Search the Community

In the KSP you have constant value of different types of radial simmetry (radial n-symmetry, where n = 2, 3, 4, 6, 8). I suggest that it is possible to make unlimited number, so you use all numbers, for example 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 and others (imagine 28 or 33-symmetry!) I think this feature could be implemented as a line (e.g. in the bottom left corner as usual) that shows the number of symmetry and circle, divided into n parts. This parameter can be changed by entering another number from the keyboard to the line I belive that realisation of this function will be very easy (just attach each part through the corner 360 / n automatically), except problem with big numbers, where details can cross each other. The most important that it is of course obviously make construction much more comfortable and you don't need to use several times one n-symmetry mode and level parts by eye (I think you can also level details in new scheme mode?). It would be nice to see this feature in ksp2, which would make the constructor even closer to the ideal;)

To make the simulator more realistic, shouldn't we add regular stars in addition to star systems with planets? I believe that if you add N star systems in a game about interstellar travel, and you will have only N stars, it will look unrealistic, unprofessional and not in line with the concept of the game The game would feel fairer if you had more freedom to fly to different objects in the galaxy, such as that star kebler23878 over there, even if it has no planets. I believe it takes much less resources to create stars than planets because for stars we don't have to think about topography, geology, concept. You could make an autogenerator of stars along the lines of a star catalog that would randomly set radius, age, mass, type, and maybe location. Stars can have similar textures and other features because they are not as unique as planets Perhaps in science mode, you will be added to the eyes or other bonuses for studying a star of a certain type In my opinion, filling space with stars makes the game more realistic and similar to what you expect from such a game than just having N more systems with planets

Hello, this topic has probably already been discussed, but it seemed to me that it is still suspended in the air, because there is no clear confirmation of adding a new type of heat shield The tools available in the game you can not protect every ship from re-entry, because for this you only have heat shields. I've had many instances where my mk1 shuttle would overheat and be very difficult to land from space. I cheated and reduced the heat exposure in the settings . What if players want to create a starship that will enter the atmosphere of mars from the second space speed or other heavy landers that can't use standard heat shields? Why not add the ability to cover aircraft hulls and tanks with heat shields in addition to the standard heat shields to start with. For example it could look like covering a certain surface of the underside of the craft with heat tiles. Definitely need a parameter to control the amount of coverage. For example the angle of 180 degrees is half of full coverage, the angle of 240 degrees is 4/3 of full coverage. Of course this would change the location of the center of mass, shifting it to the heat shield, and increase the weight, significantly. Obviously the surface area of the plane would be larger than that of the capsule. So they could be balanced in terms of gameplay I think this could enter the game as organically as the other procedural parts - wings and radiators. It will be easier to create spaceplanes, shuttles, gliders like esa spacerider or SUSIE , and others, which will increase creative freedom Honestly I think the issue of procedural heat shielding should be approached in a more advanced way, as about an arbitrarily shaped hull protecting the craft at re-entry into the atmosphere. Probably the mechanics of this part would be similar to the fairing mechanics. Just look at the source of inspiration - NASA's Havoc Venus mission UPD: I created a concept for heat protection for different surfaces, like wings and, plane cabins and hulls Here is a conception for heat protection for wings or another hull type details. If you want to apply heat protection for wing, you open heat category in redactor and choose icon, which looks like an abstract plate with specific texture. This icon with plate means a material you cover your detail. In information window it has a description, temperature and other limits, cost on surface unit, density and graphic of square density on square unit from material’s thickness. When material is chosen you click on wing, and lower surface of wing is covered by this material. Clicking on material you open its properties window, where you can change thickness of material on detail. Also I think there can be advanced settings if you want to cover not only bottom, but front of wing or cabin, and make cover as on pictures below Heat wear of material will be individual for each detail of craft which has it (individual wear of protection for every detail). Concerns, that there will be more calculations, I believe are overstated. Temperature overlay (f11) already exists and heat for every detail is calculated individually already. Other argument that wing now doesn’t consist from many details – it is one detail and probably heats as one detail. Less details – less calculations It will not conflict with traditional heat shields, they are details. I suggest a function of covering of detail by thermal protection Another bonus suggestions: Inflatable shields could be also improved by adding new shields with different diameters and adding wear for inflatable shields:) Also it will be cool to see GIGANTIC heat shields for atmosphere breaking like in bbc voyage to the planets or sun dive The heat details must have significant improvements, becuase reentry is important part of game. I like that radiators will be procedural, it is very useful improvement. I would like to see significant developments in thermal protection, it will change game in good way I believe that it will improve of creation of gliders, shuttles, spaceplanes and other non-capsule type crafts

I'm very excited to hear that automated delivery routes are confirmed and can't wait to over-engineer a logistics network. Positivity First: It sounds like resource routes will be established by performing a delivery with a truck or rocket manually first. Once a single successful loop is completed, a new delivery route will be unlocked. This is an excellent design choice because it requires a player to achieve sufficient mastery for each route, and since some routes will be harder than others, the available wealth for a player will grow in proportion to their skill. Even better, the tedium of repeated manual hauling missions is eliminated (I've certainly done this in KSP1). There are two aspects of delivery routes that could cause problems if not implemented well: #1 - Variable dV requirements for routes that cross multiple SOIs If you want to get from Kerbin to Eeloo, the dV required will depend on the relative positions of those planets and the order you perform your maneuvers. This gets even less repeatable when gravity assists are considered. One potential exploit could be a player manually running a delivery route at the optimal time with very favorable gravity assists, and then getting future deliveries for less dV than they really should cost. Personally, I wouldn't mind this, and if a player is smart enough to exploit this... maybe they should be rewarded for it? This is one of those cases where I believe satisfying gameplay is better than realism. That said, I think there should at least be some sort of in game acknowledgement of this issue. Another possibility could be imposing some sort of handicap on a player while proving a delivery route... such as 10% greater fuel consumption. #2 - Will automated vessels be under control of the Physics Engine Please don't do this for the following reasons: It will cause delivery routes to spontaneously fail off-screen at no fault of the player due to kraken like bugs. Even if KSP2 has far more robust physics than KSP1, delivery routes would also greatly expand the number of failure modes. It wastes CPU - The rigid body physics calculations are computationally intensive and may be fundamentally limited in how much they can be parallelized. This cost is worth it for craft the player is actively looking at and piloting, but not for stuff off screen. Even if different vehicles far away were give their own physics threads, it would wouldn't take long to saturate even a high-end CPU. One possible exception - It may acceptable to physically simulate delivery vessels while they are close to a player. For example, if a player is piloting a space station and an automated freighter comes in to dock, this could be a reasonable because it only needs to scale with the number of players and if a kraken occurs, the player will witness the failure and learn something immediately. Discussion of possible deliver route implementations Since it hasn't been explicitly confirmed is exactly how the automated resource routes will behave. Let's consider 3 possibilities (there are many others): Exact Record/Playback This implementation would be like trucks in Satisfactory. You press "record", pilot your craft manually along a delivery route, then "stop" the recording when you close the loop. The craft would replicate your actions exactly. Tradeoffs: [-] Please don't implement this [-] Would only work for land-based routes. Orbital targets would change relative positions between iterations of the delivery route, so rigidly executing the same maneuvers at a different time would not work. [-] Not robust - It is not realistic to expect a vehicle to perfectly execute recorded instructions each time. If the player barely grazed the edge of some scatter while recording, it may cause a collision during a random playback. Ghost Ships on Rails - After recording a resource route, your craft will repeat that same route, but will be non-collidable and on rails [+] Robust - Players still have to prove route viability but don't have to worry about spontaneous failures due to FP rounding errors or kraken-like bugs. [+] Moderate CPU - This should be little more than viewing a bunch of craft in the tracking station, or rendering a few ghost ships docking at a resource depot. [+] Provides visual feedback/beauty to the player to appreciate as they build up their industrial infrastructure. [-] Still has the problem of different maneuvers required depending on relative celestial body position. Since these are ghost ships, some cheese is allowable here, for example "draw a curved path from Kerbin to Jool that looks reasonable". These automated ghost ships should achieve these paths "magically" without burning their engines (except maybe for visual purposes). Abstract Network - Delivery routes would behave like the KSP1 relay network. After manually executing a loop, the UI could draw a line between the source and sink and you could utilize this link in some sort of logistics/production management UI. [+] Very robust - No moving vehicles means no spontaneous failures [+] Very Low CPU - All you need are some new UI elements but no actual craft to render or track [-] Not as cool - It may be hard for some players to suspend their disbelief if a stack of ore magically appears every 6 hours in their station without seeing anything dock.

It always struck me in a bad way how in KSP 1 Kerbin is an always sunny, dry and life-sustaining planet, because realistically, any planet that can sustain life, especially advanced life, is going to have rains, thunders, snowstorms, etc, but Kerbin doesn't even have seasons, it's always sunny and the perfect weather for playing sports and launching a rocket which I think makes it too easy and boring in my opinion, even if I still like KSP 1. Another thing that would be cool for KSP 2 to have is renderizations of other lifeforms or animals, at least on Kerbin, and I don't mean bird noises at the space center like in KSP 1, I mean animals that you can see while launching a rocket, like birds, insects, carnivores, herbivores, more varied plant life, etc, it certainly would make evolution and life on Kerbin much more interesting, especially if some of these animals could interfere with your perfect launch or reentry, although that is more of an ideal dream of mine, still, even animals that you can phase through would be an improvement compared to the empty, vast grasslands of KSP 1. What do you guys think?

BDarmoury was THE weapons mod for Kerbal Space Program. With a sequel coming up, it will be interesting to see what gets improved. The original mod was good, but the variety was a little low. Also, there were no space-based weapons or items, apart from that one missile (if you were going to add 1 thing specifically for space, why not add more?) One of the features I am most excited about adding to BDarmoury will be colonies. The potential the has is massive. Firstly, it will be possible to set up colonies, then go to war with others. This may add an interesting aspect to the mod, especially if unique mechanics are integrated to facilitate this. Another thing that is harder but wayyy cooler is extra structures for colonies that are military focused. Examples include: AA guns Ammo storage depot Long-range (perhaps interplanetary) Missile silo Short to medium range missile battery I don't know what could be added for interstellar travel integration, but it would also be interesting. It could allow for grand conflicts across multiple systems, with many Kegadeaths of casualties. For this to work, the tech tree must have a decent progression path for weapons/other equipment (unguided rocket goes to laser guided goes to active radar missile that impacts at retavitlistic speeds). Let me know if there is anything you would want for BDA 2.0

There is an interesting moment in the game. I watched the spent rocket stages and noticed that although their periapsis is about 30 km, but they do not burn up in the atmosphere, unless you switch to them, or fly close to them. I would add a function so that the game recalculates the orbit for such cases. The game looks at the intersection of the orbit with the atmosphere and decides exactly how to recalculate If you do not observe the device with a periapsis <30~50 km, then for some time the game simply removes it on the first turn. If you suddenly want to look at it, then the game, knowing the parameters of the orbit, approximates the movement in the most rough way and builds the trajectory of re-entry into the atmosphere, without simulating anything in real time. At least you all saw that mechjeb perfectly builds trajectories of re-entry into the atmosphere. The spacecraft in the global map will move along the trajectory until it intersects with the surface For the case when the periapsis is not too low, you can do another. The game calculates a new orbit after passing the atmosphere and the time of exit from the section of the orbit passing in the atmosphere. And when that time has passed, the game simply changes the old orbit to a new one, and the spacecraft finds itself in a new orbit at the exit point from the atmosphere. The case when you observe the passage of the spacecraft in the atmosphere can also be adjusted by approximation, rather than calculating the resistance force in real time

The Kerbals from the KSP2 gameplay vidoes seem too cute/silly/goofy-like they don't have a clue or care about what they're doing in a rocket. The G1 Kerbals have a more serious look, like they actually care about what they're doing. I personally don't like this-could something perhaps be done about it?

My idea is to make the arrangement of modules in the kraft more meaningful Logically, if the habitate modules are not connected by any tunnels or corridors, then to move between them, you need a minimum of EVA. But according to the logic of the game, since these modules are part of the same craft, kerbals can still move between them. For example kerbals can move between modules of this craft I propose to make a system that resembles the fuel delivey system for liquid engines. If engine not connected to fuel system, then it can't waste fuel. And if module is not connected with the interior living space of the spacecraft, then kerbals can't move to this module from anothers. For example right connected modules look like these: On the second picture you can see that modules are connected with tube. And I suggest that tubes can connect habitate modules and/or this function can be made by another parts I propose this change to make the assembly of kerbals crafts more meaningful. This adds a new layer to the assembly process, related to the proper planning of module placement and it will add a bit simulation to the space exploration simulator. I think with this fix will make game immersion is felt stronger, if I may say so. I assume that such a system is being developed for the colonies, but I am not convinced and do not know if it applies to spaceships I thought about this idea after seeing this interstellar ship with planes Of course, although it is pre-alpha, but it is unclear how the crew will get to the planes, except through spacewalking And now my fantasy, which may not appear in the game: if you can't connect some modules on interstellar ship, you can make transport, which is connected to ship's structure and can to drive on it like on rails 500m from the living bays to landers, which saves weight on the long 500 meter corridor I hope you found my idea about realistic movement between habitate modules interesting and convincing

What if (in at least multiplayer) you needed to transport materials, parts, etc to other KSC's? Maybe you could even transport Kerbals to other KSC's to be launched in different places, and maybe run different airports? Just an idea from making different passenger planes in stock ksp and realizing there's no use for planes (not SSTO's, just passenger or cargo planes).

In KSP1, when you connect the decoupler to the engine, it creates a protective cover of the same diameter as the engine But if you decide, say in order to save weight, that a smaller engine is enough for you, you immediately run into the above property. This property can't always be corrected, because not all engines have a models with a different shroud diameters. As a result, the shroud will not be the diameter of the tank, but the diameter of the engine, which is very inconvenient in flight This problem in KSP1 is solved by installing the engine to a special part, the engine plate, which can be used to make different configurations of the propulsion system. But there is a disadvantage - the engine plate adds weight to the craft and, still, has, a limited number of configurations for engines I propose to get rid of the engine plates and allow players to install the engines as they want, which will expand the creative freedom. The idea is that after you create an any engine configuration on a stage, you put a decoupler that matches the diameter of that stage and it covers all the engines with one shroud that matches the tank diameter of the stage and decoupler. This will make it much easier to create crafts. And it will be better, if shroud could change its shape. For example, if lower stage tank has another diameter, you choose decoupler of its diameter and shroud would look like SLS universal stage adapter. I believe that creation of any interstages depending on the size of the parts will benefit the process of creating crafts. Crafts would be more diverse and there would be less hassle with creating non-standard crafts

Are all up to date rockets like Saturn v, shuttles and other lifters like Russian one will be included in game as prebuild and ready to use? Are current and past spacecraft like Voyager, Sputnik will be included and prebuild? Are space station like ISS and Mir will be included and prebuild in base game. Maybe in cat example like. Mir-> each part( stage) separate ISS -> each part(stage) separate. It would be a good start to be able to replay cards of history form start (as learning curve) it would be more progressive ( from first rocket in space through establishing mission to moon and building space station stage by stage to landing on Mars) and then once achieving those steps new players would be able to carry on exploring further in to space. If this thread( questions where already asked) exist please point me in their direction and I do apologize for inconvenience.

Add details and dimensions of parts (e.g. fuel tanks) as in Making history I and many people probably like to build compact rockets rather than taking a lot of extra fuel or emptying a tank because you couldn't find smaller tanks of the right profile. Since its introduction the medium 1.875m size parts have been present in many of my crafts. And the Huge 5m parts are extremely handy for interplanetary travel and taking out huge structures without too much hassle I don't think making another size tank will be harder than the other features, but it will increase the creative space for players from the very release of the game and in its base set. I hope for understanding

So me and one of my friends were thinking about what to do w/ the ksp 2 multiplayer, and him and I were thinking about competitions. Thats when i had the idea. There should be the ability for coms slatelites to only work with certain frequencies. I.e. allowing for me and my friend to compete without needing to turn our satelites off everytime the other needs to send science.

Some Mods in the first game enable lifesupport, aka you have to feed your Kerbals for them to stay at work. Do you think this feature will be in the sequel too?

Can anyone give me some photos of the lead artist Tim cox that died? I'm trying to make a video on KSP2!

in KSP2 i would like to see support for reusable rockets and other craft, Mostly more parts, but also fixing the issue of not being able to control multiple craft, and also the stupid hard part of landing. List of things: More legs (SpaceX and Blue Origin inspired) Gridfins. More Airbrakes Entire movable air surfaces (like starship flaps, or New Glenn fins)

Throughout KSP 2 development we have seen slight variations in Kerbals, one of these variations being facial hair. I was wondering if we could get some insight on how exactly this will work, will it be determined randomly? Or will we the player choose what our Kerbals will look like?

To start off with, I have suggested things for other games before, however, most of these are fantasy games. This is a realistic game, and thus, if my suggestions are hard to read, and you have a stroke reading this and die, then sorry for my bad "ordering" and explanations. I've also never really talked about physics much before, which is another reason this might be hard to read. Anyways, radiation. We know what it is, you get too much of it and you die. We also use it for power, which is why I think that some of the more efficient EC generators later in the tech tree should be powered on radiation, maybe not by radioactive materials, but radiation in space. Or this radiation could be used to turn a non-radioactive material into a radioactive material, which can then be used for EC generation. There could also be a toggle for kerbals to get radiation poisoning if exposed too much radiation, and if you don't get them to an area with mostly no radiation "quickly", they could die (or go MIA on easier difficulties). However, if this toggle is on, there needs to be some form of having radiation bounce off of ships, or radiate out of the ship during interstellar travel, due to what is known as "heliospheres." Basically, stars have atmospheres. Yes yes, the suns corona (which fun fact is hotter than it's surface) is an atmosphere, but it also repels radiation out of its most outermost layer of its atmosphere, which extends well past the Keiper belt. Most stars if not all have these "astrospheres" or "magnetospheres" (which the earth has its own magnetosphere), and outside of this, is an astronomical amount of cosmic ionizing radiation. Basically, if you decide you want kerbals and parts to be affected by radiation, if you dont have practically 9000 layers of 50 feet thick lead, or any other material good at stopping radiation, you will instantly be vaporized. While the astrosphere doesn't stop all of this radiation from entering it's system, it stops a large majority of it (excluding uncharged gamma rays), which means that if that setting is on, if 2 years of floating around the sun between duna and kerbin in no ship were to give a kerbal radiation sickness, being outside this heliosphere would cut that time down to a very short time. Personally, I don't know the exact specifications, but it would probably be a matter of seconds.

In a sun - planet - moon system, the orbit of the moon can look like a square relative to the star, as was demonstrated in this video. It would be quite a sight if, from the moon, you could time-warp and see yourself going further, and closer to the star in a square shape.

Simple polls about your KSP2 buying decisions. Thank you for contributing!

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?

Internet says Intercept Games is at 40 employees + consultants. Using an average of 5000$ per month per employee for a 4 years development period: 40 * 5000 * 12 * 4 = 9.6 mil. $ for salaries Marketing budget should be about twice that, let's say 20 mil. $. I would round it up at ~40 mil. $ Let's account for the fact that KSP2 will probably cost 60$ at launch. Lower sale estimates would be 1 mil. copies. So there's some budget headroom up to 50 mil. $ What do you think? Other games with ~50 mil. $ budgets: Half-Life 2, The Division

The rules are simple! Someone posts an image from either real life or KSP/KSP 2, then there's five tries until the answer is revealed! Here's one to start!

We know that in order to assemble an interstellar vessel, it will need to be built in orbit, at an orbital shipyard. But how does the orbital shipyard get built? It could be built in multiple launches using more conventional rockets. But the individual parts of the shipyard would probably be larger than the 5-meter diameter parts. So, the obvious solution is larger conventional rocket parts.