InterstellarDrifter

Procedural generation means that something, whether it be terrain, a part, a texture, a skybox, a weather system, an animation, etc.. has been built by your computer via a pre-programmed algorithm. This can take many forms and can be designed to be altered by the player or simply employed by the program randomly in order to create said thing without artist/dev/player/user input, or build a custom unique experience rarely to be replicated. Much of the gaming industry currently uses this technique to create large, unique worlds, with no two being the same. It is also used to create characters, creatures, and objects, which saves much time for devs and artists on the front-end(albeit, with heavy back-end investment) which also provides broad, individual experiences for users. Most contemporary games use this in some form or fashion. In the current sense in which you are asking, the part that is being created is not pre-built(baked-in), it is algorithmically created with your specific inputs. So, you can drag and click, and a part has a size and texture that is visually and practically functional, as if it were a pre-made asset.

Sweet!! Still daily driving my Ksp1 Rockets, but every Ksp2 patch excites me!! Thanks for the continued hard work Intercept! Folks talking about schedules for patch drops and the like, need some help understanding what takes place in order to produce meaningful (fixed code, simultaneous content and feature creation, as well as changes and refinements to non-broken code and final game experience) patches. Time in a software development studio is like stepping in to a time machine. Weeks are analogous to microseconds in software development, especially for larger than one room/office sized studios. Just organizing the interactions of people in a multidisciplinary setting takes large efforts and time. So, maybe just be grateful that they're working hard to quickly roll out your game patches and for the unprecedented post-launch transparency, interactivity, and timely productivity...eh?

Who can/should I donate $$ to for this mod?

Slow clap.....Wow, just wow

Hmmm, my 12900k 4090 ddr5 system runs ksp2 pretty well, most of the time my fps sits at or just below my 60fps@4K frame cap, even at launch..pre-patch, and especially on 0.1.1 I think some might be describing an experience outside of expected use cases, like 200 part, multi control point monstrosities. For instance watch this silly goose(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJG03fnymUY) try to launch a 180 part satellite constellation, lol. Then wonders why FPS tanks...huuuhhh KSP does not "play" like an arcade game like most expect it to. It presents like this weird juvenile arcady space game, but in reality is more like solidworks/blender, than a game, it more like "runs" like a solver/renderer/CFD with similar limitations. So, its not really their fault. Because of this cartoony feel to this simulator, people expect that they can go build whatever their heart desires because the VAB will allow that freedom. But then are often met with much friction(such as, bad fps and craft performance) because its simulating reality to its best, reasonable extent. KSP is much more enjoyable when approached with realistic expectations and understanding of its limitations, especially with somewhat raw software.

THIS^^^ IMO this is where KSP2 should land. Soooo much of the "noodliness" of rockets is boiled down to a poorly designed rocket(unreal fineness, too much mass per diameter, unstable aerodynamics, poor choice of connections, etc.) and/or a suboptimal ascent. Does the current model work/feel right? I would answer no. But the right answer probably lies somewhere between better player designed rockets and a better physical simulation of mechanical properties of metal cylinders in atmospheric flight, not "auto-strut" or perfect rigidity. The poll shows an obvious desire by the majority of the KSP community for more SIM vs. ARCADE style play. Also, I feel like this balance is difficult to strike. I think most people like playing KSP because we feel like we're learning, understanding, and accomplishing vs. just interacting/playing with a game. However, you want it approachable and fun for a younger crowd with less understanding a vast and complex field of physics. But, I gather that those drawn to trying KSP are typical of being ok with hard, challenging, unknown, different, new, etc.. in a game. I feel the nature/core purpose of KSP is to have fun while accomplishing and learning from experimentation and our mistakes. So, you have to be able to make the mistakes in the first place to learn from them, so, ideally, I would suppose the balance should be found closer to simulation(how stuff works IRL, i.e. rockets going the speed of sound, break up, when flipping out in high atmospheric pressures).

Took nearly 50 attempts to get this dang thing to fly, some my fault and most not, lol. Also getting 120fps(manually capped in NVidia Settings too) in some viewing situations with this sorta complex craft. Patch has done A LOT. got working missiles too!! (sorry, but HDR blows out the gamma/brightness/exposure of my screenies for some reason, don't know why, wish I did)

Here's what I did. Go to the PD website>your account overview >game downloads>New 0.1.1 patched Game download will be seen here Unfortunately, AFAICT, there is no way to get just a patch. So, I just copied my config files that sit just inside the old KSP2_x64 file over to the new one. Hope this helps

If you have mitigated expectations, are a super fan, have the patience of your favorite deity, have the curiosity of a cat on it's 8.5th life(its possible), don't have KSP1(then buy it) or any other game really, and money is not a main concern in your life. Then absolutely! What are you waiting for, why haven't you downloaded it yet? See how subjective this can get? lol. Jokes aside, if you're asking yourself this specific question, the answer is likely a hard 'no', especially with the foreknowledge you have. BUUUT, I have no doubt that KSP2 will be a feature rich completed project, with a strong modding community... one day. KSP-2 is fortunate in that it presides in a wide open market with little competition(Juno is the only thing that comes to mind). Maybe T2 knows it, which could partially explain why we're here.

Well, this is every game dev patch, isn't it?

SAME!! I'm gonna go n hafta try'n earn this now just to put it in my sig, lol.

Ah, coulda sworn I heard Scott Manley state on a video sometime that ksp used SBP. Anyhoo.. 100% understood and agree with all of this, but I was getting at more of a players fault point of view(devil's advocate, if you will). Not every rocket built in KSP1or2 wobble, so why is that? I was just thinking it is pretty much ones with unrealistic aspect ratios and or decoupler sizes/arrangements. Also, un-optimal atmospheric ascent profiles.

Oh, I was under the impression that they were using a soft body algorithm, in KSP1, and therefore likely KSP2.

Right!! Agreed. I really wish they wouldn't have gone more realistic with some RFNA exhaust and black smoke in the explosions, instead of the vanilla white puffy steam clouds. But, I do get that would not fit the art/design aesthetic, lighthearted feel of the game.

Does anyone else agree with my opinion that wobbly rockets, or anything else long and cylindrical in shape, in-game, are actually modeled this way on purpose because that's what happens in real life? I think we think since rockets are made of metals and composites that they shouldn't bend, but this actually is far from the truth. Real rockets can bend. And if not designed correctly, they absolutely would wobble. Thought experiment: Take a 30m long tube of thin-walled steel at a 3.75m diameter and stick it out horizontally anchored at one end. How much do you think it would deflect. Answer: way more than you think. Now, don't get all upset. I'm not saying KSP2 didn't get it wrong. I'm just pointing out that it is a simulator that is trying to simulate many physical behaviors, including extension, flexion, compression, and tension of materials and their construction, in order to deliver a more authentic engineering experience and aerodynamic behaviors of our rockets, in flight and when they crash. Just something to think about, maybe ask a dev directly(if anyone can grab their attention) if the current rigidity model is what is intended? P.S. KSP-1 rockets still wobble too if they're aspect ratio is not sufficient.

Yeah, there's no need for a speculation poll here. As Aziz stated, devs said nope already. And its silly to even ask the question, really.

4090 aio cooled 12900ks aio cooled 32gb 5600mt/s I have experienced pretty much every known bug, and probably more(A LOT), but I still play, though I'm starting to load up KSP1 more and more, lol. In fact its been KSP1 for the past few days. Interested to see what fixes come Thursday.

Nice work mate!! I'm a telescope junkie myself here, my best one is a Celestron 11" EdgeHD SCT with a nice glass collection to look through it. That being said, I really dig telescope mods. Your JWST is dope and really fun to play with. If you do port it, I just have a few suggestions. Maybe add/change things like improved textures, higher res reflections, especially the beryllium coated primary mirror hexagons, multi layer sun shield like the real deal, maybe a deep space map that shows up when zoomed in really far(could find unique bodies/elements that provide even more science) and when science arrives, make it provide some science points for different operations, such as looking at different celestial entities for specific amounts of time giving it more purpose and motive for use. I know it's a tall order, but I'd be obliged to donate $$ for your time. Thanks for your contributions thus far though!!

Hmm, this thread reads more like a speculative conspiracy 4chan q-anon thread than a citation of evidence for a rather baseless opinion. wanna try again?

Based on what?

THANK YOU!!! Regardless of the content of this post, I think I can speak for the community when I say this, but we are deeply appreciative of the openness and obvious effort to give us as much information as possible in order to show us that KSP 2 is not going to be an abandoned project, like some think. Though posts/info like this can leave the dev-team feeling vulnerable to judgment by those more technical/skilled, I/we implore you to(pleeeease) keep this kind of info coming, as it restores/bolsters faith in our favorite game's development and bright and awesome future. Thanks again

interested in this ^^^

Thank you for the contribution to the community. I use a large format 4k monitor, and this mod gives me all that screen real-estate back helping restore some immersion and make those gorgeous sunrises/sunsets more visible and enjoyable. feature addition request/question about.. The VAB part catalogue window is quite large, like 1/4 - 1/3 of the screen I'd say. I think it could benefit from being scaled as well, if that is at all possible?

Link to Halbann's subsequent official post with detailed description of the mod; used for reporting bugs, requesting new features or compatabilities, and furthering discussion. This post is now redundant, request moderator/s to delete thread for simplification.

And well, two things seem pretty obvious. The community is hopeful and optimistic, which I wouldn't expect less lol. And that the big bugs are the main concern. I think most of us would be content(for EA that is) if what we have just worked right. So, it seems that fixing 0.1.0 is the MOST important thing intercept could be focused on at the moment.