Some ideas for KSP 2

[Slam_Jones]

For me to spend money on a "KSP 2," I would need it to be made using a different game engine.  Unity is great, but KSP needs proper physics.  N-body physics, barycenters, stuff that Unity (and Unreal Engine, and likely most others) simply can't do, or cannot do efficiently enough to be playable.

The only other things I would want is more 'A' in IVA  (as in more activities to do inside the ships.  Even if it's just floating from one end to the other inside, having a representation of the interior of space ships and stations could be quite cinematic).

Everything else I have in mind can be dealt with fairly easily with mods.

TL;DR - I would only buy KSP 2 if it is built on an engine designed specifically for simulating space travel.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Slam_Jones

[smilodonjak]

The only way I can think of that KSP 2 is worth my money is if they add a ton of (optional) realism. AKA N-body Phyiscs real fuels, real solar system (idk if the general community would like this one) and make science way more interesting. The problem is I can get this all with mods The game is pretty fantastic as it is with mods, even without mods its fantastic, the only thing I want in KSP updats is MOAR PERFORMANCE 800 part ships TAKE FOREVER to launch into orbit.....

[StupidAndy]

you can BUILD 800 part ships? I cant even launch 200 part ships without lagging to death on my laptop

[CosmicCharlie]

Man this thread is depressing.

How about more upgrades and devices for the communications network, so that eventually vessels could be fully automated from take-off to touchdown, enabling the construction of vaast commercial and industrial networks.

Each planet produces some different ore, which can be used singly or in combination.So combine them all and you get FTL travel or something.

Wow. I'm Samuel Taylor Coleridge and this mellow-harshing thread is the Person from Porlock.

 

[smilodonjak]

IMO kOS should be stock.

I do NOT want FTL travel in KSP, it ruins the game imo, thats just me though.

[CosmicCharlie]

4 hours ago, smilodonjak said:

IMO kOS should be stock.

I do NOT want FTL travel in KSP, it ruins the game imo, thats just me though.

Well, by the time you set up operations on all the planets, get your super special ore processor that combines all the ores, finished a giant tech tree, what then? Seems like the next logical step.(Or maybe on to megastructures? Dyson spheres? But eventually) FTL or teleportation or wormholes or something to get between stars in a reasonable time.

And the ore idea gives you some goal after finishing the tech tree. The career thing is super exciting. No, wait, the other thing: tedious. And so some kind of commercial network to make money might add more fun?

Oh. Sky maps. Slap one in there. Viola, hundreds of thousands of stars.

Space elevators! Now I'm just free associating.

Edited January 27, 2017 by CosmicCharlie

[Wjolcz]

None of the ideas from this thread would make me buy KSP2.

[StupidAndy]

something minor, but everything doesn't have a set cost, it varies with the kerbal world, and so do your contracts, and something that might make everyone mad, companies suddenly taking a contract due to some unforeseen reason, just more realism for the contracts!

[smilodonjak]

1 hour ago, CosmicCharlie said:

Well, by the time you set up operations on all the planets, get your super special ore processor that combines all the ores, finished a giant tech tree, what then? Seems like the next logical step.(Or maybe on to megastructures? Dyson spheres? But eventually) FTL or teleportation or wormholes or something to get between stars in a reasonable time.

And the ore idea gives you some goal after finishing the tech tree. The career thing is super exciting. No, wait, the other thing: tedious. And so some kind of commercial network to make money might add more fun?

Oh. Sky maps. Slap one in there. Viola, hundreds of thousands of stars.

Space elevators! Now I'm just free associating.

The problem is, I only play sandbox and enjoy the design part of KSP the most, this is my personal play style... 

[natsirt721]

With the understanding that KSP2 is probably not going to happen any time soon, the one feature I would most like to see would be destructible terrain.  Being able to dig into the Munar surface and place base modules directly on the ground would be very cool and another step towards realism.  ISRU would actually require digging a giant pit instead of using magical ore-straws.  You could land pretty much anywhere and with enough effort bulldoze a plateau to land rockets on.  Being able to grade roads for easy transit would greatly improve overland travel on low-grav bodies.  Plus, you get impact craters whenever you crash!

 

[StupidAndy]

YEAH! I LOVE CRATERS!

another idea for KSP2

Apollo style fuel tanks or that back part of the CM, where the fuel and electricity is!

so you can put some things inside the fuel tanks, so basicly, instead of putting a, I don't know, gravioli detector on the outside of the fuel tanks, you can put it on the inside, protecting it from the re entry heat when coming down, and then you can have another part of it in the capsules or places with kerbals you can have experements, but something more then the temperature, something for like crew psychological thingies or whatever

Edited February 6, 2017 by StupidAndy

[Reusables]

I'd like to see an engineering game primarily aimed at exploration. Playing with various engineering sections, optimizing and polishing the device. The difficulty could be the scale of reality. Oh, also appropriate amount of automation would be great. As far as I know, there are many ways to implement the automation part without extensive coding. This will allow crafts to fly in arrangement, organize missions with certain amount of control, and such.

[Raven.]

On 1/25/2017 at 4:05 PM, Slam_Jones said:

For me to spend money on a "KSP 2," I would need it to be made using a different game engine.  Unity is great, but KSP needs proper physics.  N-body physics, barycenters, stuff that Unity (and Unreal Engine, and likely most others) simply can't do, or cannot do efficiently enough to be playable.

The only other things I would want is more 'A' in IVA  (as in more activities to do inside the ships.  Even if it's just floating from one end to the other inside, having a representation of the interior of space ships and stations could be quite cinematic).

Everything else I have in mind can be dealt with fairly easily with mods.

TL;DR - I would only buy KSP 2 if it is built on an engine designed specifically for simulating space travel.

 

While I understand the premise of an engine designed specifically for simulating space travel, it is a very tall order and it's something that I think is out of reach for Squad considering their resources. Even then, physics is usually not provided by the game engine itself, but rather a separate physics engine that is for a lack of a better term an addin to the game engine. Unity is great for small development studios because of its low cost of entry. Speaking of which, N-body physics is available through a mod: 

Now with that being said, I think it is still too soon for any KSP 2.0 project to reach design phase. From what I can tell, KSP 1 still has some market viability, especially if the devs continue developing more features and content. In fact, I would go as far as to say that releasing a KSP 2 as a separate title may be a bad idea market wise, at least at this point, because it would cause the titles to compete with each instead of boosting each others sales.

[Wjolcz]

On 10/02/2017 at 4:29 PM, Raven. said:

Now with that being said, I think it is still too soon for any KSP 2.0 project to reach design phase. From what I can tell, KSP 1 still has some market viability, especially if the devs continue developing more features and content. In fact, I would go as far as to say that releasing a KSP 2 as a separate title may be a bad idea market wise, at least at this point, because it would cause the titles to compete with each instead of boosting each others sales.

Not only that but also the fact that it would be pretty much the same game would mean the dev time spent on reinventing the wheel (or rather KSP) vs the money from this reinvented wheel would probably not be profitable enough since we already have the wheel. Maybe it's not perfect but it rolls just fine (especially when modded).

IMO they should go for a SimplePlane alike, since SimplePlanes actually took a lot from KSP. They should take a chance while this building/flying/sandbox genre is still (kinda) fresh.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Veeltch

[FreeThinker]

On 16-1-2017 at 9:00 PM, adsii1970 said:

Why not have a whole new game called "Kerbal Space Program 2.0 "Beyond Kerbol" and make it a stand-alone game. Your goal is to leave the Kerbol system and find out what else is out there...

 

Kind of like KSP Interstellar

[Tyko]

Replacing Unity is something that would justify a sequel game to me and that would spawn all kinds of other ways to improve the game. It would also ensure many more years of Squad support because it would offer a new revenue stream.

[Castille7]

I think "Kerbal Construction" would work for another Squad release. We already have better parts than Minecraft , Add weather conditions and challenges for Skyscrapers and Bridges...etc. 

Please PM me for my mailing address for that Royalty Check when this takes off 

[Spricigo]

 

I think "Kerbal Construction" would work for another Squad release. 

Good to know I'm not the only one that think that when SQUAD decide to make another game thay may as well not make another KSP.

[harrisjosh2711]

How many huge ships/stations/bases have you built that upon finishing you find your frame rate under 10FPS? I mean KSP runs smoother on a single processor than four processors. Can I even get one of those anymore? Would it be good for anything other than playing KSP? KSP really needs to be on a new engine. I am IN LOVE with a broken game that runs like something from the 80's. And when you starting modding in those graphics the frame rates drop even lower. I built a ship once that ran at 2FPS. I have wasted many of hours building things from kerbal parts that bogged the game down to a point where it was no longer entertaining. With that said, I'm still here aren't I.

Edited October 5, 2017 by harrisjosh2711

[Matuchkin]

If I would have a KSP2, I would want it to be more realistic: not because I generally want realism, but because we already have a goofy version of this and I would very much like to utilise the same building mechanic with a more serious solar system/aerodynamics model/etc, without having to spend months waiting for mods to update, having my game crash, etc.

And I don't mean "put Realism Overhaul into KSP", as that will be far too daunting. Of course, I would want this to take place in the real solar system, with actual fuels, etc, but for the game mechanics I want the following:

- a single fuel tank that is procedural

- a single SRB that is procedural

- models of real engines

-single fairing+ base, procedural

- single wing, procedural

-array of real-life capsules/realistic concepts

-solar panels+ other energy systems

-everything else is as expected

This will allow the game to load quickly and not lag as much as Realism Overhaul. This will also allow for rockets that look good, and that you would actually want to fly.

[LN400]

Unfortunately for the rocket geeks, a KSP 2 is less likely than a full KSP franchise with KSP platform jumping, KSP adventures, KSP car race, KSP logical puzzles, cards, board game, strategy, managerial, etc etc etc. Businesswise it would make more sense. More but still not a lot to SQUAD, I am imagining. For the die hard KSP fan. it would lead to seizures and cardiac arrests.

[Allan9099]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YESSS!!! KSP2 is happening OMG im so excited, and for a little idea, i would want sensors so i can activate certain action groups when they detect things like distance, preassure or temperature :DDD

Edited September 22, 2020 by Vanamonde
Mind the language, please.