BowlerHatGuy3

Nah it sounds amazing. Would make some extremely hilarious moments.

Sounds good on paper but it’s very easy to misalign things in Kerbal, and it’s unknown if that’s going to be fixed in the second game. All it takes is a millimeter and the train would go kablooy. Plus, there is no reason that I could think of where you would need to rotate a car sideways. I think it’s best to have the assembly in a line. There would be some basic settings like car length and height. You could the add, subtract, copy, paste and load cars. There could also be a “frame” mode so that it’s easier to make your cars look more aesthetically pleasing. You could then make an engine car with generators, batterys, turbines, cockpits and what have you to pull the cars along. There should be a maximum weight for the cars, as being able to make moving skyscrapers is kind of dumb. What I meant was that there be two types of engines your engines would fall into. So like if you put a lot of power generators you could go fast but would waste fuel faster. Sorry if that came of as two actual locomotives you would have to choose from.

I agree with the rails being raised off the ground; that’s where the monorail idea came from. I think it would be best if you designed a car on a “platform” that’s essentially a metal plate with wheels/monorail thingymabobs. You could then add an engine, cockpit, passenger compartments and utility devices along the cars. Engines and cars should be able to be individually saved so you wouldn’t have to build a new train from scratch, but saving an entire line of cars should also be an option. Hinges are an obvious element and should just be on the platforms by default. You should be able to decouple and connect cars at will, like a docking port. I think it would be cool if you could have different engines that pull your cars at different speeds. You could have a workhorse engine that’s relatively slow but cheap and reliable, and another high speed one that’s more expensive and difficult to design, but is much more effective in the long run.

The tracks should be physical objects. They can stretch, bend, and be destroyed just like the colonies. This means you can drive rovers, land planes and crash into them. The system should be “on rails” until you get close to a moving train, just like orbiting craft.

There is a difference between a masochist and a psychopath. It depends on how you build it. If you use a top down system like JWE to place the tracks I don’t think it would be much of a problem. If you have to set up each piece individually than there’s no point in making the train. That would take the fun out of it. IMO everything “manmade” in Kerbal should be created by the player. Whether it be a rocket, plane, boat, submarine, colony, space station or railway. Plus, as long as you can zoom out enough the construction should take no more than a few hours (around as long as it takes to make a semi-complicated craft.)

I don’t really know if they would be able to do this. Let’s think about this for a sec. If you go near a high density object like a black hole, and stay there for an hour or two building stuff, years and years of in game time would’ve passed everywhere else. Would your colonies just be dormant and doing nothing for all those years? Would the game simulate you progressing for all those in game years? And that’s just single player. The devs already have to worry about time travel with timewarp in multiplayer, imagine having to deal with actual time travel. I’m sorry if I sound pessimistic but I don’t think adding relativity into Kerbal 2 is possible, especially with the amount of resources the devs have.

You could just have drag-n-drop system and “draw” the rails like Jurassic World Evolution or Astroneer.

Tldr: I just saw a movie called Snowpiercer about a really big, long, frost covered train. I must now make that train. As it is too late to add it before the game releases, please consider it for a future update/dlc.

It’s been shown in newer features that spaceplane parts will be able to have heat shielding along the bottom of them. Maybe this will apply to larger parts.

This would be good for KerbNET (Probe mapping tool/camera). I also like the idea of night vision. For everything else I’d pass.

Not gonna lie, being on a giant cargo ship during a storm on an alien planet orbiting a green gas giant is kind of badass. Weather effects shouldn’t be too hard, I don’t know about waves though. The problem with citing a game like Sea of Thieves is that that game is focused solely on sailing and finding treasure, so the dev team are more willing to put effort into simulating what it would be like to be on a ship during a storm. Whether we like it or not, Kerbal is a space exploration game. They likely wouldn’t want to spend so many resources into making a planet wide wave system that reacts with storms and wind. I could be wrong though, as there’s this game called Trailmakers that simulates wind, waves, and aerodynamics all in one game.

On this Reddit post here: Reddit Post In the bottom right corner you can see an icon that has a clock and a couple of rectangles. It can be a lot of things, but the icon could represent scratch like code.

There does seem to be some kind of scripting icon in the VAB. Vl3d also found out that one of the devs for Kerbal 2 had worked on a scratch like program before. Maybe you will be able to do it with scripting? I doubt there’s going to be a stock mechjeb or anything.

That’s not really the case. Kerbal 2 is going to have automated delivery routes as of now, so you won’t have fly every mission manually; its going to be handled by the computer. Planes shouldn’t get really powerful until about midway in the game.

I’ve always been interested in making rovers/cars as fast as possible in Kerbal. Would be nice of we could get screenshot or two of these racecars .

This is a very subjective topic, as well as one I don’t have that much expertise in. But hear me out. I think that many of the jet engines are too op, and the atmosphere simulation is pretty sucky in Kerbal. From my experience once you get the jist of how aerodynamics works, it’s fairly easy to make a spaceplane in Kerbal. I don’t really have a problem that for the most part with the slower planes, what I have a problem with is the planes designed to go over mach 1 and SSTOs. The fact that you can just slap a couple of Whiplashes onto some stinky piece of junk and have it fly over mach 2 at SEA LEVEL is bonkers. Heck, I’d say that getting to mach 1 is too easy. Once I made a pretty bad, really heavy replica of an Airbus A320 and had it go 400m/s pretty easily. So how would we fix this (I’m not an expert in aerodynamics so sorry for any broad metaphors)? First, at least early in game, going mach 1 should be like smashing through a brick wall. Not that it should be extremely hard, but it shouldn’t be a walk in the park; like getting your first rendezvous. Second, heat should be much more of a factor. Going mach 2-3 and having your plane being enveloped in plasma is kind goofy. I think that there should be new cooling systems in the game, and the ones that are already implemented should be much more important. This would also apply to the jet engines. Having engine failures due to heat would not only make high velocity spaceplanes more challenging, but also make room for some pretty spectacular crashes/disintegrations. And thats it. I’m a little paranoid about this not being implemented due to the game only being a little bit more than half a year from release (assuming there aren’t any more delays), but I’m optimistic. Would like to hear anymore things that some other people have come up with.

What I meant is that due to the speed of sound you would hear the explosion a couple seconds after it actually happened. I think a good way to simulate it would be to act as if some of those fuel tanks are one part. So instead of getting a bunch of tiny explosions you get a couple of really big ones. Not only would it look better but it would also theoretically be more preforment. I don’t think the size of the explosion really matters, as there are mods in Kerbal 1 that do nukes.

Yes. I think it would be cool if they simulated a shockwave effect, that travels through the atmosphere and slowly dissipates. For example, it would be cool in multiplayer if a noobs spaceship explodes a few kilometers away from another player and they feel the shockwave a couple seconds later. It would be cool if radiation from some of the other sussy fuels could make the surrounding area radioactive, or possibly create a “wind” that can make colonies with kerbals downstream up their stupidity metric.

We already know that explosions have been revamped. They react to the fuel in the tank, atmosphere, pressure, surrounding objects ect. But how big do you think they are going to be? Do you think they’re going to be limited to the sizes from Kerbal 1, or do you think they’re going to be able to get bigger? How big? Are they going to be limited by traditional chemical explosions, or do you think other fuels could create larger explosions than others?

Ok, this is sick. I don’t know how they would add something like this on a planet wide scale (especially since they need to fix the rover wheels), but still. Would be great for rovers on Duna, Kerbin, Eve and Laythe.

Like the stock Mk2 parts, but are round instead of streamlined. A lot of the time the stock Mk2 parts don’t really have enough capacity in the cargo bays or fit the aesthetic that I’m going for. They could also open up new opportunities for aircraft recreations. And for people who say that I could just use Mk3 parts, a lot of the time they are just way to big, hard to work with and difficult to get off the ground. These Mk2 parts IMO would make a nice alternative for when you don’t want to engineer a giant shuttle but still need some space. To make sure that they aren’t overpowered they would be heavier and less aerodynamic that the stock Mk2 parts. What do you think?

For career/adventure mode yes, but I wouldn’t say the same for sandbox. Its a sandbox mode after all. People are going to mod it into the game anyways.

It’s not whether it’s alien or not, it’s how familiar it is. Kerbin is just a small earth, is it not? Most of the Kerbol system follows this rule as well, as almost every planet or moon has a real world counterpart. This doesn’t have to be the case in KSP2 though. You don’t start a space program on a ringed planet, Tatooine equivalent or irregularly shaped body every day. It would spice things up a bit.

It’s already essentially been confirmed that radiation is in the game. In the UI for the VAB, you can see a radiation symbol right next to the drag, lift, and center of mass toggles.

Nah. I’d rather they just add in RSS via an easter egg or a dlc. IMO the Kerbol system is fine the way it is. A little tweak here or there would be nice but for the most part it’s perfect.