Vl3d

Well I'm sure it's a double edge sword we should keep an eye on. Yes, but he is talking about 3 things: creating a persistent world with RDB + using social for async interfaces with very big number of players + creating huge group interactions with P2P and NoSQL. It's all of them together. And KSP2 is perfect for that.

This. Seeing what the whole KSP community is capable of, not just me and my friends. I don't even have friends that play KSP. And I'm sick of single player + checking out YouTube and KerbalX. I want to see everything that's being built in-game. I want to arrive at a new star system and be amazed by what players that came before built. That's why I also recommended that each agency should have it's own Museum / Showroom building that could be visited by other players.

So basically you would spend 99% of your time in Construction and Map view, probably in single player or intra-agency 4 player co-op. I'm sure that will be possible. Question is: why are you so against other prayers having the possibility of experiencing a bigger social interaction in a persistent world where we can actually see in-game what we create (crafts and stations and colonies), even after months and years of playing? Do you really have no interest in exploring and discovering what human creativity is capable of it we work together in the same universe?

But also look at this interesting talk of Mr. Furio from 2011 about MMO games and how to improve massive social interactions in the same persistent world using cloud services, NoSql and P2P. "A talk from the Login 2011 conference on how to build games that connect hundreds of thousands of players in the same experience, using NoSQL, OSS tools & tech, and good planning." The dream is real! Later edit: Not mentioning any specific names that have not been formally made public in marketing material in order to respect privacy: Intercept literally has a MMO economy expert in the software engineering team that worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game), casino-type multiplayer games. "Computer game designer and developer specializing in online games. Extensive background in MMOG development, including AAA titles..." Not to mention an ex-Roblox UI/UX designer. And the team is using Redis and PostgreSQL for database backend.

I am also willing to bring arguments to the table that dismantle my ideas. For example, I don't know if many of you saw this message from Mr. Paul Furio, the Senior Engineering Manager at Private Division. "An update on Kerbal Space Program 2 and how we're enabling players to travel from planet A orbiting star B to planet C orbiting star D, continuously, without any loading screens, pauses, faked out transitions, "warp drives", or other trickery. We're simulating a multi-light-year spanning 3D volume at a sub-millimeter level of resolution, and enabling players to travel to any point in that space if they can build a ship capable of making the journey. Unprecedented in gaming." https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-furio_kerbal-space-program-2-episode-5-interstellar-activity-6920089169021014016-J_5I Well if that's the case for multiplayer, it kind of cancels a lot of solutions for syncing to the local server controlled multiplayer real-time bubbles. But! Also look at this interesting talk of Mr. Furio from 2011 about MMO games and how to improve massive social interactions in the same persistent world using NoSql and P2P. "A talk from the Login 2011 conference on how to build games that connect hundreds of thousands of players in the same experience, using NoSQL, OSS tools & tech, and good planning." Later edit: Not mentioning any specific names that have not been formally made public in marketing material in order to respect privacy: Intercept literally has a MMO economy expert in the software engineering team that worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game), casino-type multiplayer games. "Computer game designer and developer specializing in online games. Extensive background in MMOG development, including AAA titles..." Not to mention an ex-Roblox UI/UX designer.

But I am also willing to bring arguments to the table that dismantle my ideas. For example, I don't know if many of you saw this message from Mr. Paul Furio, the Senior Engineering Manager at Intercept. "An update on Kerbal Space Program 2 and how we're enabling players to travel from planet A orbiting star B to planet C orbiting star D, continuously, without any loading screens, pauses, faked out transitions, "warp drives", or other trickery. We're simulating a multi-light-year spanning 3D volume at a sub-millimeter level of resolution, and enabling players to travel to any point in that space if they can build a ship capable of making the journey. Unprecedented in gaming." https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-furio_kerbal-space-program-2-episode-5-interstellar-activity-6920089169021014016-J_5I Well if that's the case for multiplayer, it kind of cancels a lot of solutions for syncing to the local server controlled multiplayer real-time bubbles.

My suggested solution was to remove physical interactions from all craft belonging to other agencies (make them pass-through). This way you can only crash with your friends + there are massive performance improvements (lack of collision meshes, rendering only stages as parts). Exception: you could interact with other players docking ports after asking for and receiving permission. There could be layers of permissions for inter-agency craft cooperation: to dock / land, permission to transfer fuel / resources, permission to engage RCS, permission to start engines, to transfer crew or come on board, permission for scientific activities, trade (resources and craft) etc. It depends on marketing and player base research. Private Division / T2 do not put caps on budgets from what I understand. I tend to think KSP2 is going to be a much bigger project than what we were led to believe. No one can seriously argue that it took the whole extended team 4 years to reimplements + extend + improve the KSP1 gameplay with part and colony mods + tutorials + better Unity visuals. There's some serious infrastructure and technical work going on behind the scenes about which we know nothing. I tend to think it's related to multiplayer.

Yes, online co-op. And if you click the tag you see a list of basically everything that allows multiplayer cooperation, including massively multiplayer games. I just think the word MMO just has a bad reputation. No one ever said "MMORPG" or anything like that. We're just basically debating if KSP2 is going to have persistent world, dedicated servers and how many players per instance. I'm sure the game is going to play very similarly to KSP1, with us being able to control a Space Agency, craft and Kerbals, regardless of multiplayer size.

Yes, but that's abstracting recovery away. There is a lot of creativity left on the table. Building a multi-craft system that works together for a mission is much more rewarding, even if you do it manually once and then automate it like suggested by @Bej Kerman Totally agree, but I would love to have a mass production economic model that works with more complex mission profiles, not just stages. Especially if we can do it co-op and then automate it (I would prefer it not just be abstracted away, at least recorded and visible). Agree, answers above expand on this. I just don't know what solutions the devs preferred...

Some epic flying scenes here..

I think any serious space program should have a way to simultaneously coordinate more than one craft for a mission.

I agree with some lightweight engines for the correction burns. But I think we could electrically spin it up if the center axle has solar panels at the ends and there are 2 wheels spinning in opposite directions and releasing payload and counterweight at the same time. Also I would expect this system to be used only for cargo, so we can have very high G forces and thus a smaller radius for the centrifuges / wheels.

I saw the video below and I wonder what would we need in KSP2 to be able to implement creative new reusability and recovery strategies (while not having to do it manually every time)? The example below means having parachute strings that can be hooked and also automation for helicopter flights with an autopilot for atmospheric intercept of the falling booster. Some kind of multi-vessel coordinated autopilot would also be necessary for boosters landing on a drone ship. There's also the mechazilla tower to catch a landing booster. That would require.. precise landing and the actual tower with arms. Any other ideas?

If there was a mod for destructible terrain (landing plume holes and crash craters / ditches) and plastic deformation craft damage instead of always-go-boom/puff I would ask for that.

I can't prescribe solutions, just stating problems and wishes. It might be possible that something we think we want is actually solved diagonally, by changing paradigm or by addressing a more fundamental desire.

1. I've mentioned it in the list, but we really need a better way to interact with parts that are clipped inside other larger parts. It's so frustrating to have to zoom inside and find the right angle in normal view so that I can right click a part (on a small probe core inside a tank, for example). 2. Total volume of hollow parts clipped together should be calculated using the formula: vA clipped with vB = vA + vB - (vA intersected with vB) 3. A similar approach to calculate hollow structure mass. Meaning that if X is a hollow parts or part with living space, the total mass should depends on the exterior walls, not on the part walls that are now inside (and in practice would not exist anymore). mX clipped with mY = mX + mY - (mX and mY mass of walls that are now inside the structure) 4. We desperately need a way to group merge fuel tanks together so they become a single tank. Also applies to hollow parts with living space that are clipped together. Please devs. @Nate Simpson

Why don't you just write a DM to the social media manager and ask to set the video as listed on YouTube? I'm sure he just forgot.

I do understand why the high tech radiator panels would be like a very thin plastic membrane with a lot of capillaries, but look at how the Venture Star made them look distinct. I mean, that's similar to how the metallic hydrogen engine radiators looked like in the KSP2 cinematic. They look hot and cool at the same time!

If there is no need for procedural solar panels in stock, it can be a mod. The only reason why you think it's something easy to implement is because unfortunately procedural radiators look like solar panels. Maybe they shouldn't.

I've been looking closely at how massive multiplayer is implemented in other space games and I think I've found a solution to quell your overcrowding fears and also merge all players into a single persistent world. All players could build and fly in the same universe if dynamic instancing was used for some celestial bodies (mainly in the Kerbollar system, on and close to Kerbin). The further players explore, the fewer they are, so there's not really the problem of colonial overcrowding on planets and moons that are far away from Kerbin. We would only see / interact with max N number of players on each world, but more advanced players would converge the farther away they travel. And there would be a server rule that each instance always had enough room for new player colonies, while maintaining a healthy density and interesting older / bigger colonies.

I would argue that a kind of "efficiency optimization" life support has been confirmed. Meaning inadequate life support will probably not kill your kerbals, it will just lower their efficiency and lower colony growth rates.

Could we have space centrifuges that spin up very slowly using solar energy but achieve a fast enough rotation that they could be used to accelerate objects for interplanetary travel (or asteroid deflection) by just releasing them? I think it could be built in KSP1 also.

I think this post is also very relevant here:

KSP2 multiplayer will be the greatest cooperative sandbox game ever made. It will be a case study for years to come about the logistics of building an interstellar civilization. Let me give you an example that's very on topic. While most of us will be working on building 0.1c-0.2c Class Interstellar motherships burning in brachistochrone trajectories, some industrious players will prefer to spread out through the Oort cloud, bunny hopping from rock to rock, mining resources until they will arrive at the overlapping debris cloud of the closest star systems to Kerbol. This spreading industrial web strategy cannot be done in single player in a reasonable time window and it cannot be simulated in any other game. But it is one of the most realistic ways to travel to our neighboring stars. I actually think younger star systems will have so much debris around them that brachistochrone trajectory interstelar travel will be too risky in reality. So the question is: of the closest new stars, how many will have simulated debris clouds?

I would love more detailed IVA flight decks that integrate instruments, sensors, map view, hull cameras etc. Guess that would enhance the flight sim feeling.