Time for KSP 2.0

[klgraham1013]

19 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Snip

Take Two bought KSP, not Squad.  Otherwise I completely agree.  It's no guarantee that Squad will be the one working on it either.

[TheLoneMartian]

How about AI Competitors that do the contracts you don't do and earn more rep, which results in more contracts.

Better rep would be really kewl, but could easily be made by mods.

Also your space program should be ran by an AI, which will fly rockets to places like space stations or planetary outposts collecting resources/kerbals/whatever to and from them. This lazy automation could carry out more boring missions, such as Surface to station trips. You should be able to configure these automated launches and have them cost monthly money.

Another thing I would like to see is realistic progression. Starting with small Kerosene engines to gargantuan antimatter. You will be able to buy space elevators when your company reaches trillions of 

 

[enewmen]

Let me add:

Most of what people want in 2.0 are already in KSIE (all), Near Future (all), USI (all), KAS, Mechjeb, EVE, scatterer, etc.  Some modders dissagree, but I think all (like 100+ elements) the resources for example should be 100% stock - like all the LH2, Lithium, antimatter, Lh3, argon, water, etc.  Yes, this is too complex for most KSP players that can't get past liquid fuel/Ox, but they will not be visible unless a tank or engine can use them.  Having all the resources stock will make it easier for future mods to "stay on the same page" as well as not needing to re-invent the wheel. 

Just get all the major modders together, then do professional quality control.

Graphically, the game is not very demanding (compared to Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto V, etc),  So graphics and terrain can be improved a LOT and more realistic looking.   Duna can look more like Mars, EVE more like Venus, Jool more like Jupiter, etc.  KSS already did this as well as making more exotic stars and planets like a gas giant with a rocky surface. (in another star system) .   Or improve randomly generated systems, stars, planets-with generated terrain, (like Boldly Go)  a LOT.

A big CORE upgrade will be multi-CPU load balanced physics.  Single core physics seems to be the biggest bottleneck - I'm getting (with lots of mods installed) 10fps with 6 cores and a Nv 1080.  So if you have 8 cores, 32 cores, the game can use them up for silky smooth playing even with demanding settings!  This is necessary since I don't think any modder can fix it - only the Squad devs - unless Take Two has a better team.

Squad made KSP with a small team and low resources.  I hope since Take-Two bought them out, they can make necessary investments to take KSP to the next level.  I think most  major modders have the same  basic ideas, so I hope the development continues as it has been. 

my 2 cents.

Edited August 14, 2018 by enewmen

[StarStreak2109]

3 hours ago, enewmen said:

Graphically, the game is not very demanding (compared to Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto V, etc),  So graphics and terrain can be improved a LOT and more realistic looking.   Duna can look more like Mars, EVE more like Venus, Jool more like Jupiter, etc.  KSS already did this as well as making more exotic stars and planets like a gas giant with a rocky surface. (in another star system) .   Or improve randomly generated systems, stars, planets-with generated terrain, (like Boldly Go)  a LOT.

A big CORE upgrade will be multi-CPU load balanced physics.  Single core physics seems to be the biggest bottleneck - I'm getting (with lots of mods installed) 10fps with 6 cores and a Nv 1080.  So if you have 8 cores, 32 cores, the game can use them up for silky smooth playing even with demanding settings!  This is necessary since I don't think any modder can fix it - only the Squad devs - unless Take Two has a better team.

Graphically, the game could use a serious total overhaul, to the point of discussing whether or not a different graphics / game engine might benefit the objective of the game. Besides, what the Unity engine does for the game currently barely scratches the surface of what is possible.

I would hope that some day, KSP might look like this example of the Unigine engine:

https://unigine.com/en/industries/simulation/space#a-header

The second point is something I do not get. Well at least I do not see any influx of new people into the dev team. T2 have acquired the IP but what do they do with it now? I do not see the dynamic take off to new horizons which goes along with being part of a financially powerful game studio?!?! But the chance exists - with us not knowing - that they are working on KSP 2.0 behind the scenes already. But I do not have high hopes...

[wumpus]

With nVidia beating the drums for raytracing, I've been assuming that Unity would benefit most from raytracing.  Mostly because I don't expect developers using Unity to spend a lot of time writing shaders (although some modders do), but simply slapping in a "raytrace this spacecraft" would pretty much fix all the shading (if the GPU is up to it).  Of course, this requires Unity to make a huge move, followed by a move on Squad's part to the upgraded Unity as big as moving to 64 bit or the move to Unity 5 and multithreading.  Hopefully it won't need a move to 2.0 and will just be folded in to the 1.x line.

[DMagic]

On 8/14/2018 at 12:32 PM, StarStreak2109 said:

Graphically, the game could use a serious total overhaul, to the point of discussing whether or not a different graphics / game engine might benefit the objective of the game.

KSP looks the way it does because it started life as a Unity 3 game from 2011 (here is a good version history video). And for the most part the game's looks haven't really changed that much. The earliest versions of the parts have been replaced, and lots of the effects (reentry, particle trails, etc...) have improved, but the basic look of the parts and the terrain remains mostly unchanged (the earliest terrain was pretty bad, but from about 2012 it has been about the same). The biggest updates in terms of visuals has been the space center and VAB/SPH interior (and UI, but that's a different matter).

A lot of that comes down to the very basic shaders KSP uses. Unity provides far more advanced shaders that could improve the look of the parts significantly (don't let the ultra-shiny/reflective look of some of the Textures Unlimited parts fool you, the purpose of PBR is to provide a single workflow and shader that allows for materials that look the way they are supposed to look in all different lighting conditions). I don't expect KSP to ever use that as it would require a complete redo of all the parts.

 

On 8/14/2018 at 12:32 PM, StarStreak2109 said:

Besides, what the Unity engine does for the game currently barely scratches the surface of what is possible.

Another thing worth considering for people advocating a different engine is mod support. With Unity all you really need is for the game to load custom plugins and to provide some jumping off point to run code (like Part Modules, Scenario Modules, or KSPAddon). Once you have custom code running you can do a tremendous amount with modding.

Games using custom engines, or more closed off engines, can be much more restrictive for modding. And even when they allow for it, it can be in a much more limited capacity, or require a whole lot more work to get going (unpacking game files in weird formats, use some uncommon/poorly document scripting system, require some kind of mod compilation to combine different mods, etc...).

Using a different engine for physics is another matter, but I think that's a hard problem to get around.

[StarStreak2109]

1 hour ago, DMagic said:

KSP looks the way it does because it started life as a Unity 3 game from 2011 (here is a good version history video). And for the most part the game's looks haven't really changed that much. The earliest versions of the parts have been replaced, and lots of the effects (reentry, particle trails, etc...) have improved, but the basic look of the parts and the terrain remains mostly unchanged (the earliest terrain was pretty bad, but from about 2012 it has been about the same). The biggest updates in terms of visuals has been the space center and VAB/SPH interior (and UI, but that's a different matter).

I think this is the single most important aspect that calls for a fresh start at some point in the near future - the history this game carries along with it.

The engine and all is fine, it is basically the framework, which will only allow you to go so far...

The question is though: Is there the will to do so at some point, or will the powers that be run the franchise dry and then drop it like a used rag...???

[Gidreess]

As I think, KSP reached point when community do more to the game than official updates. Game still is not optimized as well, and a lot of things community made should be in the stock game.
 

• Optimization is the thing we all want.
• KIS and KAS in stock game.
• Life Support that we can disable if we want.
• Real Solar System (If you are creating new save it should be an option to use Kerbal system or RSS).
• OPM and other planet mods, so you can enable or disable planets from these mods in stock.
• Manned planet exploration is a bit boring, but what about caves? What about geysers so you can get electricity on your base?
• Included USI, Near Future, Color Coded Canisters, Community Tech Tree, Unmanned Before Manned, Engine Lighting, Planet Shine and also more Graphic mods.
• Graphics in the stock are bad. Very bad. What about simple atmosphere and water? Simple version of Scatterer will be enough, but stock clouds will be even better.
• Kerbin not to look like lifeless planet with only our buildings.
• Parts with reflection (Also graphics, but that will look good).
• "Portrait stats" in the stock.
• SCANsat.
• "TakeCommand" to launch kerbals in the seats.
• "Trajectories" in stock. If something in carrier is upgraded, maybe add an option to predict landing place and aerobraking at atmosphere?
• Transfer Window Planner.
• "Precise Maneuver" mod?
• "Time Control" mod with all it's features.
• A bit more antennas for really far travelling.
• SSPXr and colonization. You can make it into DLC, still with life support will be awesome.
• Aerodynamics, of course based on real ones.

[IncongruousGoat]

Well, some subset of us hardcore veteran players may want these things, but I don't think they'd enhance the experience for a new player. Well, okay, graphics, optimizations, and proper aerodynamics notwithstanding. But as for the rest...

KSP is a game with a very, very steep learning curve, and adding more stuff to it will only make that curve steeper. It's already really hard for people to get into the game, and the last thing the devs want to do is to make that barrier to entry higher, because it'll mean less sales and less revenue for them. Some things are just best left to mods. That way, we who want them can have without harming the experience of the new player or (more importantly) using up precious development time. Software developers are expensive, and their time needs to be used judiciously.

I personally don't think we're going to see a KSP 2.0 for a long, long time, and even then it's only going to be a re-implementation of the original KSP in an up-to-date engine with better graphics, to bring it to a new generation of very nerdy gamers. Other games using the Kerbal IP? Almost certainly. Why else would Take Two have bought it? But a KSP 2.0? Unlikely. The game is already the best at what it does. There isn't a clear way to make the game better at teaching orbital mechanics. Which, I might remind you, is what it's really about. I've seen enough new players struggle to learn the basics in today's stock KSP. The last thing they need is more complications that have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.

[Gargamel]

[redacted for grumpiness]  [also, not relating to topic]

Edited August 25, 2018 by Gargamel

[Deddly]

Overlapping threads have been merged

 

[Gargamel]

3 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Overlapping threads have been merged

 

Oooohhhh..... shiny. 

[DunaManiac]

On 7/2/2018 at 11:10 PM, Dicapitano said:

I have been playing KSP for years now, and I always found the great support the developers have given to the game matched only by the amazing community that creates and updates content around it.

 

However, I believe we have reached a limit where the continuous updates (1.4.1 / 1.4.2 / 1.4.3 / 1.4.4 ...) and the efforts of the modders to keep up is simply becoming annoying and defets the purpose of a great game like KSP. One cannot stop playing for a month without finding the last save unplayable, all the mods non compatible, and the latest version being a stop-gap solution until the next “.X” patch is out.

 

It’s time for the developers to work on a “definitive” version of KSP (1.5.X...?) that is stable and optimizes the current game engine. At the same time, you guys should start working on KSP 2.0 (2.X.X...), with more radical improvements and a whole lot more “meat” to the game.

 

New game engine? Life support? Colonization? Interactive IVAs? Actual things to find and study when you get to the planets (ET life, geysers, caves, fossils...)? A home planet that does not feel as empty as all the other worlds?

 

Just keep all the great things the game has (life-like orbital mechanics, casual science approach...) and add on to it. You’ll find tons of people who will come along for the ride and pay $50 for a whole new version. I myself would pay $100...

 

 

in detail:

1. Create a new, expanded, reliable physics engine that puts new solid foundations to the whole game.
2. Add additional features to the basic game that add depth but don't change the core concept:
   • Life support package: this is the biggest limitation I currently see. As much as I like the simplicity of the current game... manned exploration is at least 50% about how to sustain the crew for long duration missions... Something simple like USI-LS would be enough. One could always switch this off in the game options.
   • Interactive spacecraft cabins: the ability to move inside the spacecraft and interact with the cabin (those IVAs are amazing... but such a pity you cannot actually move around and see more).
   • Environmental effects: clouds on planets with atmosphere, geysers on icy moons, comets with icy trails, dust storms on Duna. One might even think about environmental elements affecting spacecraft flights... launch with wind or in a storm, and see your spacecraft rocked around... 
   • A richer Kerbin environment: Kerbin should have that special feeling of "home planet"...  Some very simple cities, roads, procedurally generated simple road traffic, air traffic, sea traffic. Procedurally generated wildlife. More trees, more Easter eggs like the pyramids, maybe shipwrecks to explore... 
   • Planets that are more interesting to visit: planets with clouds, winds, geysers, canyons. Add some simple wildlife, sea creatures on Laythe... a live Kraken somewhere... Magic boulders, arches. Fossil extinct life on Duna... to go and research. 
   • Permanent bases on planets: end-game possibility for building more permanent bases on planets (adds meaning to the end game and adds another level of complexity). I would avoid colonization as this would be way much beyond the scope of the game. Just add bases where one can do research, refuel, base back-up crews indefinitely, run long-term exploration projects.
   • Expanded Air, Ground, Submarine play: the terrain, the airspace, the seas and lakes are all already there... why not make use of them. Add side missions also to these elements. Let Kerbonauts explore the depths of Kerbin and other planets. Add undersea canyons, shipwrecks, easter eggs to the bottom of the seas...
   • Auto pilot features: Something like Mechjeb becomes necessary once you add expanded features. Maybe just make it very difficult to research.
   • KIS/KAS like features as standard: absolute must to make EVAs more meaningful. As it is, not much to do when you space walk in orbit or you walk on planets...
   • Kerbonauts Merits: something like final frontier as standard... it's an absolute must. Tracking the history of your achievements, or disasters... part of the fun.
   • OPM (or some versions of it): additional planets like OPM are also a must. The challenge of sending manned missions to distant planets is adds another level of complexity. Also, comets and a Planet X that can be discovered only late in the game...  
   • Other mods that should be standard in the base game:  Near future Technologies, Planetary Bases Inc, Community Tech Tree, Space Y, Scan Sat. These are all elements that add richness to the game.
3. Work on additional DLCs to be sold separately:
   • Real Solar System with real-life spacecrafts
   • Educational-based version of the game
   • Interstellar quest
   • Colonization

 

I think point 1 and 2 would take the current great game to a whole new level. Basic concept would remain the same, and one could always adjust for complexity with "opt out options" (for example decide not to activate life support...).  

First We console players need a DLC. I feel like this is a development race and we are falling further and further behind

[Commander Zoom]

So you're asking for a stable but "dead"(end) version, and then a new one where all the features you've been wanting will be added?

Why would anyone - okay, scratch that, there will always be some, but why would most play the former, when the latter is available?  Why do you expect the (even more ambitious) development of the latter to go any more smoothly than what we've seen so far?

You don't like the development process, including broken saves, and the fact that the vanilla game will likely not ever include all the features and/or mods that any given player wants.  I get that.  It's just that my response is a shrug.

You want ongoing development, and cool new features, and possibly a new engine, which will itself sometimes be updated.  But you don't want broken saves or having to replace mods.  Well, you know, I'd like a car that doesn't require fuel or maintenance, but guess what...

 

There are ways, even now, to keep the game from updating itself until YOU are ready.  I nursed a single save through three versions and the addition of a whole new game mode.  If you want a stable version / environment to fill the Kerbol system (stock or expanded) with flags and footprints and orbiting junk to your heart's content, copy everything into a new folder and keep it around as long as you like.

... but then you won't get the new stuff.  You want the new stuff, but you don't want it to break your games in progress.  Right?

If so, all I can tell you is, "It doesn't work that way."

Edited August 25, 2018 by Commander Zoom

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, DunaManiac said:

First We console players need a DLC. I feel like this is a development race and we are falling further and further behind

Actually the big winners of a mythical "KSP 2.0" would probably be console players. You'd have to buy it again but it'd probably be built from the ground up to work on console.

...which likely means the interface would be total garbage on PC. Unless they went the No Man's Sky route and made a hybrid interface that was garbage on BOTH.

[qzgy]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

You'd have to buy it again but it'd probably be built from the ground up to work on console.

...which likely means the interface would be total garbage on PC. Unless they went the No Man's Sky route and made a hybrid interface that was garbage on BOTH.

Unless they did something where all the underlying mechanics were the same but made 2 different UI options. One optimized for PC editions, one for console.

Which would be more expensive.

[juanml82]

On 8/25/2018 at 6:38 PM, Commander Zoom said:

Why would anyone - okay, scratch that, there will always be some, but why would most play the former, when the latter is available?

Who cares? Squad doesn't earn money when people play the game, they earn it when people buy it

[Cheif Operations Director]

I do not want to pay for the same thing but with MOAR Xyz. I would rather by the DLC.

[hypervelocity]

This is something I day dream about sometimes, but I'm with @Majorjim! here - sadly it will never happen. Videogames are business and I just don't see it happening. Unless they come up with a new way of doing this business (comparable to the rise of microtransactions in gaming - and no I am not asking for this to come to KSP), I really don't see it happening.

Nonetheless, I have entertained the idea of KSP 2.0 before:

1. New engine, from scratch: a true endeavour on its own, pricey - and it certainly can take a turn for the worst, no success guaranteed here - but if done appropriately, client system requirements can be pushed to a minimum and scalability can really be a thing in the game.
2. New physics: derived from the above, you could have a take on stock/n-body physics within the same game, to be chosen as a difficulty setting.
3. Performance not linearly derived from number of crafts & number of parts/complexity per craft: also derived from 1).
4. Parts, planets & gameplay editor: a tool to create parts, create and modify planets, contracts and configs, and also base gameplay - with a thoughtful coding that would enable 3rd party modders to mod the editor rather than the parts themselves.

I think having a game that does not limit users' creativity with performance hits, with the ability to use n-body physics (only if you want, I fully understand what/why the devs went for originally) and to create your own parts/planets/contracts/gameplay once you exhausted the stock contents, would be a complete breakthrough and would add years of gameplay to the game.

Just my 2 cents!

Edited August 26, 2018 by hypervelocity

[Chel]

KSP isn't meant to be a massive open world exploration thing, with amazing 4k graphics, lens flare, different species, and whatever else. It was simply to be 'Build a rocket, get it into space, go land on other worlds and hopefully come back'. SQUAD is a small team. They're not like EA or Activision who have thousands of employees working for them, churning out a new game every 1-2 years. KSP is a different game. It's graphics give it a charming look. It's all up to the player to decide what they want to do in it. It has a large and vibrant modding community. I don't want it to turn into KSP 2 in 2021 or something, with KSP 3 in 2022 or 2023 (basically what CoD and Battlefield does) 

[klesh]

2 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

KSP isn't meant to be a massive open world exploration thing, with amazing 4k graphics, lens flare, different species, and whatever else. It was simply to be 'Build a rocket, get it into space, go land on other worlds and hopefully come back'. SQUAD is a small team. They're not like EA or Activision who have thousands of employees working for them, churning out a new game every 1-2 years. KSP is a different game. It's graphics give it a charming look. It's all up to the player to decide what they want to do in it. It has a large and vibrant modding community. I don't want it to turn into KSP 2 in 2021 or something, with KSP 3 in 2022 or 2023 (basically what CoD and Battlefield does) 

 

I very much disagree.

KSP could be built by a dev team with thousands of employees very easily.  It is in the hands of a goliath publisher, Take Two Interactive, they have more money than they know what to do with.  For whatever reason, they've chosen to keep the scrappy little Squad on as a devteam, and I'm not so sure I agree with that decision as a consumer of KSP-related things.  Its holding back KSP1, as evidenced by Making History's lacklustre quality and sales.  Several new faces are making parts and art and the quality shows.  Did you see them on the MH release stream? 

Who knows what  TTI have up their sleeve for KSP 2 and beyond?  For all we know, its secretly being worked on right now by a traditional big development studio hired by TTI, while Squad is contracted to maintain and slowly inch KSP(1) forward.  That's pure speculation, mind you.

Don't confuse your idea of what KSP was "meant to be" with the reality that it was made as a side project for a marketing company on what all signs point to as a shoestring budget. 

On 8/25/2018 at 4:52 PM, DunaManiac said:

First We console players need a DLC. I feel like this is a development race and we are falling further and further behind

 

Don't forget the console version had a year-long false start; I'm sure you needn't be reminded.  If Squad hadn't hired a fly by night port company the first time around and didn't need to pay to have the entire thing done all over again, the console version would be closer to the PC version than it is today.

On 8/19/2018 at 5:25 PM, StarStreak2109 said:

The question is though: Is there the will to do so at some point, or will the powers that be run the franchise dry and then drop it like a used rag...???

 

Take Two bought it because they thought they could make money from it.  So far, it doesn't appear they have done very much with their new acquisition.  I mean, people have been clamoring for kerbal merch for months and months and Squad can only say "soon".  You'd think TTI, were they trying to squeeze every last drop out of KSP, would've had all sorts of ways to milk extra dollars from the playerbase.  So far we haven't seen much at all.

Either they're sitting on a hush hush KSP2, some other "franchise game" like kerbal XYZ program, or something else.   It makes no sense for them to have bought it and do nothing which is what it appears to be the case now as a consumer.

Edited August 27, 2018 by klesh

[StarStreak2109]

Fully agreed , it does not make sense at all.

[Sharpy]

First, a definite overhaul of the world generator. Something that makes planet surfaces look like planet surfaces, not that low-poly thing with same textures repeating indefinitely and random identical intangible scatters. Actual terrain, different surfaces of different properties. Something that makes a difference on the scale of a meter, not on the scale of a kilometer. Make the tiny rover wheels relevant, so that you can travel 50 meters to find a new, valuable object, not just 50 kilometers to the next biome. Currently any rovers that resemble actual real rovers like these on Mars or the Moon are completely pointless. You need to build a rugged, speedy thing to cross several biomes for the rover to be of any purpose.

Then I'd love an expanded star system. Interstellar travel and planet(s) with life "out there".  And technology to reach there. Colonization, terraformation.

And maybe, just maybe, a Story Mode - or several. A "Career" mode but with predefined set of missions, involving secrets across the system, beating the competition in a space race, etc.

I'd also see an expansion/DLC:

KIS and KAS integrated into the game, alongside with a simplified version of OSE Workshop. Assembling vehicles "by hand" from parts you must manufacture yourself. And a related story mode: you start at completely ruined KSC, as Bill Kerman, with a KIS screwdriver in your inventory. No funds, no buildings, just ruins - and various parts scattered throughout the terrain. You must find other Kerbals, possibly saving them from whatever distress they found themselves in, you must gather, transport and assemble everything by hand, you discover clues as to where more esoteric parts are, where other Kerbals are - on, or out of Kerbin. Cobble together the first car to haul larger parts to assembly site, then build a plane to visit more distant parts of Kerbin, and then a rocket to reach an orbital station, a colony on Minmus...

[DunaManiac]

20 hours ago, Sharpy said:

First, a definite overhaul of the world generator. Something that makes planet surfaces look like planet surfaces, not that low-poly thing with same textures repeating indefinitely and random identical intangible scatters. Actual terrain, different surfaces of different properties. Something that makes a difference on the scale of a meter, not on the scale of a kilometer. Make the tiny rover wheels relevant, so that you can travel 50 meters to find a new, valuable object, not just 50 kilometers to the next biome. Currently any rovers that resemble actual real rovers like these on Mars or the Moon are completely pointless. You need to build a rugged, speedy thing to cross several biomes for the rover to be of any purpose.

Then I'd love an expanded star system. Interstellar travel and planet(s) with life "out there".  And technology to reach there. Colonization, terraformation.

And maybe, just maybe, a Story Mode - or several. A "Career" mode but with predefined set of missions, involving secrets across the system, beating the competition in a space race, etc.

I'd also see an expansion/DLC:

KIS and KAS integrated into the game, alongside with a simplified version of OSE Workshop. Assembling vehicles "by hand" from parts you must manufacture yourself. And a related story mode: you start at completely ruined KSC, as Bill Kerman, with a KIS screwdriver in your inventory. No funds, no buildings, just ruins - and various parts scattered throughout the terrain. You must find other Kerbals, possibly saving them from whatever distress they found themselves in, you must gather, transport and assemble everything by hand, you discover clues as to where more esoteric parts are, where other Kerbals are - on, or out of Kerbin. Cobble together the first car to haul larger parts to assembly site, then build a plane to visit more distant parts of Kerbin, and then a rocket to reach an orbital station, a colony on Minmus...

You realize that most of these are available from mods, except the story mode idea. But I fail to see why all this would be upgraded to a Ksp 2 if it's either already available or unessesary. Besides, video games that have sequels usually already have a me kind of storyline  to continue.

Edited August 28, 2018 by DunaManiac

[Sorabh]

This discussion has me wondering...what happens when it all ends? When everyone sort of burns out of playing KSP? Will the forum fade away? All the mission reports, fantastic stories and spaceships that were shared, will they all fade to black... If yes, then how long do we have until the inevitable??