KSP 2.0 - What would you expect (or wish) for a sequel?

[Juicy]

I'd totally dig the ability for engineers to attach and detach different parts to and from ships, as well as a variety of factory modules to create parts on a station using raw resources. Including even the ability to at some point have a station expand itself by manufacturing its own modules, provided the raw materials are available.

Want more cities on Kerbin? Build them! Want a launchsite on the Mun? Build it!

Edited June 18, 2015 by Juicy

[tutike2000]

I'd totally dig the ability for engineers to attach and detach different parts to and from ships, as well as a variety of factory modules to create parts on a station using raw resources. Including even the ability to at some point have a station expand itself by manufacturing its own modules, provided the raw materials are available.

KIS and KAS can kind of do that already. I'm sure there's some mod out there that lets you launch and build parts away from KSC as well.

[cicatrix]

No KSP 2 probably for the same reason there is no Minecraft 2. KSP has no story line, the player just does whatever they want...

That! I want story line. I want losing conditions (except going bankrupt). I want more drama.

Also, more features on planets, now all planets are simply flying big rocks with slightly different landscapes and gravity. I want every planet be unique. I want contract based real science not just scoring system. I want upgradable parts.

[Cocox]

KSP MMO... multiple space centers... multiple players collaborating... player driven Space Center/Mission control, with voice chat...

Yes! Collaborating with BD Armory stuff.. we all love the gatlings..

[*Aqua*]

I want parts which dynamically and permanently deform and break apart under heavy stress, in collisions and when caught in a explosion.

Explosions must have an area of effect (pressure & heat wave). It's stupid that a part can explode and the rest of the craft doesn't care about it.

Better water physics: I want to build stuff that lands and floats realistically in water. I also want it to be able to sink.

And I want a career mode that is more than just an artifically limited sandbox with money.

Edit: Campaigns could be the solution.

Edited June 18, 2015 by *Aqua*

[Kurld]

Replace unity with an engine that is not so incredibly limited in what it can do.

I'd like to see proper 64 bit support, multithreading and hardware acceleration for physics calculations. If they can solve the n-body problem that would be awesome. More eye candy would be nice to have.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Seems odd having the entire population consist of KSC staff.

yes, but Kerbin had cities, we'd always be crashing into them!

//what do I want?

a Saturn planet.

a real asteroid belt.

ONE other star system. (landing there wins the game)

moar sound effects.

Beeping while engines are on, turns into steady tone when out of fuel.

RCS hiss.

Docking and ships bumping noises.

Flags AND Mission Patches.

Part failure (maintenance and repair)

the ability to remove (smaller) parts from ships and attach them to other ships. So you can scrap one ship to fix another. or send replacement parts to a crashed ship.

(i'm sure I'll think of more)

Edited June 18, 2015 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[PB666]

I was speculating today with a friend about what KSP could achieve, and a possible future release of KSP 2.0.

We ended up wishing for more base constructions on distant planets. Being able to seeing your colonies growing and expanding. Of course this might take years or decades of in-game time (for Kerbals, not for the player :-D ).

An other addition I would like to have is some sort of automation. Being able to assign tasks to Kerbals that they can accomplish while you're away, or by Artificial Intelligence. Or being able to install a powerful AI on a rover and command it to go exploring the neighborhood.

Also, Kerbin is a bit desolate for being the base of an intelligent life form that reaches the frontier of Space Travels. And other planets are a bit dull and empty, beside the biomes. So it would be sweet to have some more geological variety. Something worthing spending hours (years of in-game play) on planets.

Duna could even offer some biological samples, like primordial bacteriae.

Of course there is also the multiplayer frontier, where players compete against each other for reaching goals.

And you? Would would you like to see coming in a future KSP 2.0?

Edit: This post is not a critic at the actual state of the game. KSP is one of the most amazing games I've ever played (and I've played since the Commodore 64). It's simply a speculation of what could be possible in future for a video game about space science. Yes, KSP could be improved, and it will be with time. Rome hasn't been built in a day, we like to say in Italy

Space vixen's on Eve? "hello, Mr Kerman, forget that valentina, she's to green for you, you need more purple in your life"

Colonizable asteroids?

No, no, ahhhhhh I got it we need more . . . . . . ... . . . . . .

K R A K E N

[Leoworm]

One word. Multiplayer.

[A35K]

Like most have said, realistic physics and more colonization options (terraforming, etc.) But most of all, automatic rovers that can do the extremely boring task of moving around a desolate planet while I'm actually flying another ship. They could drive at slow speeds, below 5m/s, so that they don't explode like when I drive them because I get bored so I fling them of canyons on Tylo and let them reach speeds above 60m/s where there wheels break and everything dies... Ah, rovers.

[tater]

Mmo...

An MMO and any sort of realism are mutually exclusive. Any space travel game (any naval game on earth, for that matter) requires time compression. Every single object in game must warp time in lockstep, or it's nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

A properly sized solar system and all the realism the engine can handle.

I agree, though I would add that for kerbals, properly sized might still be smaller than 10X. I've player with a bunch of RSS configs, and 6.4x is totally doable with stock parts (though the HGR 1.875 parts and procedural tanks certainly help). If the gravity of Kerbin actually scaled with the diameter (assuming earthlike composition), then it would be very stock-like, even with the larger size (Kerbin's gravity would be greatly reduced).

For an actual sequel, I would call KSP the "exploration" phase, and KSP 2 the early colonization/exploitation phase.

So the goal would be in-situ construction as an option in the v.2. That would be the focus change. I'd add AI to the game as well, since it would become more useful if your astronauts could actually do things by themselves. So you could set up the construction, and they do it while you concern yourself with other gameplay if you like. Resupply, etc could be done by player, or his astronauts, etc.

Edited June 18, 2015 by tater

[Prepper-Jack]

Isn't it a little early to be talking about sequels? Plenty of room for DLC/Expansions, especially if they get the 64-bit stuff out of the way.

[Guest]

I agree, though I would add that for kerbals, properly sized might still be smaller than 10X. I've player with a bunch of RSS configs, and 6.4x is totally doable with stock parts (though the HGR 1.875 parts and procedural tanks certainly help). If the gravity of Kerbin actually scaled with the diameter (assuming earthlike composition), then it would be very stock-like, even with the larger size (Kerbin's gravity would be greatly reduced).

IMO that's still not good enough. 6.4x still results in unrealistic planetary densities because it retains 9.81m/s^2 gravity of Kerbin. Personally, I'd be just as happy if the Kerbals lived on a planet with 0.7G gravity or something, so long as the system were realistic.

Anyway, slightly off-topic...

Edited June 18, 2015 by regex
forgot a decimal place... >_>

[Kaos]

An MMO and any sort of realism are mutually exclusive. Any space travel game (any naval game on earth, for that matter) requires time compression. Every single object in game must warp time in lockstep, or it's nonsense.

There are some alternatives. Different players could be in different timeframes, as long as they do not interfere (with a "waiting for player" message if they do so), or all maneuver have to be given in advance and there is a constant time compression rate, or as third solution the timewarp is the minimal timewarp requested by any player.

All these solutions have their downside, but MMO and realism do not totaly exclude each other in this kind of game.

[Windspren]

N-body Gravity...... Please

[luizopiloto]

for a MMO experience... players have to do orbit insertions, rendezvous to near crafts and other procedures... all in real time... for orbital transfers, game could provide a Warp Drive part... so everything can work in realtime...

[tater]

There are some alternatives. Different players could be in different timeframes, as long as they do not interfere (with a "waiting for player" message if they do so), or all maneuver have to be given in advance and there is a constant time compression rate, or as third solution the timewarp is the minimal timewarp requested by any player.

All these solutions have their downside, but MMO and realism do not totaly exclude each other in this kind of game.

Then it is not MM (massively multiplayer) as most all people would be warping on their own, and not be in lockstep. MMO for KSP is a novelty, and only realistic in narrow situations. 100% lockstep, or it's pixie dust.

[marce]

Much better technology, especially a rock solid and extendable engine. However, I'm afraid a dedicated engine might be required for the needs of a KSP2 which SQUAD doesn't have the resources for.

Additionally we need as much mod support as possible to allow them to create the content. I don't even expect a lot of content from SQUAD since they can only provide a compromise nobody wants anyway.

Just give the modders the best tools possible and let them do the rest

[tater]

IMO that's still not good enough. 6.4x still results in unrealistic planetary densities because it retains 9.81m/s^2 gravity of Kerbin. Personally, I'd be just as happy if the Kerbals lived on a planet with 0.7G gravity or something, so long as the system were realistic.

Anyway, slightly off-topic...

Yeah, I agree. As I said, Kerbin (and the other worlds) could have the gravity scaled to match their size in the up-scaled system. Kerbin at 64% of earth radius (and earth's density) will have g=6.26 m/s^2. I could live with that, frankly. Eve could be bumped up to real earth size. There are loads of fun things to try.

I mentioned this in the lander thread, but really the Mun should have been designed such that 2-stage landers make sense as an option, leaving Minmus as the 1-stage alternative (since there are 2 moons, why not make different gameplay for each?).

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

N-body Gravity...... Please

Um, do you know any aliens who can do that math?

[Guest]

Um, do you know any aliens who can do that math?

I do, in fact. It just so happens that one of them mods KSP...

[tater]

Deformable terrain. I have yet to see any facility at KSC become harmed, but I'd intentionally crater the Mun.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

I do, in fact. It just so happens that one of them mods KSP...

Well, my admittedly layman’s understanding was that Newton solved the two-body problem, we solved the three body problem in the 1900s, then only solved the four- body problem about 10 years ago, and that the n-body problem was still way beyond us.

But then again I have no idea what symplectic integration is, and I just looked at a wiki article that I do not understand. And I still think of Pluto as a planet.

Now I have far greater than a layman’s understanding of computers, and if KSP is choking on my 4 GHz quad i7, with 8 GB or RAM, with 75 concurrent flights using the ridiculously simplified biconic section model, how's it going to calculate n-body?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Guest]

Now I have far greater than a layman’s understanding of computers, and if KSP is choking on my 4 GHz quad i7, with 8 GB or RAM, with 75 concurrent flights using the ridiculously simplified biconic section model, how's it going to calculate n-body?

vOv Why not spin off an install and give it a try? Are you sure it's KSP choking or are all your mods weighing it down?

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

vOv Why not spin off an install and give it a try? Are you sure it's KSP choking or are all your mods weighing it down?

I play a stock game, the only mod I use is Kerbal alarm clock.

But I am stuck in 0.25, I have this massive fleet I amsending to Jool, and I cannot upgrade of the moment. And yes, with the numberof ships I’m sending, their size, and partcount (and regrettable number oflights) I’m having a serious problem with frame rate. (and I can only expect a more accurate physicsmodel to be slower)

When I catch up with all you guys in 1. X I'll give it a try.

EDIT: but did we SOLVE the n-body problem? or is the symplectic integration thing some kind of a shortcut?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Brainlord Mesomorph