GigFiz

I haven't done enough zero-g construction to run into the root parts issue, but that's really interesting. I think that it then goes back around to the same thing I was talking about with ground construction, ie: it should pause and the interface should become much more like the VAB than it is in its current form, including more absolute directionality and the ability to re-root parts, which would solve the issue you bring up. As far as zero-g weight limits, I guess I have less of a problem in principle with that because I could see how volume could be an issue with unwieldiness, even if weight isn't. That said, at that point, it would be great if you had a manipulator arm part that you could include that would then bypass that restriction and greatly increase the complexity and size that you are able to work with

Well, some of my biggest issues they have mentioned in previews or dev updates already, so I know those are already being addressed, but one I have run across recently (because I hadn't really used it much before), is field construction, especially on the ground. There is a mission that generates to go add parts to a rover to fix it, and the version I got required adding several wheels. It was nigh impossible; it refused to actually orient the parts the same way as it would in the regular construction interface, or even in remotely the same way as already attached parts. Even worse, the physics don't pause while you are doing it, so the moment you grab a wheel to move it, the whole rover sinks into the ground, making it even more impossible to attach or align the part, and if you somehow manage to get it attached anyway, it then launches the entire rover way up into the sky and into the distance; it was low gravity, so it didn't blow up, but you would have to chase it down and start all over. On top of all that, even if you manage to get all the wheels on, it was genuinely impossible to get them all lined up, so it was hit or miss if it could even drive at all, and it could never drive straight. It also required parts too heavy to carry, so Bob couldn't just have them in his inventory and I basically had to pick them up and throw them ahead as I ran along to the rover. The whole experience was maddening. It's a great concept, but it clearly was designed with only zero-g construction in mind (though I haven't used it much for that yet, so I'm just assuming it's better. It's a new enough feature that I tend to forget about it), and has some major interface and implementation issues, at least with gravity. Another one, that @Nazalassa's post reminded my of, is when you do a burn and have a perfect intercept with a planet or moon, then hit warp to SOI change and all of a sudden are no longer even remotely on the same course and nowhere near an intercept. I always quicksave before hitting warpto and often just warp to an arbitrary close point instead, but it would be nice if it actually worked.

Finally getting a chance to dig into the new parts, and they really are lovely. FWIW, one very minor quirk I found with it and the CTT is that the G4 astrolabe dome is in Advanced Science Tech, in the 550 Science, while the G1, G2, and G3 are all up in the Colonization, in the second to last tier. Unless this is some weirdness with other mods I have, I am generally assuming it isn't intentional that the most advanced one (assuming so based on numbering) be unlocked first, especially that much ahead of the others. Obviously this creates no problems with gameplay, but it did seem incongruous.

Yeah, as far as doomsaying goes (potential contract or NDA stuff aside), with all the time and effort that Nert put into giving us amazing mods I would have a really, really hard time believing that he would have joined the team and be sticking around and giving us behind the scenes looks like this if he had got the impression that this game was not going to make it to the finish line (heck, while I don't know how many delays had happened when he signed on to the team, it wouldn't have been an unreasonable question to ask when he interviewed with them. Also, when you watch the dev videos, none of it feels like a doomed game: the team is clearly enjoying showing us what they have been working on, and are excited for when we get to see the finished product, and the dev diaries and updates, even if we wish there were more of them, more often, give a definite feeling of progression (and enough different things that it doesn't give the impression of them getting stuck going around just repeatedly redoing things). I understand the impatience, and I understand the concern that arises from the number of delays, especially in that industry (people know the stories, and we remember the vanished projects that help feed those doubts and concerns). However, I just don't feel like that's what is happening. Case in point: how long did it take KSP to make it to 1.0? And how long after that to the last major update? Exactly, it was not a short time. Now, this isn't an identical situation; this is a sequel, not a new IP, so not all the ideas and design have to come from scratch, and I'm sure there is a significantly larger team, but on the other hand, they are doing far, far, more than KSP1, in so many ways, and their starting release is likely going for at least a level of finish and polish that KSP1 has right now. To me, thinking like that makes me think that making the original release would have been superhuman (not to mention the GIGANTIC monkeywrench that is Covid being thrown into the mix. Sure, if the dev updates and videos had stopped, I would say worry, but they haven't, and they are still active on the forums here. To me what this feels like is that they started development with a certain picture in their minds, as you do, but then, as they worked on it, they started figuring out/realizing more things they could do to make it better, cooler, and more complete; they clearly want to make the best version of this game that they are able to, so they went for it. In essence they started with the realistic, pragmatic plan for the scope of the game, but then ended up getting to expand toward their fantasy wishlist version of the game, which would obviously be a huge increase in how long in took to complete. And in through that lens, the delays are actually, counterintuitively perhaps, a good thing, I think: it means (I think/hope) that the publisher, instead of putting their foot down and making hitting a deadline the only important thing, they are letting the devs make the game they were dreaming of, making and giving them the time to do it, even if it means repeatedly pushing it back to do it. Maybe this sounds overly optimistic, but despite how it may sound, I'm not getting overhyped (though I would certainly be sad if it ended up being terrible or just disappearing), I'm just going to patiently wait, enjoy talking about what the show us, and then not think about it too much otherwise. It'll get her when it gets here, and then I will buy it and it will be amazing, I hope. Hell, even if it somehow isn't, there are a whole bunch of amazing modders just waiting in the wings. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it

I does seem that I misunderstood what you were getting at, apologies. For whatever reason, it gave me the impression of starting with the KSC as an empty field to start with, and you have to first set up and build the basics before you can start your space program, and that...would actually be kind of awesome as an option for a later play through, but not really appropriate for the first one, especially for Kerbal newcomers. However, as you have pointed out, that is not actually what you were saying. So, as to your actual point, I think it really depends what the colony building systems ended up looking like in the finished game and how much freedom you have to personalize the space center as you build it out. On the one hand, it could be really cool to have something more than just 'click to upgrade', but on the other I could see it bogging things down potentially for some people. I think a good alternative could be to have another launch site on Kerbin that unlocks at the point and you could build it up from scratch; it would be a good way to do just what you are proposing, and a second launch site would be cool thing to have anyway. Doing it that way would also make it great way to learn the building mechanics first, but one that also be skipped freely for anyone that would rather learn through the creation of their first Munar base. I do think, though, that this should be just for the building mechanics. I stand by the opinion that resource management (aside from currency/rep/science, or whatever they replace those with) should never come in to play on Kerbin and that the Kerbals should already have all their supply chain issues sorted out, as it were. It would also create an issue where it is either an extra thing to fiddle with just to keep your space program running and, personally, that is something I really do not want, or it's something you do once then ignore it and so may as well not even be there (plus, if there implement life support resource management it would be one of the first ones to learn, but would make no sense to have on Kerbin). Another reason is because I think that the basic colony building part should really be introduced first, with all your supplies and buildings being launched from Kerbin to start with, then introducing the basic resource management once you have a simple colony established and adding complexity as your colony gets bigger. That is my 2₭¢ (kerbal cents )at least. It is definitely an interesting idea though, and I do think there is certainly merit to the possibility of learning the basic building mechanics at home on Kerbin

Interesting. I quite like where you are going with that; it almost gives off kind of an oldschool SimCity vibe (in a good way). at least as a starting spot, then made 3d and Kerbalized. When I was first replying, my brain went in a kind of subnautica/satisfactory direction (especially with kerbals having inventories in ksp1 these days that they can build with a bit), but I quite like what you are getting at. Having that VAB-like ability to adjust and it from all different angles, and tinker/experiment/manipulate stuff would be really useful and would eliminate a lot of potential hassle on larger colonies/bases (in fact, running with that, I wouldn't mind having some of that functionality on space stations that have dockyards (only the orbital shipyards though, I think; it would be kind of cheating with smaller stations, but for something massive enough to be a shipyard it would be really handy to be able to tinker with the design a bit without having to do massive redocking operations or just building a new station)). Having a way to view resource chains a la SimCity electrical/water view (very roughly analogously, at least), could be handy too, especially depending on how that whole subsystem ends up being implemented, and an auto build/build time system tied to resources seems like a good way to gate things fairly (and also would let you just go crazy in sandbox mode with resource management turned off, assuming that will be an option). Almost most of all, I really like the concept of being able to destroy/rebuild as you get new and better parts and technology. I definitely like to upgrade bases and stations, both technologically and cosmetically, as I progress along, and the sheer hassle of that has very often led me to just abandon older bases and start from scratch as I move up the tech tree; being able to actually update and evolve, at least the important ones, instead sounds REALLY nice. When I first read your idea, I thought it sounded like too much of a departure from the rest of the game, but after further consideration, I take that back completely, I think something along those lines would be a great way to integrate the new gameplay elements. I also am in favor of things that make you more invested in your colonies and stations; as it stands now, it's fun creating new ones, but once they are in place, there is really nothing, apart from a bit of science and fuel, outside of your imagination keeping them actually relevant for anything. I'm definitely glad they seem to be moving pretty heavily in that direction for ksp2. As far as I've seen, they have shown us next to nothing about what they are actually implementing for those gameplay elements and systems, but I hope they are at least heading in a direction closer to your ideas than to ksp1

I understand that. I apologize if I was unclear or I misunderstood what you were saying, I was replying the this one here (as I now realize I quoted the wrong one). And was saying that yes, as I recall from what I've read, early colony parts will have to be launched individually, but at some point a VAB analogue will be buildable (and was saying my memory of where they said that was a bit hazy, but I remember for certain about orbital dockyards, so ones on other planets are a logical extension, anyway) and at that point construction will be (presumably) purely surface based (whatever that looks like). And then was just rambling about how I wonder about the systems for joining together those early landed colony parts, since in KSP1 it can get a bit....finicky. Actually, out of curiosity, by "separate part system", what did you have in mind/desire for a planetary construction system. You sound like you have a type of system in mind and would love to hear your thoughts

And also, doing marketing now, when the release date isn't firm/keeps getting pushed back, would be counterproductive: it would give the impression that it really is about to come out, so additional delays after that would just leaving a bad taste by building up the hype, making for a bigger let down from another delay. Plus any visibility/name recognition in the general game world will just die back down and have to be rekindled again when the release finally comes (and forum dwellers here are going to get it anyway, and even if on the fence, the marketing isn't going to be what sways the decision), so it just ends up as money and goodwill burned to no real effect or, at worst, a net negative. Plus it's okay, I figured it out: my laptop is getting pretty long in the tooth at this point, to the point where I am concerned about how well KSP2 will even run on it, and the devs are very kindly waiting for me to upgrade to something that can run it really well, and they are using that time to make sure that the game is truly up to its full potential and well polished. I apologize for the wait, but they assure me that it will be worth it for everyone.

Agreed. I would generally assume that since they have a fully fledged space program with the whole space center built (even un-upgraded), that they have their resources and supply chains on Kerbin already sorted out. Plus I am sure they want to lead with the primary gameplay system/loop, ie: building and flying spacecraft, and a complicated auxiliary one like that is something to be introduced to us after we have our space legs under us (at the point of establishing a first permanent colony is a really natural time for it, anyway; it means you are fully comfortable with the basic essentials of spaceflight, likely have some space stations and satellites in place, and are now stretching out further. Starting off with resource management feels a bit like putting the rocket cart before the space horse)

Well, considering we do know that there will be orbital shipyards for building stuff like huge interstellar craft that are too big for the VAB, it is a pretty small jump from there to on site building. And actually, at least at one point I swear they said you would be able to build new VAB analogues on other planets as well, so presuming that this is still going to be the case, then you will definitely be able to expand colonies without having to land everything. I presume that you will still have to build each part of the expansion and then plug it into place; the idea of Subnautica style point and build (I don't know if you had this in mind or just normal kerbal style, but built on the surface; I'm not putting words in your mouth, just kinda running with it) does have some appeal, especially when you start getting into really large/complicated/weird looking colonies, but it also doesn't seem very Kerbal like, but on the other hand, some stuff might get almost impossible to build otherwise. That does also make me curious about how they will handle joining together landed colony parts, ie: base frames, wheels you can retract or jettison, will there be legs that can auto level so it won't be quite the nightmare to build on less even terrain like it can be in ksp1, etc. I'm sure they have this stuff in mind, just curious to see what they end up going with.

I think one other relevant factor needs to be accounted for, and that's processing footprint. So this sounds like a potentially pretty important system here and, considering we will be eventually working at an interstellar level, so how many of these supply routes are we going to be setting up? A few? Dozens? Hundreds? I think the devs have to be thinking about the scenario of what happens when you reach say...triple digits. At that point, what would be the hit of simulating these vs just checking that some criteria are met and changing some numbers (also, what are the odds of being in range to see a delivery, especially when you start to have a bunch of stations/routes/bases, etc. The cost/benefit of actually simulating it doesn't seem worth it). Also, there are kinda two subcategories here as well: surface to base and base to orbit vs interplanetary and up with planet to moon kind of somewhere in between. On the surface, timing is a non issues, and even orbit windows and lunar transfers are extremely consistent and predictable and take the same delta-v (And I would imagine if you move the base or station, I would guess you have to redo a run (or maybe even have that be a changeable difficulty setting thing even)). When you get to the next level, that's where it starts to get wibbly. Have they actually said supply runs would be able to be automated going interplanetary, even? It seems like that would be a much lower priority, not even because of complexity, but because of frequency: having your mining rig going back to base twice a day and then sending a supply ship to orbit twice a week is going to get tedious really fast, but even a Kerbin <-> Duna Supply route will take several years for a round trip. That's a whole lot less micromanaging than the lower scale possibilities (and actually, at that point, fully simulating it is no longer as big a processing sink, because you (well...probably. This is KSP after all) won't have hundreds of ships going to Duna. But in general I would wonder if interplanetary stuff will be automatable. My question, I think, is: how is refueling the supply ships going to be handled? Surface stuff is easy, just gotta have power, but it doesn't matter how efficient or not your ascent and transfers are if you don't have a way to refuel. So this implies that there could be a prerequisite for unlocking supply routes of having a viable refinery and supply chain set up first, otherwise you would be able to skip a big game requirement. Which is nice, it's a natural system of progression of starting small and then building up and giving yourself the capacity for bigger and more complicated supply chains Edit: I understand why interplanetary supply runs are desirable. I just asked, with the extra layer of complexity there, if they had firmly said if they are implementing it up to that scale or not.

The video on this thread addresses some of the concerns you guys have been bringing up (I think even automating supply runs gets an offhand mention). It is mentioned that interstellar ships will be too big for even the massively increased VAB size (like, he mentions a single engine that outsizes the whole VAB by itself), and will basically necessitate having orbital dockyards first in order to even build the things, so some progression and infrastructure will be necessary first. Also at the end it's mentioned how they really want the first step into interstellar travel to be a really big moment and something that has been built up to, which seems to imply the build up and progression to get to that point that would create a moment like that. Also, RE: grindiness. Don't forget that in early KSP1 especially, there were none of these systems at all, so if you wanted to do that, you basically had to imagine it and self enforce; really even career mode was a sandbox with progression, you had to provide the impetus and imagination most of the time; even now, outside of the most extensive mods, you still have to do that. So having systems like this in place from day one that you can engage with if you want to (or not, or mod out/mod into something different. which is potentially great because it's easier to modify a system with a mod than build it from scratch) is a pretty big win overall. Even if you end up not loving how they do it, the more robust systems there are in place from the beginning, the more effort modders can put into raw creativity of modifying things, rather than the legwork of adding in systems and processes that they have to build from nothing.

Yeah I kinda figured; the impression I've gotten from explanations is that for N-body physics is that if it's only 2 bodies that's essentially what on rails is, and for N=>3 the processing power required starts out astronomical and then increases exponentially. So I had mostly presumed that unless someone was having ago at earning the Galactic Institute's Award for Extreme Cleverness, it would be something similar to KSP1. And RE: Lagrange Points: per this thread (I didn't feel like going through all the links for the original quote source) "Rask and Rusk, "a binary pair locked in a dance of death", so close to each other that tidal forces rip them apart. Should be fun. And as far as we know, the only binary system using different physics system than the well known from first game 2-body. "in the case of Rask and Rusk, we’ll be calculating the gravitational pull of multiple bodies on our Kerbal vessels, so that developing a stable orbit in complex conditions like a binary planet system becomes a new and exciting challenge! In addition, attempting a landing on Rask or Rusk will be a different experience depending on the location of the sister planet in relation to your target for touchdown, and yes, there will be an a stable Lagrange point between the two planets (if we pull this off correctly)" So that confirms exactly what you said, with the additional fact that Rask/Rusk will have a Lagrange point, and with the implication of how they worded that, we can pretty safely conclude that it will be the only LaGrange point in the game.

You are still our hero, Nert. Ever so grateful for that massive quantity of awesome work you did on all your mods. Looking forward to experiencing more with KSP2. (wishful fanboying): If you are allowed to, once KSP2 is out you should do a little show and tell for some of the work you did on it

Yeah, Nert becoming a part of the KSP2 team is just pure awesome. No we have the creator of the best mods and models in all of KSP1 helping bring that awesomeness into the base game. And yeah, Nert always did his homework and, as I recall, had aerospace in his background/expertise as well so he could always be counted on for high accuracy. Also for accuracy, the fact that they have physicists on staff and are very serious about consulting lots of experts to get the best info the can is a very good sign. Unrelated physics wise: I wonder how their coding/game engine improvements are dealing with gravity. From my understanding, simulation of the N-body problem is a notoriously tricky and processing heavy issue, so obviously they will have to deal/work around that, but I also suspect they aren't necessarily just content to put things on rails most of the time like KSP1, so I wonder what/how they are approaching the whole thorny thing. Random related wish/thought: I wonder if we will get LaGrange Points

I was really glad to see the stuff about overhauling the burn and time warp system to account for interstellar distances. This was definitely on my wish/concern list for ksp2, so seeing that acknowledged and hearing the effort they are putting into it was quite encouraging. Also, every KSP save I've ever done, early on I will always send a probe on an escape trajectory from the Kerbin Solar System; even though there was nowhere for it to really go, it is a nod to the rest of the galaxy and wishing I could explore that too. So the idea of finally being able to do that, and hearing them talk about clearing the Kerbol system for the first time and seeing the bigger picture opening is quite exciting.

Unrelated, but it's kind of odd: I don't know what you did, but the reply thing seems to have wonked out. The thing you replied to that it says was from me, wasn't something I wrote, it was the quote I was replying to in my own post. Because it should say Spaceman.Spiff as the first thing: And this is my actual reply that I wrote from that post: Wasn't trying to get off topic, just never seen that happen before. On topic: holy hell, Nert; those IVAs....

It's been a year since he posted, I guess this one might be dead/indefinitely delayed . It's too bad, too, this one looked good and the selection of good custom contract packs is still pretty spotty, and a lot of them are old. Oh well, can't be mad at someone when it's something they do for free in their spare time.

Oh that would be cool: if it ends up easy for them to take anything that would fit/be useful in ksp2 and only have to tweak a little bit to make it work. Tangentially: I wonder how the engine glow and other particle effects are going to turn out in the final release. Tech's come a long way and, with the waterfall FX thing, Nert's been showing how much better they can look. I do hope with 2 that they put some effort into making those look realistic and good Yep, that's another reason you're awesome: you don't just jam stuff in willy-nilly, you make it coherent and consistent, and you make it look awesome. But, as you are saying, it's impossible to develop a vision for potential mods right now with how little we know and the amount of development time left, so any of that talk is putting the cart way in front of the horse. Still, if there perchance does end up being some pieces of existing mods that fit in naturally to the new game, it would surely be convenient if the process of adapting them was relatively simple.

Yeah, mayhaps. Though that's still just speculation about what the final game will look like, and how the modding system will work at this point, so it's still putting the cart a little bit ahead, as it were. However, no matter how good it may or may not end up looking, I guarantee Nert and his partners in space crime (other restock devs) will have ways to make it even better

That's a fair point, and probably best to try and keep expectations low enough to give them room to surpass them; but they keep pushing the release back, and now they are getting more/new artists; so we can maaaaaybe play optimist a little and hope that it will better (and hopefully full awesome /fingerscrossed) by the final release (whatever decade that may be). And if not....well, It'll give Nert more to do . Though, really, I'd be super sad if we didn't get any Nert mods for KSP 2

Does this just stack neatly on top of all your existing mods as they were? Ok, that's a slightly awkward way of putting it, but what I'm trying to say is would it work to install this on a decently progressed save, whether smoothly or a little bit janky (lots of mods, though a large percentage are yours anyway, but compatibility with other mods is a separate issue that I'm not really worried about. I largely assume if a mod works with all your mods at once, it will most likely play nice with this one), or would it be more advisable to start a new save for it? Either way, thank you, this is pretty damn exciting. You are killing it as always; the amount of awesome you have contributed to KSP and the community is just ridiculous.

Fair enough. Thinking about it, the reason I went here was that I was making a station that size with a bunch of your station parts and it was the one thing that wasn't fitting in. Also, what I had in my head was essentially a PPD-TRUSS or PTD-C from this mod or the ECR bays from NFLV, just sized to 3.75.

I've been recently been making an effort to check out all the IVA's on the parts you make and, holy crap this doesn't get said enough, they are absolutely ridiculous. Not just the quality, but all the little touches: The notes, the actually animated swimming fish, everything. I just saw the holographic planet in the 3.75m cupola. Bloody awe inspiring.

I apologize if I'm just blind and missing something, but it seems like the 3.75m size is a bit lacking for cargo/payload units (Pointing the finger at squad, not you). I acknowledge that there are lots of them in the MK3 airplane form factor, but it looks a bit funky (and can have gaps) if you just slap them together, and the only adapter is a rather inelegant big fuel tank (There is the service tank as while, but there isn't that much actual storage space in there). I mean this not as a criticism, but a humble request/suggestion, that a true round 3.75m service bay/cargo bay would be a great thing to have. Much thanks