Teek
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Teek
-
-
Hmm, he may actually have a point here. In the Cinematic trailer, it's hard to tell but at around 1:36, the module that the space plane undocks from does look like the old Mk 1-2 capsule, albeit with a very different and obviously higher resolution skin (basing this mostly on the hatch and ladder configuration on the model, seems to match up with the older design, rather than the Mk 1-3.) Granted, that's a cinematic, so on it's own it wouldn't be conclusive. But then looking at the IGN interview, I think I see the old 3-man capsule show up again around 10:21. Again, mainly determining this from the ladder and hatch design. We see 3-man capsules in other areas of both the cinematic and gameplay footage, but it's harder to distinguish those, either because it's too zoomed out or too blurry.
I've noticed other things as well. Like in 7:00 of the IGN interview, that landed rocket is using the old, pre-1.4 Large RCS Fuel Tank! Others have also found the old Poodle engine in some videos. I've also noticed that the lander can used in the cinematic trailer, while similar to the newer version of the Mk2, has a few differences in both the viewport and the hatch. Fuel tanks seem to mostly be either new designs (for future tech) or based on recent expansions, but there are some differences.
Obviously we shouldn't read too much into this, as it's still early footage, but it makes me wonder. Obviously, additional stock skins were a fairly late addition to KSP 1, and KSP2 seems to be going all in on skins, as I've seen at least 3 or 4 different variants of the same parts. I wonder if we may also see trappable models as well, in a similar approach as the skins. So long as the part's overall dimensions are more or less the same, I think it could be doable. I also think I'd like seeing some of the old parts come back, if spiffed up a bit. I do like the sleeker aesthetic we have now, but sometimes I miss when our ships looked like a bunch of oil drums bolted together. Could present a nice sense of progression as you build, starting out with rusty and mismatched parts when you first get started on a campaign, but getting the option later to go for sleeker looks. It definitely seems like they're designing this to be more visually significant from the get go, so I wouldn't be surprised if they put in more aesthetic features. Hopefully this also means more consistent coloration for fairings and shrouds, etc.
-
13 hours ago, GoldForest said:
[snip]
-Black hole, come on, who doesn't want a black hole in KSP?
[snip]If we get a black hole in game, I motion that it be officially named KR-4 K-3N and that we launch our biggest, most expensive space ship straight into it. For science!
-
Yeah, the physics calculations in KSP2 will be an interesting conundrum. On one hand, we've already seen floppy rockets, which I'm not necessarily against. I've seen arguments for making everything procedural or locking in parts, but to a certain extent the wobbliness in KSP is a part of its identity, and I'd hate to see it removed altogether.
That said, I'm not sure how that modeling system will work with KSP2's focus on larger scale builds, like that Daedalus rocket, or colonies and space stations. Perhaps they will vary the physics modelling based on the location of the ship or the type of construction? Or perhaps you can enable it as a part setting or some additional modification (possibly a later game unlock.)
-
If anything, I almost feel like it should be the reverse. Veterans should pay full price, and people who got the game in the last year or so get a discount. Heck, give it out free to anyone who hasn't played the original, get the word out!
In all seriousness though, we're not going to get a discount on this, at least not anytime soon. Some may not like the $60 price point, or cannot afford it, which is a shame. But I agree that in terms of value per $, KSP has been hard to beat. And, in my mind, what Star Theory seems to be doing here, rebuilding from the ground up with significant features adding on, a lot of work is being put in to justify that cost.
-
So I was rewatching the Dev Story Trailer (for the nth time,) and take this with a grain of salt, but there were a few interesting items on the desk of one of the developers at the 0:25 second mark.
Could be nothing... or could be something? Who knows? I'm not sure how VR would work in KSP, but I'd be willing to give it a shot.
-
I think MMO perpetual servers is a tall ask, and would likely need to factor in some additional payment plan, either through subscription or microtransactions, neither of which I think the fanbase would get behind.
Private servers could be interesting, especially if you servers can perpetually simulate orbits, courses, burns etc. But even without that, I think a server that would support players on different planets could be challenging, so I wouldn't take it for granted. What's probably most likely is a P2P coop setup where you can be seperate kerbals on the same ship or local area. Then again, the trailer did have multiple rockets taking off right at the end. I am trying to not make too much of some of these little bits of the trailer, but the people that design these things are often very careful of what they show and what it can promise (well, except maybe for NMS, but they made good... eventually), so based on that I wouldn't count out players able to control entirely seperate vehicles across great distances.
-
14 minutes ago, Gydra54 said:
We should also keep in mind that all the screenshots so far look like very early pre-alpha builds of the game. Even so, I really like how the particle effects and terrain scatters look already, it's a significant step up from KSP1.
Good point. Although the ground texture itself is pretty bad, it's definitely WIP and will be at least the equivalent of the new texture packs coming out in KSP1, if not better. On top of that, the density of rocks on the Mun and trees on Kerbin are really promising, and miles better than KSP1.
-
13 minutes ago, DStaal said:
I think in this particular case: Take Two Interactive have a publicly-known policy of wanting to have microtransactions in all their games, and the statement that is being referenced as stating it will not be in the game is very exact lawyer-speak ruling out *only* one type of microtransactions. I'd be more reassured by silence on the question than by the statement I've seen - silence means they haven't answered it. What they've said means they've addressed the issue and specifically did *not* rule *most* microtransactions out.
Fair point, and here I will say that I am not bothered by micro-transactions as a whole, but rather how they are implemented. Loot boxes and in game currency are generally terrible, and it's great that they are not in the game, as they exist only to obscure in-game costs and get people to spend more, generally a very cynical and terrible mechanic.
Personally, I'm more comfortable paying for items directly after release if they're fairly valued. Expansions and such are generally welcome, from what I've seen, but even a skin pack or alternate models (ideally not affecting gameplay) can be fair game if priced correctly (and for that matter, most games do not price their cosmetics fairly, which is why they rely on ingame currency, lootboxes, and limited time events to obscure costs and pressure players to purchase.)
One other crucial thing I forgot to mention, if Star Theory honors their commitment to modding, that significantly undercuts the value of micro-transactions to them. Even discounting the possibility of mods directly competing with micro-transactions for specific parts, skins, or features, the availability of alternatives and additional features inherently weakens their position to sell any items. Think of it this way, if Fortnite or Overwatch allowed players to create their own skins and props, do you think they would sell nearly as many skins as they do now?
-
I'm wondering if we may see ray tracing in the game. It's normally associated with high end, AAA games, but is probably easier to apply to a game like KSP2 where you have far less detailed terrain and less complicated models (like compare this to Metro Exodus or Battlefield V, there's no comparison.) Generally, there's also only a handful of light sources in KSP (well, mostly one, though it's rather large) and so you'd think RTX wouldn't be too taxing either. We'll see.
-
I really do not understand why people are getting themselves so worked up over things that either a) they have no proof or indication that it will take place, or b) that the developers or Squad has explicitly stated will not be in the game. People can raise hell later if it turns out those do get implemented, but now I don't think people should get worked up by this.
Or the spectre of EGS exclusivity, which has also been ruled out multiple times. Get a grip people.
-
16 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:
No, not at all. Here are the screenshots from the Steam page:
And, on the off-chance this *isn't* gameplay for some odd reason, here are some screenshots from some helpfully labelled clips in the Developer Story trailer:
Frankly, that shot of what I assume to be Rask and Rusk is incredible! Why haven't they used that one more already?!
EDIT 2: Apparently I missed the part on dismissing the pre-alpha builds. But surely the game would only get better after these builds? What's so bad about those- they look great!
I think these look great! Mun and Kerbin texture quality leave a lot to be desired, but given that KSP 1 is slated to significantly update it's own textures for the Mun, I think it's fair to say that these are just placeholders and will be updated. All of the trees around the launch pad on Kerbin are very promising though.
Lighting on some of the screenshots looks really impressive, and I'd like to see more (especially of Rask and Rusk, and the Daedalus ship.) That and the reflections in the Kerbal's visors makes me wonder.... Ray Tracing support, perhaps?
-
KSP 1 isn't going to be magically deleted when KSP2 releases. It should be playable for many years to come, regardless of whether Squad continue to support it. At the same time, KSP2 has the chance to rebuild from the ground up, using an updated engine to hopefully address many of the central problems inherent to KSP1, and removing the need for some of the shortcuts and workarounds implemented to fix them. KSP's been playable for nearly 8 years, four of them out of Early Access. That is a really solid lifespan for a game, made better with years of support and additional development coming after the initial release. But a lot has changed over 8 years, and I'm excited to see what a new version of KSP can be, built from the ground up to take advantage of that.
-
Apologies if someone has already posted this, but PCGamer has published an interview with KSP2's Creative Director, Nate Simpson. https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-interview/
There are a few good tidbits here:
- Some screenshots of what looks like Alpha footage. Not quite what we saw in the trailer (though I'm still hoping we can get some high end features enabled) but definitely an improvement over the previous game. Still looks like KSP, but we can see some new terrain features (powered by a new terrain generation system, apparently) and improved lighting and effects.
- Confirmed that there will be some level of colony management. You will establish new colonies by dropping HABs onto the planet's surface or in orbit, which can build out an grow as your population increases.
- Colonies will also be able to support VAB's, allowing you to build and launch ships on other planets or in space. Presumably this is represented in the trailer by the giant nuclear ship we saw around Jool.
- No Warp Drives, but there will be interstellar travel.
- There will be a new building editor, which will allow you to specifically design structures, though the designer will not simulate full gravity until you exit, so expect some non-code construction projects to blow up in your face.
Between the interview and the website, it sounds like we also will have some advanced resource mechanics. Overall, it sounds like it's a much bigger and better version of KSP, built from the ground up to support new features rather than trying to bolt them on to an existing platform that may not be able to handle it. This sounds most un-Kerboly, but is undoubtedly a sensible course and I'm very excited for it.
-
I've just started experiencing the issue as well, had it happen three separate times in the last hour. No controls, not even Esc works for the menu. My version is the steam client though.
-
Look under Structural... Although I have no idea what for to use it
Btw, the pictures in the first post show the supersonic cockpit to be able to "sink" into it's fuselage... Has that feature been deleted? Because I seem to be only able to turn the lights on and off.
B9 said in a post a while back that that animation was removed, because animations for cockpits are limited to one at a time I believe, and lights were the more requested feature or something like that. But it is confirmed, no more retractable cockpit.
-
You could add some reverse-VTOL engines to slow down, then go vertical to slow down ascent.
As a side note, I'm going to download this and test it with Ferram Aerospace on.
Edit: I'm missing a part. From which mod?
Based on the original images and the error text, the nose cone on the space plane is from KW rocketry.
To the OP, very cool design, keep up the good work!
-
Hi, I run into a problem using SABRE M engines. When I activate the engine, all SABRE Intakes close itself and cannot be reopened. I don't know if it is my fault or if it is a bug, but if it is my fault and somebody else experienced the same problem and found solution, please let me know. Thanks!
Are you running Mechjeb? If you are, check to see if throttle controls are set to automatically manage air intakes. If so, then your intakes are mostly shutting down because the system detects that, at that moment, your engines have enough air to function, but it is pretty freaky and I'd rather have more control over the intakes than lose that extra bit of drag.
-
I'm still relatively new to KSP, so I've been using the last few weeks to polish up on my skills and experiment with mods. I have already accomplished a Mun landing, which I will probably end soon to attempt a safe return, I landed a Mun rover within 500 m of my lander in a different flight, built my first SSTO/spaceplane and put it into orbit. I still am working landing it though... I hope to accomplish that and practice with robotic arms and quantum struts before the update hits. I think it's important to set yourself new goals, but with effects beyond your current save. Try something you've never done before, set challenges, and create goals that will educate and entertain you beyond this current save!
-
I was seeing something like that but I was running Mechjeb with the "manage air intakes" on in the Throttle/Utilities section.
You know, I had toggled that on one of my flights and completely forgot about it after closing the window. That's probably it. I guess it's juggling my air intake needs while minimizing my drag. Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look. I never would have thought of looking at mechjeb.
-
This is my KC-1 Leviathan prototype. Initial flight went fantastically, the plane is capable of going well above 1000 m/s, typically maxing out at around 1700 m/s at ~23,000 meters on jet engines. Switching the Sabre engines to LFO gets me up to orbit with quite a bit of fuel to spare. It's got two large cargo bays, and I believe it could possibly take up stock jumbo fuel tanks into orbit (though they may need to tap into their cargo's fuel a little bit,) though my tests have since come to a halt due to a bug in my Sabre intakes that locks them up in flight and closes two of the three sets of two, but this problem only seems to afflict the tanker version, which is outfitted with the jumbo tanks.
Still, immensely proud of this plane, it was my first successful space-plane and first successful SSTO that I designed and built. Valuable experience, and hopefully, a good transport for parts of my under-construction space station.
-
Hey everybody, and bac9. Love the mod, and I've been having a lot of fun working on my first fully functional SSTO! However, I just ran across a perculiar bug/event/something during one of my flights. I'm running 6 SABRE M engines (in three sets) off of a HL cargo bay and fuel tank chassis, with an S2 cockpit and the required adapters. Everything was working fine, until the last few test flights when, immediately upon starting the engines, 2 of the three sets of SABRE M shock cone intakes close up on their own and remain closed, despite all attempts to toggle them, either through action groups or manually opening their windows. In addition, I've tested out my action groups before activating my engines, and they work fine then. It may be that the fuselage breaks a bit on ignition and locks the controls for the engines, though I don't think this is it, due to the position of the engines and which ones lock up (I've got 2 on the wings, 2 towards the back of the plane, about halfway up the fuselage, and the last two engines above my horizontal stabilizers on a raised, HL tail at the very end.) The intakes that freak out are the ones on the stabilizers and on the wings, but not the 2 fuselage engines in the middle, so I don't think structure failure is the cause. Plus, on some of the flights, I haven't seen any damage reports after ending the flight.
I tried to reconfigure the action groups, reset the toggle intake action, and even put new intakes on, but no luck. I'm going to try again, after a reboot, and with the debugging window open to see if I catch anything this way. Anyway, has anyone else experienced this problem?
Speculations on what the new KSC will look like.
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
Posted
As long as there are modders, there will be warp drives, no fear of that. I like that they're staying away from that in stock though, I've generally not played with super futuristic mods (at least not functional mods, aesthetics are a different matter) but I feel like a warp drive would be a bit too OP and different from the normal mechanics to include stock. Personally, I can't wait to try and turn'n'burn a giant fusion engine. what could go wrong?