What if KSP were to reach 2.0? What would happen?

[Thegamer211]

What are your thoughts should KSP ever advance that fart?

This is the funniest thing I saw in a while.

[Sampa]

What are your thoughts should KSP ever advance that fart?

No, that would stink! Jk!

[godefroi]

Nothing would happen, except there'd be a KSP 2.0.

Version numbers are ARBITRARY, and Squad can (and does) use whatever version number they feel like using for whatever release they want. There are things that the version number might mean to some people, but Squad doesn't have to (and doesn't appear to) follow any specific set of "rules" for generating version numbers.

Your question would be much less nonsensical if it were "What if KSP were to have a major overhaul or upgrade? What would happen?"

In that case, the answer would be, "it'd have a major orverhaul or upgrade." See, you answered your own question right there.

[Alastronaut]

KSP 2.0: you become ​the kerbal

[TrainEngie]

KSP ever advance that fart?

'Far?' FAR becomes stock? 64 bit stability? Maybe primitive Lagrange points? Gas Planet 2? A moon for the planet that replaces Eeloo?

Wait, KSP 2 could be made and maintained by We The People IF Squad gives up on KSP.

[Alshain]

If Squad used a real software numbering system and development process, 1.0.5 would be 1.1 and 1.1 would be 2.0. Most pro software developers use the Major Revision.Minor Revision.Patch.Build. Where Build is internal and can be anything by the time the consumer sees it, Patch is a bug fix or something new that helps fix a problem, like radiators were for KSP, Minor Revision is new stuff (in KSP terms, parts and smaller game mechanics) and Major Revision is a change that will break or even has the potential to break everything or drastically change the way the software is used (in KSP terms Aerodynamics from 1.0 or a game engine change which is about as Major as you can get).

However, Squad either choose numbers arbitrarily or if they have a system, it is unknown and not understood by anybody but themselves. As a result 2.0 could be pretty much anything, there is no way to even guess really. Most importantly, you must remember that the periods are delimeters, not decimals, so 2.0 does not follow 1.9 and 1.1 and 1.10 are two different versions.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Alshain

[godefroi]

If Squad used a real software numbering system and development process, 1.0.5 would be 1.1 and 1.1 would be 2.0. Most pro software developers use the Major Revision.Minor Revision.Patch.Build.

Microsoft doesn't (Windows). Google doesn't (Chrome). They're two of the biggest software companies in the world.

You're too hard on Squad, and your own examples show that the lines here are not so clear. Radiators, were they a bugfix or a feature? Hard to say.

The question was nonsense. Maybe OP meant to ask, "how much would have to change to justify a version of 2.0 for you?" That would have been a question we could have answered.

[FJCestero]

Hi all,

KSP 2.0?

I'd like to see KSP with Lagrange Points (even if they're just special SOI's with invisible, non-colliding masses you can slowly orbit around).

More solar systems (with magic Warp Points in deep space, if we must). Maybe even orbital shipyards (mine Mun, ship iron, smelt, refine, build...).

Eventually, you'd never have to go back to Kerbin...

But most of all I'd *LOVE* some of that No Man's Sky procedural world-building stuff. With animals. For **!!SCIENCE!!**

[FishInferno]

Assuming we are talking about a full-on KSP 2, I would like a focus shifted from the building and flying of spacecraft to the colonization of other planets.

[Alshain]

Microsoft doesn't (Windows). Google doesn't (Chrome). They're two of the biggest software companies in the world.

You're too hard on Squad, and your own examples show that the lines here are not so clear. Radiators, were they a bugfix or a feature? Hard to say.

The question was nonsense. Maybe OP meant to ask, "how much would have to change to justify a version of 2.0 for you?" That would have been a question we could have answered.

I can't speak for Google, I don't use their products, but Microsoft most definitely does. Keep in mind we are talking about Version numbers, not marketing names. For example, my version of Windows 7 is Version 6.1, the marketing name and the version number do not match.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Alshain

[godefroi]

I can't speak for Google, I don't use their products, but Microsoft most definitely does. Keep in mind we are talking about Version numbers, not marketing names. For example, my version of Windows 7 is Version 6.1, the marketing name and the version number do not match.

• Windows 2000 5.0
  
• Windows XP 5.1 (also XP 64-bit, which was 5.2)
  
• Windows Vista 6.0
  
• Windows 7 6.1
  
• Windows 8 6.2
  
• Windows 8.1 6.3 (unless your app is not manifested as 8.1 compatible, in which case it's still 6.2)
  
• Windows 10 10.0 (unless your app is not manifested as 10 compatible, in which case it's still 6.2)
  

The numbers LOOK normal, but in context, you can see that major changes (7->8) did NOT have corresponding changes in the major version number.

Chrome uses version numbers that are X.0.Y where X is the version (always goes up by one) and Y is the build (goes up by many). It's at 45.0.2454, currently.

[KerbalOmmex]

On 10/10/2015 at 7:05 PM, godefroi said:

 

• Windows 2000 5.0
• Windows XP 5.1 (also XP 64-bit, which was 5.2)
• Windows Vista 6.0
• Windows 7 6.1
• Windows 8 6.2
• Windows 8.1 6.3 (unless your app is not manifested as 8.1 compatible, in which case it's still 6.2)
• Windows 10 10.0 (unless your app is not manifested as 10 compatible, in which case it's still 6.2)

 

The numbers LOOK normal, but in context, you can see that major changes (7->8) did NOT have corresponding changes in the major version number.

Chrome uses version numbers that are X.0.Y where X is the version (always goes up by one) and Y is the build (goes up by many). It's at 45.0.2454, currently.

Well @SQUAD could go like Microsoft too. Microsoft had it's 9.x series,(95,98) which was replaced by the NT series, that was developed alongside it (4.0 to 10.0). But then Squad has less than 50 employees. So, if KSP 2 has ti come out, it would have to wait till it gets at least 100 employees. The guys who have the 'SQUAD Staff badge on 'em are basically (from what little knowledge we have about SQUAD) Three-Fourth of the company's employees.

[herbal space program]

I think they would be nuts to do this whole engine upgrade now if they weren't going to add a bunch of new content to this "version" of the game, i.e. this code base. If I were in their shoes, I would hire some creative consultants and more content developers, then use them to help create one more significant content upgrade that is still covered by the original price of admission -- not a huge upgrade, but one that will keep everyone interested while the development process goes on. Once this version is bug-free, any future content additions should be handled as expansion modules to the existing game for at least a couple of cycles. These should be relatively cheap (say 10 bucks), but still cost enough that they will maintain a working revenue stream for Squad. While all this is happening, they need to come to grips with the crossroads they're at creatively and figure out just where this game is going. If they want to keep their broad player base alive, they need to come up with something major to keep it interesting for them. That could be a bunch of different things, but only when it is clear what that is should they start developing KSP2 in earnest.

[moogoob]

On 10/9/2015 at 11:09 AM, moogoob said:

The Aerobraking at Jool bug and random overheating will finally be fixed, replaced with other, equally confusing and game-altering bugs, such as "Never EVA while there's science in the capsule or the game will freeze" or "Using too many fuel lines will cause engines to overheat and explode" or "Pressing F1 while in an atmosphere makes your autosave unusable.

Just like how our current confusing bugs replaced "Don't use boosters ever or they'll destroy your core stage engines" and "Long rockets behave like noodles" from previous versions.

Lol at my earlier post - now we have "don't ever use landing gear without tons of testing"

[JoeNapalm]

 

Time and space would implode.

...Just like in every other update.

 

-Jn-

Edited May 24, 2016 by JoeNapalm

[Sirad]

What'l happened at Version 2.0 ?

 

- The Version number has Changed to 2.0

- All ye olde long and well known bugs were declared as Features (like POL is told to have a 700 meter Antimatter-Defense Shield to prevent Kerbal landings for example)

- The Garbage Stutter now delays the game for 2 minutes and then it runs 5 seconds REAL SMOOTH until the next stutter appears. you are only allowed to mention how smooth it runs the 5 seconds between the stutters. if your System RAM is 1024Gb or above then you can set up a switch in the config that extends the 'smooth phase' to 30 seconds until the next GC-Event.

- we'll have 17.867 new Plane Parts&Engines and two additional octagonal struts (one double the length and one four times than the original one, but they explode while exposed to sunlight)

- we'll have one additional LF only Tank (just half the size than the actual one)

- only 30cent for a timewarp to the next Transfer window to Duna. or wait until it appears at normal speed.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Sirad
I completely forgot about the micro transactions

[Korvath85]

As stated earlier, a 2.0 vs KSP 2 are two different things.  If we're talking about 2.0, normally when you see a major build number change (in this case possibly 1.0 to 1.1), you generally see a fundamental change in the code-behind of the product, be it refactoring for optimization, revamped engine, or some other 'game-changer'.  Just my two cents.  So we could possibly one day see KSP 2.0, but I think a lot would have to change for a major build increase like that, i.e. porting to something other than Unity (never going to happen), or major feature additions (more in-depth planets, another solar system, etc).  We're more likely to see KSP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc.

[KSP Bro AE]

On 10/9/2015 at 0:44 AM, Hannu said:

I think that only possibility to get KSP 2.0 is that some larger gaming company buy rights and dev team from SQUAD. Unfortunately such a company would not respect to KSP's basic idea and it would destroy the game. We would lose gravity and celestial mechanics and transitions between planets would be like military flight sims. Fighting against enemies and avoiding asteroid swarms and "black holes" with flight dynamics of arcade plane game. No thanks for me. Modding can be poor man's "2.0" and bring many new and interesting dimensions to KSP.

Even the slightest idea that KSP would be transformed into a crappy, physiscsless game is a terrible nightmare. Even though I hate complicated games, I would much rather have that than what you mentioned. KSP is a game for learning orbital mechanics, physics, and how to blow s**t up. But 2.0 can be the implementation of Multiplayer. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

[RocketBlam]

On 10/9/2015 at 6:41 AM, Curveball Anders said:

Look at the Civilization series for instance.

New engine, new game play, new graphics, etc and lots of other new stuff.

Yes, but look at Fallout: Since 3, they've been very similar, with only minor changes in gameplay.

[wrobel-cwirek]

KSP 2 for me:

• N-body physics
• better atmosphere simulation
• ongoing simulation of craft within atmospheres in background
• life (and life quiality) support (multi spicies need for life support?)
• much... much better quest system
• few sun systems (like Kerbal size, Earth size etc., each with specific features)
• possibility to play with Humans, not only Kerbals, multi spices.

[n.b.z.]

On 9.10.2015 at 6:42 PM, Thegamer211 said:

This is the funniest thing I saw in a while.

What's so funny?

For Gilly and other low-gravity places, the Food Assisted Reaction Thruster often is an efficient propulsion option.

It only got the bad reputation because cost-cutting mission planners had forced some crews to use this technology even on medium-gravity worlds, which overstressed the hardware, and caused some crew members to develop a condition known as "circularization burn".

(Ladies and Gentlemen: GILLY. Where poop jokes meet orbital mechanics.)

[kreutzkevic]

I wouldn't mind if SQUAD took the Paradox route, in order to sustain KSP longer. See CKII and EUIV.

 

But with the new optimizations, there's free runtime for new stuff like planets, clouds, shaders,... My money's on Squad implementing these things in the not too distant future.

[Kerbonaut905]

KSP 2.0 is pretty much denied for now. As Squad stated(blue is my interpretation):

Quote

Here at Squad we’re looking into the future and we have great and ambitious plans for the KSP franchise(might suggest a spin-off or something) and even more!

New talents have enrolled in the past few months and they are just as excited as we are. Bringing new talents is allowing us to bring fresh ideas to the plate(2.0 update might be coming sooner than we thought! atleast contentwise) and we can’t be more excited for what’s coming.

There’s an important amount of new content, besides this new update, that we’re currently working on. This includes more free updates, full expansion packs(doesn't seem like KSP 2.0 to me, but rather DLC's) with an incredible amount of new content and much more!

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Kerbonaut905
Didn't remember quotes create spoilers automatically

[Overland]

It would have spiders at night

Because EVERY. Open world game has bloody spiders at night

[p1t1o]

On 10/9/2015 at 8:00 AM, Sanguine said:

A question that generally bugs me during long burns is what would happen if KSP continually developed to 2.0?

Presumably, just after the release of 2.0 it would be consumed by the sun as it expands into a Red Giant.