dansiegel30

I have to say that I was very pleased with the 0.2 Dev Chat video showing a working science GAME. It will make many play KSP2 again. However, I can't help from feeling selfish and greedy, considering what the player base has had to wait for. Is this all 0.2 is? 9 new parts, a global science collection screen, and a tech tree using all the parts from 0.1? Is this as good as it gets when trying to rewrite/copy KSP1? So many things with science seem to be missing. Biome mapping, Kerbnet info, signal strength details, the deployable science, some type of science over time with the science lab processing physical samples, etc. Any guesses that we WILL get content that hasn't been shown or talked about thus far? Do you think they could have forgotten to show us a feature? Or perhaps these very science related KSP1 features will come after 0.2 but before 0.3 because they couldn't commit to the December release during the late October announcement - just like Airbrakes, 3 docking ports, and 2 engines in 0.1.3. - and re-entry heat in 0.2. Or do you think that some of these features were actually FORGOTTEN, and only put on the post-1.0 roadmap?

I think Tom said it perfectly - "when some players get to the Mun, they say that they are done", especially when you are able to get enough science from Mun and Minmus biomes to unlock nearly the entire tech tree - they WANT even the casual player to go the distance....yes, you can still scarf as much science as you can from Kerbin/Mun/Minmus, but if you want tier 4 (and eventually 5 and 6), you will have to go MUCH MUCH further than one did before in stock KSP1.

I might be wrong, but there may also be Crew Reports that can only be done by Kerbals - and if done per Biome (lowspace and landed, ala KSP1), thats a lot of science and incentive to get the heavier Kerbal-ed craft to the destination perhaps after an unKerbal-ed probe. I personally prefer "probes before crew" style, and also "aircraft before spacecraft" styles given to us in KSP1 through mods like PBC and RP-1 - however if stock is going to do it ONE way, it kinda lets you choose your path early if you want to save science and stay on that certain path - and I'm perfectly fine with that. Even I don't want to get MkII aircrfaft parts only after I've gone to Duna or Jool, it is a difficult balancing act - and in regards to the SpaceShuttle, it unfortunately requires top tier engines like the Vector (which get unlocked from Kerbal-ed landings on Duna, Jool Moons, etc) - even though IRL, the space shuttle worked +50 years and counting prior to any Mars Human landing. Its just unfortunate for that, however mods like PBC and RP-1 will tune it to a more realistic approach, which isnt necessarily the goal of the stock game.

I would say it "should have been" a core KSP1 feature however, was not. And I agree it "should" be a core KSP2 feature, but its not here yet. Who knows...the devs put in the late KSP1 feature for DV Planning (which with its faults is still a godsend to new players who have NO idea how much DV is needed to get anywhere) into stock KSP2, so maybe the alarmclock was felt to not be needed until you do science and really have a need to have multiple craft, juggling multiple missions, needing an alarm clock. Sandbox I would say it more focused on single missions.

Nice! Great job on making it fairly obvious if the part is food, water, or O2. We need tiny parts to fill up those Service Modules.

FO TROLL

LAST

While even more detail on Kerbin would be nice, its literally the last place the devs want you spending your time. MS FS, that's all they do, fly over Earth - so its understandable how they have the hold standard in that FX detail. Would be nice, but WELL after 1.0. - tons of non-roadmap features I would rather have than this.

Wow, very impressive! I unfortunately spent time reading a thread about a debate about the word Cadet.

I too have always disliked the simplistic launch clamps in KSP1 and KSP2 - however I just dont see the justification right now for them to spend 1 second on improving it when you see the laundry list of things that are far more important. Maybe as part of a future DLC, they can spend a lot of resources developing a VERY cool modular launch tower that can be customized for each rocket....but most likely a mod will come out for this before then - the launch tower mod for KSP1 was EXTREMELY cool, especially when using RP-1 and the Saturn V. You could get a completely realistic looking launch if you spent enough time setting it up.

Maybe due to the water, IIRC I died on land around 50m/sec, which seemed about right.

Cadet should be well known for anyone that has watched any films about military or sci-fi - in any language translated. Atleast they didn't use the term SPACE Cadet, lol. Final resort....get a dictionary.

I rarely have the need for heavy landing gear, because I land at most with 2m/sec (they key is to lower your engine thrust limit on final approach and while dusting, because at 100% thrust even the lowest levels of throttle often keep you from landing). Now If I wanted to land a vehicle with large honkin' Booster engine on it, I wouldn't just grab the large landing gear I can find due to the length of the nozzle (another reason why the extended nozzle engines aren't supposed to be landing engines). I'd continue to use light or medium gear, but put a shroud around the engine (just like SpaceX does). You'll have to be creative, like using a tube or hollow structural ring, and then slide the engine inside, or even have to slide the landing gear down onto the tube (havent checked in KSP2, but IIRC you can't connect anything to the outside of a tube). Then it looks pretty and accomplishes what you want. The huge landing gear is for people that like to do HARD landings....which I dont.

Well, that would be nice only if IG committed to them. Perhaps it might be best for features that Nate and Co. are SERIOUSLY considering putting into the game (I'm assuming the roadmap is fairly locked until 1.0) in versions 1.1 and beyond. Then we can be involved in the specifications for those features, rather than hearing the title/concept of the feature with a few sentences in a blog, waiting for them, and being disappointed when they appear - modification of them at this point becomes an order of magnitude more expensive and usually doesn't happen.

However, be aware of an open bug on the mod, where KLSS breaks down at +10,000 timewarp - if you have infinite water/O2, you will then see water/O2 begin to drop and WasteWater/CO2 increase (normally if you have infinite water/O2 in the planner, and the converters stay on ALL the time, you should NEVER see wastewater or CO2 appear, as its converted immediately back into useable resources). The Kerbals will then all die.

Thank you for this - nice to have the Aero Debug GUI available again. So, the icon for this menu doesn't show up in the App.Bar, as it probably should. Further, in the VAB it's dedicated icon is labeled Engineering Report, and in flight it is labeled "No Stageable Resources".

It seems you are simply trying to have the ship "dock" with itself. I believe this may be a Unity limitation or simply a KSP design restriction, this limitation was with KSP1 as well. Another example would be that a booster can have only 1 radial coupler connected to it, where as in the real world, they can have multiple (obviously releasing them at the same time). There is an exception to this rule, using struts. It does limit imagination for craft design, I've just gotten used to it being this way.

Oh there are numerous inconsistencies with mass. Certainly from different developers. The XL Cargo NoseCone with motors to move it is only around ~1.5t, where as the AeroDynamic XL Nose cone is a whopping +5t.

I dont get it. Isn't it feasible to state that you need to bring enough LS on board for the trip, and the amount of time it takes to WAIT for the next window when a supply vehicle appears? That supply vehicle must have enough supplies to last that particular crew until the NEXT window when yet another re-supply is performed. And as far as doing trips in parallel, again I see no problem with this. You can send your Kerbal crew on its craft with enough LS supplies to last the voyage with say a 10% fudge factor. Once you execute the ejection burn, there is nothing to do with that craft for years, while you wait for your course correctional burn. Just switch over to a supply vessel in LKO and setup it's burn to Eeloo - you can certainly afford missing the most perfect optimal window and burn on the next Kerbin orbit, or even the next Kerbin day - the amount of DV difference is not that much. Course correctio burns of course are pretty much time independent, so there is no issue there. And there is a good chance even that your resupply vehicle may in fact reach Eeloo prior to your crewed vessel - it all depends on how accurate you make your burns. You however certainly need to ensure that the do no arrive at the same EXACT time, which is easy to do when doing the correction burns (well, maybe still bugged atm because Pe time doesn't appear until you hit SOI, didnt have this problem in KSP1 and I have seen a bug report on this). Not wanting to do the above technique and have the devs spend resources on a "go back in time" feature? That would be REVERT madness!! lol - While playing Kerbalism in KSP1, I often had things happening at the same time (only observable from dedicated use of the alarm clock for EVERYTHING, so we need an alarmclock desperately). So, I have to wait for another orbit, or make an orbit for one craft non-ideal to have then happen minutes apart rather than simultaneously. Haven't we had enough time travel from MCU movies to last a lifetime??

Or basically MkI parts have 50% efficiency, MkII parts have 75% efficiency, and MkIII parts have 100% efficiency. This would be better than converters automatically upgrading efficiency through research, and perhaps even more reasons to tear down and de-orbit old space stations and send up new ones.

1. Better tools for Inter-Planetary Travel - Porkchop Plots, Map visualization of ejection and phase angles - A decent amount of players in KSP1 never went past Minmus because of this, and for those that did, VERY few figured it out all.on.their.own - had to watch tutorials, use mods, research on their own - You'd like this game to teach people from doing, well, first you have to help them do it. 2. Robotics and full part parity from Final KSP1 - I mean it ridiculous that there is not mounting plate from XL->L or L->M, even though you have M->S and S->XS. Same goes for the tank options, many mor options and sizes are needed, although most people would prefer procedural tanks. 3. Tiny features from KSP1 - Commnet Visualization and signal strength, EVA Construction, Kerbal Specialization and skills, Astronaut Center showing all Kerbals, their skills, their locations, ala KSP1, Alarm Clock, Engine Restart limits but can be reset by Kerbal or specifically a Kerbal Engineer, precision DV increments by clicking on MN planning (dragging the vectors is rediculous for being the only way). docking port rotation for proper alignment, Upgrades to Astronaut Center, VAB, Tracking Center, etc using Science Points, parachutes, repair kits, storage and deployable science, asteroids/telescopes - not sure if these were planned or not, but none of them are linked to roadmap features, so I figure since not in 0.1, sorry, we wont have them in KSP2. - not sure if they are already planned later 4. Rover autopilot that can run while not in focus - fine, it should be recommended to go VERY slow, I get that - but I dont use rovers often because it takes FOREVER to drive them in realtime. Similar need for atmospheric autopilot. I want to be able to not focus on the craft if its doing a 30 minute flight path - and be able to use time warp while my altitude and and course are set - if it runs out of gas or hits a mountain, thats my fault. 5. Ec/LifeSupport/Comms PLANNERS - so frustrating to get the craft into space, and figure out you dont have enough Ec to survive orbit while using lights- of course needed for mods that will do science over time, ISRU, etc - or even worse, get all the way to Jool for the first time, and then find out your Antenna is not powerful enough. 6. Waypoint manager - to remember sites, ability to appear on the navball and link to your autopilot in feature request #3 7. Ability to adjust the size of the Parts Manager and especially the parts picker in the VAB. THEY ARE HUGE. With both opened, they take near 50% of the screen. Or atleast be able to push/hide the parts picker to the left, and push/hide parts manager to the right. moving mouse to left or right screen edge brings them back. The parts manager needs to be accessed all the time, but its infuriating how large it is and annoying as heck having to go to the app bar so often to click it back open. 8. Proper Boat parts and hydrodynamics 9. Multi-Vesel Display Panel - something like from Kerbalism, which shows all active craft - or perhaps just done in Tracking Center, however like Kerbalism show battery state, kerbal health, battery state, indication if in shadow or not, etc - this is vital when running multiple craft on multiple missions which will be quite necessary when doing a campaign with several active vessels orbting around where ever. 10. Look at the top 100 mods in KSP1 to get more ideas - there is an extremely high chance that what those mods do is not in KSP2, nor in your plans.

Yeah, thats the one thing about performance that scares me - not the parts of the ship in your view (with today's parts, anything at over 200 parts is fairly a monstrosity), but the dozens of craft you will eventually have deployed throughout the Kerbol system. It seems that the cpu usage to handle craft several Gm away is a bit silly. I would hope that to changed, else having multiple space stations and running parallel missions won't be possible for most players.

Also, I thought of another mod that perhaps you could do, as you seem to have your hooks into the relevant code (already being able to provide LSS planners in the VAB and in flight, and dealing with resources). An Ec Planner! However comms and science seem to be the big elusive mystery to long term KSP2 Ec usage. Not really needed until until 0.2 when we know how long experiments/comms need to run and how much Ec they can take. At this point, it might even be cool to start having craft require to spend Ec for heating, with different values in and out of shadow...an Ec planner would definitely be needed then. I've often wanted to get into KSP modding - I'm a retired engineer and have done plenty enough coding/scripting in dozens of languages over the years to understand the logic - I just never had the resources to dig into the KSP modding scene (plus when I got into KSP1, most things I wanted were already modded). I think I'll begin by trying to fully understand your code (except for the Part Meshes, as I've never been interested in creating parts and have zero experience with graphical modding/coding), and maybe even start the Ec Planner on my own. Oh, in final, I suppose I will put any new bugs I see on your GitHub, keeping this thread reserved for feedback/suggestions.

Thanks! I didn't even think to try different difficulty levels. Is this bound to your campaign's difficulty, or will you be able to set Life-Support difficulty stand alone? I recommend the later, as it appears difficulty of a campaign cannot be changed once started(like the P.A.I.G.E info). As far as your goals, it all sounds excellent to me. I Fully understand that people like different setups and this is a great roadmap. Lol, I am rewriting my thread because after an hour on this (reading and researching realworld LSS stuff), I read your LAST sentence on this topic, "Right now we are closest to Hard mode, with the exception being that all resources can be made self-sufficient with enough crew capacity and greenhouses". This makes perfect sense if you are modelling "capacity", I thought you were modelling "efficiency". I am confused because realworld efficiency of LSS recycling is never due to the fact that they dont have enough "capacity" or can't "cover the needs" of the crew. Its because the technology being used literally is unable to convert all of the waste, and the waste that can't be converted is useless and is dumped. For CO->02, it was originally 50% efficiency because the CH4 methane from the reaction was unusable(due to dust, bound to the CH4), and dumped. Now they can use that methane which can get the reclamation near 100%, with the leftover replenished by plants (this will be used for the Mars Mission and Lunar Bases in the south pole). For WasteWater, showers, humidity from sweat, its always been due to filtration - 10 years ago, it was up to 74% efficiency - the other 26% had to be dumped, it was useless because of calcium and other minerals that they could not separate from the water. 5 years ago it was 90%. In June 2023, an article on Nasa.gov stated they are now able to perform 98% efficiency in the filtration. The bigger problem with realistically representing all of this is that the near 100% CO2 and WasteWater reclamation relies also on filters which are not recyclable. Anways, I'm not suggesting to model filters, lol. I just want to be clear that you are modeling "capacity" (your conversion rate parameter can throttle this from 0 to 100%) and in the realworld, it's always been at efficiency, BTW, for 8 Kerbals to be fully self-sufficient, I assume I am correct now in saying it takes a crewcapacity of 12 with all recylcers turned on, and 1 single greenhouse using fertilizer from the 8 Kerbals, running 100% of the time, even when in shadow. For Low Kerbin Orbit, that requires only 32 Ec/sec of power generation and 14.4k of Ec capacity. For hard difficulty, I feel this should be much harder to do. This sounds more like easy to medium. While landed craft and ground bases would require either RTG/Reactors or an insane amount of batteries to maintain 100% runtime, this can be avoided by doubling crew, greenhouse, and Ec-Generation capacity (not batteries fortunately) which is quite trivial to do. For people doing "48 crew SSTO voyage to Laythe!", I doubt they would ever run this mod anyways, lol. Also, do you have plans with 0.2 science to perhaps have different levels of efficiency, rather than having it always 100%? It would be cool if it wasn't 100% efficiency in early tech but only reaching 100% efficiency by upper tech levels? 0.2 has 4 pages of tech - maybe page 1 provides 50% efficiency, page 2 has 75% efficiency, and page 3 has 100% efficiency.

Maybe wait till 0.2 - heh, that would be impressive (albiet I'm sure at 3fps)