time consuming afterall. And they could be unlocked mid or even endgame, so that you have to use LEGO parts for the bulk of the game.

Deuterium and Tritium are easier to fuse, and they do do at lower temperatures. The sun fuses normal Hydrogen despite this. So it's not impossible, just much harder for us humans.

That's also because of the difference in volume; there's a large number of people that don't enjoy using bulky tankage for LOX and LH2 despite that's just how the chemistry works out.

All games are when you get down to the meat of it is a bunch of math wrapped with pretty pictures, and KSP is double so. Much of the development time is not going to be making models, sprites for UI elements, animating explosions etc. It's going to be drudgework, it's going to be hundreds of man-hours of programming functions to handle bespoke errors, exceptions or crashes. It's going to be writing variables, and testing how they interact with the rest of the code. It's going to be BORING excrements THAT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE OR CARES ABOUT. But they have to spend that time, and spend it well. Because if that work isn't done, none of the gameplay trailers would get done, none of the vehicles would work, the game likely wouldn't even launch without BSODs. Could they be in the middle of Development Hell, and KSP2 looking much more distant than we think? Sure, but that's one of the last assumptions we should be making until proven otherwise. People have been spoiled by the current industrialized advertising machine that accompanies most AAA releases these days, and the fact they have entirely seperate divisions for handling this kind of content. That they have dedicated social media people that drip feed the pack of stimulant snorting rats a daily dose of carefully made hype to ignite a flurry of speculation, reaction and "Controversy" that does the job of millions of dollars spent on marketing for free. And then when the game comes out, packed to the brim with MTX, day-one DLC and a slew of bugs that they knew were in there, the fact they spent more time on mobilizing the machinery of hype than actually making a good quality game is laid bare for all to see. KSP2 at this moment could be either the worst game ever made, or the next standard to which all others are measured against. But for better oever worse, i'd rather hear nothing until they have a product that they've spent that time in the trenches shoveling slop out of every corner than see it tainted, twisted and destroyed by this same machine.

Macbooks also have crap thermal solutions, and phones are even worse. And i assumed for a mobile version it would be treated like Console, and stock would be the only thing on offer. But yeah; we're pretty much on the same page here. Even if you got past the hurdles of porting the code to ARM, optimizing and then trimming enough fat for a ok-ish experience; the UI would need to be drastically simplified to the point of being nearly useless. A spinoff game where you could track experiments, have crew rosters, mission patches and flags i think would be a much better idea.

It's not about ram; it's that the physics calculations that KSP uses would beat up most mobile CPUs. So you'd have to develop a simplified version, and at that point it's just a simplerockets clone.

This is like what? The third or fourth post begging for info? It'll be done when it's done people.

Well if you change your mind again just shoot me a PM with the name of the system

So this is why you were asking about readyboost and all that. Is this machine a laptop or a desktop? If you want I can poke around and see if I can find the service manual, and with luck you might be able to upgrade the RAM. I'd need the name of the machine; should be something like "Dell latitude blah blah blah".

Project Orion could easily do it, and that was easily possible in the 50's. But this is a false dichotomy you're setting up; because no matter what you can't "Burn" CO2. It's a product of combustion itself! You may as well be trying to make a jet engine that could burn liquid water! Sure you could split the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, but that would take just as much energy as you would release from their combustion and the extra dry mass from the needed equipment would result in it being too heavy to fly practically. You could also split CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen, but the same problem arises. This is chemistry we knew back in the 1800's, and hasn't seen any massive changes since. That isn't to say we couldn't ever find a different way, but seeing as KSP II is about "Near Future" technologies it isn't the place to speculate about fantastic technologies based in not even a tiny bit of real-world experience. So you're really left with 3 options; you either bring your own Fuel and Oxidizer and have a rocketplane, use a Nuclear Thermal Jet Engine, or use Electric Propulsion. Not because we know 100% that those are the only ways to do this, but because those are the only ways we know currently and are compatible with our understanding of physics even going 100-200 years into the future.

I've never had it use the IGPU unless i physically connected it to the motherboard port or explicitly told a program (such as OBS) to do so. I also owned a laptop with switchable graphics and used it heavily for over 3 years; the DGPU wasn't even selectable in OBS. It also caused numerous other issues that i haven't seen on a desktop running windows 10. Also the "Run with graphics processor" selection doesn't appear in the context menu of a desktop with a IGPU and DGPU. So I'd need a bit more evidence to be convinced that W10 can do any of these natively.

Is your display connected to the port on the GPU, or a port on the motherboard? Also since KSP is mostly physics; it's likely that the GPU won't constantly spin because it's not getting hot enough to reach the temps defined on the fan curve for it to spool the fans. So it may just be engaging the fans ever 5 or 10 minutes to remove the soaked heat, seeing the lower temp and shutting them off until 5-10 minutes later. You could define a custom curve in a third party software like MSI Afterburner or just force them to spin at a certain %. Desktops don't do this; whatever device the display is plugged into is what will be handling the display out. Laptops do have switchable graphics however, and it's hella annoying like you said. But the power plan settings aren't a bad idea either; since if they're not on "High-Performance" then windows will still park cores and reduce performance.

Most modern computers don't support this; they have too much internal RAM. And it wouldn't actually increase your system RAM; just speed up the swap file. So here's the thing about Disk Space; on traditional HDD's not having enough Disk Space could cause slowdown. This is due both to the fact that the length of the tracks increases as you get further to the edge, and how the controller has to handle the position of existing tracks more and more. But this would be a Whole-System slowdown, and very noticeable outside KSP; another thing is "Fragmentation" on traditional HDD's. See because of how HDD's are physically; if the data it needs to read is not all on one track it slows things down dramatically. However if you bought this computer in the last few years; i seriously doubt that's an HDD. It's almost as small as a drive i had in a 2005 pentium 4 machine i had for a while, and the cost of HDD's has plummeted so much that even 500GB drives became too expensive to manufacture even 4 years ago compared to 1TB drives. And if it's not an SSD; then none of the above apply. SSD's don't get "Fragmented" in the same way HDD's can, nor do they have a physical head reading physical tracks. I know it sucks to hear, but there is a point where the only option is new hardware if you want a increase in performance.

Or it could just be a SABRE-Type multimodal engine operating in closed-cycle mode with Fuel and Oxidizer, or a weirdly shaped conventional rocket.

They're using the same broken, massively simplified aero model that KSP1 has, and that's been confirmed for a long time.

It's more of a workaround than a true replacement for procedural parts, not to undermine the work the current maintainer has done at all. But tweakscale doesn't allow you to make arbitrary-sized versions of a given part; just scales them to what they "Would" be if they were a smaller or larger part. So while you can take a 1.25M tank and tweakscale it to a 3.5m tank; it will have the same length, dry mass to fuel ratio and colors the original part did. Where with a procedural system you could further optimize the individual part for your needs, trading dry mass for fuel mass at the cost of durablity or perhaps having completely different shapes than the current tanks. Or stretching the tank and coloring it a different scheme than it had originally. That all being said; it's not impossible to use a similar system as tweakscale as a foundation for a procedural system.

Procedural Engines i think would be a bit too much, but adding Procedural Fuel Tanks, Monoprop, Batteries and etc. Wouldn't be that hard; and anyone who enjoys the lego tanks would still have them. Adding procedural parts in no way implies removal of existing parts...

Hydrogen is a proton and a electron; at the temperatures required for fusion the electrons have been ripped off the nucleus and only a proton effectively remains. Hense the term "proton-proton fusion". In stars the fusion of hydrogen is a massive bottleneck; because the vast majority of the time after fusing the helium nucleus (which is only two protons afterwards) flings itself apart. Only rarely does one decay into a neutron; forming "deuterium" which is an isotope of hydrogen containing a single neutron in addition to a proton. Which then can fuse with an additional Hydrogen to form stable helium-3. For context on why this is a problem it's estimated that it takes about 200 years on average within the sun for a hydrogen atom to become helium. Current work towards fusion on earth focuses almost exclusively on fusion of the mentioned deuterium isotope with another called tritium. Because they form stable helium on the first reaction, and are larger nuclei that are much easier to get to fuse. And we still have to increase the rate of reaction with heat and compression well beyond the temperatures found within the sun to even attempt extracting usable energy!

Isn't proton-proton fusion that would proceed with the required intensity and rate exceptionally difficult to achieve in a controlled manner? Would you potentially need a more "Conventional" D-T or D-D fusion reactor to "bootstrap" the entire process? I'm fine with the concept, but this is just a question I've had for a while.

Tbh while i find the discussion about that relatively pointless; KSP is a game based around working within physical laws. Demonstrating and learning Orbital Mechanics, Math (Delta-V, ISP, etc.) and even more complex topics without even realizing it. There's a sizable chunk of people that would see KSP2's value compared to KSP diminished if it included purely fantasy (Not Proven or Unconfirmed) technologies like what he was describing. There's also a sizable chunk that have already had KSP2's value called into question because of the addition of engines using purple space magic when actually built and tested alternatives were available. So there is a certain line that most people don't want to see crossed in the Stock game when it comes to realism (Do whatever the heck you want with mods), and some just happen to be......more passionate in their discourse because of that.

The most enviromentally friendly propellant would be LH2 and LOX produced with electrolysis of water; you could also intentionally exploit the action of high-energy gamma rays inside a critical reactor to cause hydrolysis of water. However running a Nuclear reactor intentionally critical (In the sense of close to meltdown; i know all reactors are "Critical" in another sense of the word) to produce fuel is just bad ideas, so you're better off just using a conventional reactor or solar power to produce LH2/LOX. Which also could serve as a chemical battery for your renewables if you're doing this on a massive scale ironically, and since going 100% renewable also normally requires excess production to cover fall/winter months (around 2-3 times base load).....this actually seems like a great idea....except having massive stores of cryogenic oxidizer on hand is also bad ideas.... You then have your Hydrolox rocket loft a NTR upper stage which is just using LH2 or NH4 into LEO, and then go from there. But i think the focus on "Enviromentally friendly Propellent" really misses the big elephant lurking in the corner; the dirtiest part of any industry in Aviation isn't burning hydrocarbons.... Aluminum is incredibly energy-intensive to produce from Bauxite, and accounts for more pollution than i think most people are aware. Production of Steel REQUIRES emitting CO2, as you must blow pure oxygen into your molten iron to first remove the Carbon that's already in it (It becomes CO2 after bonding to the Carbon). Then add the correct amount of carbon and whatever other additives/alloying metals your customer desires, Concrete also requires emitting CO2 both in production (Which could be eliminated, but not in a economically viable way) and while setting. Composites also aren't eco-friendly, and disposing of them isn't really something anyone has figured out. The production of the glues and solvents to work with them also isn't something you'd call eco-friendly.... Now does that mean i'm saying we shouldn't come up with solutions? Absolutely not; we should always be thinking of different ways to do things! Even if they don't bear fruit; they might be the missing piece for someone down the line. But i really get tired of the discussion about propellant; cleaning up the production chain before the rocket is on the pad would reduce CO2 emissions far more than even if every single future rocket launch was Hydrolox and reusable. Getting more electric cars on the road and powering them via renewable sources would offset a massive increase in launches. I'm just going to point you to Everyday Astronaut's video; he did a decent job of explaining it. And he also pointed out, but didn't breakdown the impact of production.