intelliCom

Hard science fiction. Not "star wars" or "star trek" sci fi, but more like "The Martian" sci fi. The kind of sci-fi that's actually good. It's still sci-fi, since it doesnt exist in reality. That's all that science fiction is supposed to mean. Hell, I'd argue most stuff that's called "sci fi" should be "science fantasy" instead, since it's proven to be scientifically impossible. USS Enterprise ain't sci-fi, they just assume that all gravity works in one direction. No mag-boots, no centrifugal rings, just good 'ol inspiration from naval ships. edit: To clarify, "Hard Science Fiction" is a sub-genre of science fiction that is concerned with keeping everything as close to scientific reality as possible, or at least in the realm of uncontested theory. This can include fusion engines, which have lots of maths to back them up, but none of the technology or funding necessary to bring them to reality.

Explain limited control in KSP 1. Explain how a probe acts autonomously with specific vectors without direct contact with Kerbin or a pilot? Is that not pre-programming? If not, then what is it?

Almost certain based on what pattern? I'd like to see it the same way as you do, but the next one being about a Mun landing needs some pretty conclusive evidence to be "almost certain". Pre-alpha footage. There was pre-alpha footage of the Daedalus engine before. Mind you, none with a plume, but a plume isn't much. They've demonstrated shock diamonds on the Panther jet engine.

Yeah, but with what tracking station to provide full-control inputs? It's literally light years away. The "programmed" part is limited control. Clicking on maneuver nodes with SAS.

You talk about a more realistic physics system and propose movable celestial bodies as a positive? Not a better aerodynamic model, not kraken extermination, but movable planets? What do you think Unity is right now? Unreal Engine 16? It may be a physics sandbox, but it's not Universe Sandbox. Go play that instead if you'd really want entire planets to be moved somehow.

When I say "initiate control", I mean load the craft in from the tracking station. Since it's almost reached 6 light years away after 44 years, another 6 years would need to go by until the probe arrives at the 6 light year distance. So, another 6 years passes and real-time control can finally be given to the probe. Reason input latency wasn't as necessary in KSP1 was out of interplanetary distances. Only a few minutes would pass between Kerbin and Duna, so why have the latency there at all? Latency would be a definite challenge when dealing with interstellar distances, and as such, it's something that should be incorporated into KSP2. KSP devs have talked about torchship engines pushing spacecraft to relativistic velocities, so just ignoring the speed of light would be cheap. If you don't like latency with your interplanetary probes, send a pilot there to use remote assist on a nearby space station or something. I'm not even talking about actual input latency, because jesus christ I know how much of a hassle it is to deal with cloud gaming, let alone interplanetary communications. It's just a cooldown for the amount of time it would take for the inputs to be broadcast from the tracking station. If there's a pilot with remote assist that's already in close enough vicinity, the tracking station's cooldown is overriden, and the pilot's distance is used as a cooldown instead. After the cooldown, it's all real-time for as long as the vessel is loaded in. Encourages the player to think ahead of time. This would be the case for limited control, which only includes the maneuver nodes available to the probe core. If we're considering that, then there's basically just a latency cooldown for full control via a tracking station or nearby pilot.

Not pointless hinderance; if done correctly, it can be an interesting challenge. Like forcing the player to wait an amount of time until control catches up to it. If you sent a probe from here to 6 light years away, and the arrival time was 50 years, you'd initiate control of the probe 44 years after departure, so it allows real-time control on arrival. There's also stuff like plasma blackout and g-force damage that already exist as toggleable difficulty options. Signal latency of the above type could easily be another.

Maybe the reverse of the friction pads from Breaking Ground?

I noticed another potential sport that's missing from the list so far: Skiing/Sledding. Just conventional Skiing. Wallace and Gromit style, even in the vacuum and everything

Thanks. Also Ovin. Damn I just realised we got three ringed worlds in this game: - Glumo - Gurdamma - Ovin Was anything missed, or are we all caught up? Maybe the mysterious Lapat/Lapet could be a ringed world?

Of course any other world with rings too, but Glumo's one of the only examples I can recall. There was also that planet that was supposed to be a proto-Kerbin. It's not Debdeb, that's the name of the system.

Probably in Glumo's rings. Two spacecraft have tiny fuel tanks, and have to use ISRU to go around. First one to make a full revolution of the rings wins. (Not a full orbit, since the rings already do that. Point is that you're going prograde with the asteroids and you eventually end up back where you started. No going backwards.)

I had the thought of 'retrograde orbit combat', where two combatants are in retrograde orbits relative to each other, and their goal is to destroy the other's ship as best they can. Decouplers would be used to provide damage, detaching off the main craft and colliding with the other craft. Basically like throwing a rock off a moving train. Basically a space version of robot battles. Doesn't have to have kerbals onboard, could use probe cores too, but only one control point is allowed. If ammunition runs out, direct contact would be necessary. First craft to destroy the other's control point wins. If both crafts run out of fuel and have no ammunition, it's a tie, even if still-existing decouplers could contact spacecraft. Would create a potential space trash field. If you do it around somewhere like Dres though, it'll be fine.

KSP 2 development updates:

But as established by @shdwlrd, the specific most-efficient-altitude stats for realistic engines would be higher if they were on Kerbin, as atmospheric pressure is higher than Earth's until 65km. When I say "mapping", I'm basically just referring to how the atmospheric pressure changes with height. There needs to be some data that decides how the atmosphere changes. In this case, it's a curve.

That's basically what I'm talking about. Some aspects of KSP are similar to Earth, but are tuned for better gameplay. Although I didn't expect higher efficient altitudes for realistic engines either. Then again, the engines don't necessary have to be more realistic. Then then again, Goliath shouldn't be stupidly efficient and output a literal nuclear reactor's worth of heat.

The problem with this is that Kerbin has absolutely no atmosphere when you reach above 70km. RSS' atmosphere extends as far as 164km. This makes me think that there's slightly different mapping. Besides, Kerbin is 10x smaller.

Absolutely. I know I keep going back to Nertea's stuff, but KSP 1 modded with all Near Future technology basically turns KSP 1 into KSP 1.5. Near Future Propulsion has specialised engines like that, and they're a lot of fun. Although, I was more referring to types of engines we've already got. LF + LOX and LF + Air.

Universal engines? Absolutely agree with you on that. Bit too impossible, the player should use niche engines for niche uses. No 'one for all' engines please. Strong engines are less efficient, weak engines are more efficient. Thems the rules. On the other hand, engines based on stuff in existing TV shows? Yes, please. Thank you.

Are these most-efficient-altitude numbers tuned for KSP, or Earth? Probably Earth altitudes. It's all good for RSS, but you've got to remember that KSP's atmosphere is scaled differently. Maybe it would be better to turn these into air pressures instead of altitudes, so we can map it in KSP for Kerbin & Laythe more easily?

Alongside specialised linear engine mounts, maybe having around 4 or so mounting points for engines, alongside a toggle for round mounts or square mounts, I'd love to see linear aerospikes in KSP. Be nice to make a proper X-33/Venturestar replica without jamming toroidal aerospikes together and using flags while pretending it's a linear aerospike array. In terms of stats, I can imagine the following, based on the original T-1 aerospike: Cost: 5000 f Mass: 2.25 t Thrustatm: 169.51 kn Thrustvac: 200.00 kn ISPatm: 284 s ISPvac: 335 s Fuel consumption: 12.17 u/s (60.85 kg/s) A slight boost in thrust over the original toroidal aerospike, with nerf to the mass and specific impulse.

I'm curious about the inclusion of new engines of the types that already existed in KSP1, such as LF-LOX bell nozzle engines and LF-Air jet engines? I know we've grown used to the default lineup for a while, but it would be nice to see some fresh new additions side-by-side with the engines we're already familiar with. Nertea's Restock+ is a good example of something that solves this problem. Besides this, there's basically only two engines in the 3.75m class. Surely it would be good to have more conventional rocket engines added to this field? Perhaps even 5m radial engines? For 5m radial engines, I can suggest Sea Dragon and Nexus as good ideas, with the latter being a possible successor to the T-1 Toroidal Aerospike. As far as planes go, there definitely should be more jet engines added to the game, such as more under-wing jet engines like the 2.5m Goliath, both in larger sizes and smaller ones. Larger versions of the RAPIER engine would be good too. New SRBs would be nice. Perhaps a 3.75m one, and more control over the sizes of each SRB? Does anyone else have ideas of new engines that should be added to KSP 2 of varieties we've already seen?

Could be. Then again, could be a case of confirmation bias, given that we're thinking a lot about procedural radiators right now. The absolute truth is that we aren't too sure. Whenever I've been unsure, I always put down a (?) right after. Anything without question marks is certain to me.

The use of solar panels like the structural panels in Making History would be much appreciated. Various different sizes and shapes that we could attach to robotic parts so we can make our own folding solar panels. Either that, or we could be given the opportunity to make n-gon solar panels with adjustable points along a plane. For instance, a pentagonal solar panel with points adjusted to look like a house. There was also this idea to produce solar power through a very compact, inline module: Solar Power, Origami-Style | NASA. We're not exactly asking for solar panels that are huge like radiators need to be, but it allows for greater creativity in what the player can build. Were it not for the latest KSP1 update, we wouldn't even get the round solar panels that the Lucy probe had. Without procedural solar panels, the desire for customised solar panels would always be dependent on the solar panels that we're given in the game. If the necessary solar panels don't exist, you can't build it. This was originally a problem when it came to lifting surfaces. We were given a specific set, and had to work with them as best as we could.

Got a screencap of the VAB UI and labelled it. I'm not sure if things have changed since we last saw the UI, so it was easier to just relabel the UI we saw in this video. Let me know what's new compared to before. https://imgur.com/a/WgBcM8g