i do wonder, when are we gonna hear about new planets?

[boxley]

new planets and more interesting planetary surfaces are mentioned in the "what not to suggust" list, theres ancient posts of the devs talking about their work with geysers on laythe and plans for gas giant 2, but its been years and ive not seen anything about the new planets or their plans for implimentation :T

theres this,

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Gas_planet_2

but there's no real new information other than the one forum post and the concept image taken from a livestream or something.

has any dev even mentioned new planets or more interesting planetary surfaces in the past year or so?

[stupid_chris]

The wiki is fan made. Also that post is from Nova, he'd usually just post is personal canon, those were not necessarily Squad's plan, but his ideas.

And no, there has been no mention whatsoever. Fact is, we may not even hear from new planets.

[Thomas988]

Squad has said that they will not add any more planets or moons until the current ones are just as good as Kerbin. Unfortunately I can't find the quote. :/

[Majorjim!]

Yup, not for a while at least. Squads latest posts show how behind 'schedule'

They are.

I would say well after 1.0 and probably not until the end of the year. If ever.

[eddiew]

There's at least one mod for this: Outer Planets

One thing holding the devs back may be memory. Combining OP with other mods basically requires active texture management and OpenGL mode. They probably need to sort out not loading planetary models and textures when you can't see them before they go ahead and add more to stock.

[Motokid600]

I don't see why we can't atleast get more interesting planetary surfaces. There plainess at this point is... Unsettling.

[regex]

I highly doubt new planets are in the cards, awesome as they would be, because memory and asset management in KSP is basically non-existant.

[klgraham1013]

I don't see why we can't atleast get more interesting planetary surfaces. There plainess at this point is... Unsettling.

I agree with this.

- - - Updated - - -

No point in new planets when the current ones provide little but a surface to land on.

[Motokid600]

EVE should be incorporated for starters. The planet packs Astronomer, Proot and TheSonicGalaxy have made do infact add more eye candy to surfaces of the stock game. Completely clouded out Eve and the sandstorms on Duna...These are things I can't play without now.

Oh yea how could I forget. Please... PLEASE get rid of that ugly, glowing white horizon!

Edited March 20, 2015 by Motokid600

[stupid_chris]

I agree with this.

- - - Updated - - -

No point in new planets when the current ones provide little but a surface to land on.

I'm not sure if y'all realize that without geological activity like on Earth, Venus, or Io, planetary surfaces kinda actually are really plain, cratered, and boring.

[Capt Snuggler]

I agree with this.

- - - Updated - - -

No point in new planets when the current ones provide little but a surface to land on.

I agree with this. I never understand why people keep on about new planets when the ones we have are so plain jane.

They probably need to sort out not loading planetary models and textures when you can't see them before they go ahead and add more to stock.

YES and this goes for more than just planets.

-----edit-----

I'm not sure if y'all realize that without geological activity like on Earth, Venus, or Io, planetary surfaces kinda actually are really plain, cratered, and boring.

But Earth, Mars and Venus have clouds, lava flows, rocky parts, sandy parts, and non-repeating surface textures

Earth has cities and forests too!

Edited March 20, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Kegereneku]

As other said stuff up the planet we already have before get new one.

Also as memory is a problem they'll want to upgrade to Unity 5 first I think.

[stupid_chris]

But Earth, Mars and Venus have clouds, lava flows, rocky parts, sandy parts, and non-repeating surface textures

Earth has cities and forests too!

You really want to increase the surface textures of the planets? And yes, as I said, without geological activity (aka tectonics, volcanoes, atmospheric systems, etc), surfaces are barren and boring. The Moon is a good example of a dull landscape.

[Capt Snuggler]

You really want to increase the surface textures of the planets? And yes, as I said, without geological activity (aka tectonics, volcanoes, atmospheric systems, etc), surfaces are barren and boring. The Moon is a good example of a dull landscape.

seems odd then that the Mun has one of the most carefully crafted surfaces in the game.

and there is this:

In any case the Mun was the body in most desperate need of a revisit. But we'll definitely go over the other ones on later updates though.

definitely

definitely

definitely

Edited March 20, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[boxley]

I'm not sure if y'all realize that without geological activity like on Earth, Venus, or Io, planetary surfaces kinda actually are really plain, cratered, and boring.

yeh but even so, its not a massive series of craters and smoothed slopey hillocks every half mile, theres crags and big rocks and river beds and canyons and mountains that are more than particularly large hills

[stupid_chris]

seems odd then that the Mun has one of the most carefully crafted surfaces in the game.

Craters are relatively boring if you ask me. That's literally the only feature on the Mun.

yeh but even so, its not a massive series of craters and smoothed slopey hillocks every half mile, theres crags and big rocks and river beds and canyons and mountains that are more than particularly large hills

River beds, canyons, and mountains are *all* result of geological activity. Dead bodies like the Moon, Mercury, Ceres, etc. have relatively uneventful terrain. I'm not quite sure what you're expecting. Hell, even Mars is rather uneventful on a global scale. There are interesting locations, but they're so far spread because it's gelogical activity ceased a long time ago. You're left with a few relics scattered across the surface, like Olympus Mons (which is actually boring from close up), Valles Marineris, etc, but in the end you'd have to search for them. Using your Earth reference as a comparison is going to leave you dissapointed because Earth is probably the body with the most geological activity with Venus in the solar system.

If you want to see pretty landscape, go land on Laythe. I dare you to tell me it looks boring.

[Capt Snuggler]

If you want to see pretty landscape, go land on Laythe. I dare you to tell me it looks boring.

Laythe is boring too!

If you want laythe to be not boring then add a tidal bulge to the ocean or Stromatolites on the shoreline or a dense tropical fog or hot steam geysers or god forbid clouds!

[klgraham1013]

Craters are relatively boring if you ask me. That's literally the only feature on the Mun.

River beds, canyons, and mountains are *all* result of geological activity. Dead bodies like the Moon, Mercury, Ceres, etc. have relatively uneventful terrain. I'm not quite sure what you're expecting. Hell, even Mars is rather uneventful on a global scale. There are interesting locations, but they're so far spread because it's gelogical activity ceased a long time ago. You're left with a few relics scattered across the surface, like Olympus Mons (which is actually boring from close up), Valles Marineris, etc, but in the end you'd have to search for them. Using your Earth reference as a comparison is going to leave you dissapointed because Earth is probably the body with the most geological activity with Venus in the solar system.

If you want to see pretty landscape, go land on Laythe. I dare you to tell me it looks boring.

Even on Earth you have to search for interesting land formations. I live in Iowa. It's a long way before there's anything interesting. Anyway, it's not the distance that's the problem, but the lack of anything at all. Eve and Laythe should be more interesting than they are. Duna should have more remnants of a past atmosphere.

Instead we're left with "anomalies" that make no sense except for "lol, here's a monolith".

[MarkusA380]

Even on Earth you have to search for interesting land formations. I live in Iowa. It's a long way before there's anything interesting. Anyway, it's not the distance that's the problem, but the lack of anything at all. Eve and Laythe should be more interesting than they are. Duna should have more remnants of a past atmosphere.

Instead we're left with "anomalies" that make no sense except for "lol, here's a monolith".

True. Proper vegetation is also still missing on Kerbin. Just more ground detail, I mean, MINIMUM the detail Space Engine achieves.

[stupid_chris]

How did we go from new planets to "vegetation please".

The terrain scatter is a broken mess that has numerous memory leaks and doesn't always work that well. It could be fixed to implement more vegetation and such, but that would be long, and IMO a waste of energy right now. There are far more things that have a much greater priority. The visual aspect of the game is important, but it's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Spatial Sightseeing. I don't think adding this kind of eye candy is either a priority, neither a good idea with the memory state of the game.

[TMS]

Mandatory "give-us-something-meaningful-to-do-on-planets-before-you-add-more" post.

[klgraham1013]

How did we go from new planets to "vegetation please".

The terrain scatter is a broken mess that has numerous memory leaks and doesn't always work that well. It could be fixed to implement more vegetation and such, but that would be long, and IMO a waste of energy right now. There are far more things that have a much greater priority. The visual aspect of the game is important, but it's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Spatial Sightseeing. I don't think adding this kind of eye candy is either a priority, neither a good idea with the memory state of the game.

I agree about the vegetation, but having something amazing to look at on arival really increases the reward. Seeing a Jool rise on Laythe was amazing for me. The first time I saw a (modded) sandstorm on Duna. These sorts of visual enhancements can really add to the reward of traveling to distant planets.

[Nemrav]

please please please, before you talk about eve and all these things, discuss what will happen to those without the amazing non-integrated non-trash graphics cards....

I think they should get the procedural craters on other rocky boring planets, but for the most part, I think optimisation should come 1st thing before anything here comes...

[stupid_chris]

I agree about the vegetation, but having something amazing to look at on arival really increases the reward. Seeing a Jool rise on Laythe was amazing for me. The first time I saw a (modded) sandstorm on Duna. These sorts of visual enhancements can really add to the reward of traveling to distant planets.

I didnt say it wasn't important, I'm saying it is very low priority. As you said it yourself, the game is *already* beautiful. You just have to look up to Jool from Laythe, fly at low altitudes around Vall, go crater hopping on the Mun with Kerbin hanging up there. making it better would be very nice, but it would also mean pushing back other stuff that needs being taken care of. Not now. And thats why its better left to the modding community to take care of, because thats what it for; implementing awesome stuff that is not a development priority.

please please please, before you talk about eve and all these things, discuss what will happen to those without the amazing non-integrated non-trash graphics cards....

I think they should get the procedural craters on other rocky boring planets, but for the most part, I think optimisation should come 1st thing before anything here comes...

Usually graphic options are options. You can always tune the graphics to your game.

[klgraham1013]

please please please, before you talk about eve and all these things, discuss what will happen to those without the amazing non-integrated non-trash graphics cards....

I think they should get the procedural craters on other rocky boring planets, but for the most part, I think optimisation should come 1st thing before anything here comes...

Usually graphic options are options. You can always tune the graphics to your game.

Why is this always the counter to clouds and such when it could obviously be a graphic option.