Time for KSP 2.0

[0something0]

What if science in KSP2 wasn't a per biome thing but rather a depletable resource?  Basically, when you take science from a certain area, it creates a circular gradiant of less science around it.

[kerbiloid]

Probably this could be added with CRP + MM patch,  by adding a Science resource.

***

Spoiler

On 8/28/2018 at 7:52 PM, Sharpy said:

 

And this is the real thing:

And this is a screenshot from Half-Life 2, Lost Coast. 2004 game.

 

The real world lacks proper shaders.

Edited September 10, 2018 by kerbiloid

[StarStreak2109]

7 hours ago, 0something0 said:

What if science in KSP2 wasn't a per biome thing but rather a depletable resource?  Basically, when you take science from a certain area, it creates a circular gradiant of less science around it.

I guess the issue is that real world "science" is not limited to point measurements. It is often long term observation and data analysis to "gain science points". There is one mod, that properly emulates that, and that is ScanSat, which forces you to have satellites in specific orbits, which observe the planet below until they have covered 100% of the surface. Another mod that emulates real science quite well is this telescope mod (forgot the name). But in the real world, we do not do "biome hopping" or the likes. Again, emulating a real world approach would be to have a satellite in orbit, which would then identifiy "science potential". This could be quantified for instance by certain geographical features (cliffs, ancient river beds, ...). These locations could then be targeted for a ground mission to exploit the "science potential" and gather "science".

But grinding science by visiting every biome of every planet, and be it ever so lifeless and void of interest, is IMHO simply not realistic. IRL we also wouldn't drive a rover through the endless wastes of Mars, just to have been there. We would make a decision, which "biomes" would be interesting and land there.

Further thoughts of game mechanic:

• Define objectives, what you want to learn about a specific planet (e.g. its history, potential for life, possibility for colonization / ISRU, ...).
• Based on the selected objective, regions with "science potential" must be identified via orbital scanning.
• In these target regions, landing missions or dedicated orbital analyses via more specific satellites are used to gather specific "science" that counts towards resolving the selected objective. Once your science count is high enough, the objective is fulfilled and you receive the information requested.
• Some of the information might just be used to expand the lore and others could be used e.g. as a basis for planning your ground base (e.g. what ECLSS requirements exist for that planet). This would also require that for instance you do not initally know e.g. the atmospheric make up.

 

[RealKerbal3x]

I agree with everyone above: science needs a serious overhaul should KSP 2.0 make an appearance. So it's no longer 'thanks to these temperature readings on Minmus, we can now make a new kind of ladder!'. It needs to actually make sense.

[Redneck]

They need to get away from unity and make their own game engine. Game engines such as unity are slow to take advantage of latest hardware technology and usually results in limitations that otherwise would not have been limiting. Every dev i have talked to that has experience with KSP and its coding have complained about Unitys limitations as well as the KSP code itself. It is a nightmare of workarounds and hacks. If this hypothetical KSP 2.0 were to happen i would like to see a multiplayer game mode with a voxel terrain (mining) on the PQS of all planets as well as some good quality modding tools and API to fit the custom game engine. It would be a major undertaking only squad/T2 knows the answer to. Who knows they may be making one behind the scenes now. (hey i can dream can't I?)

Edited September 11, 2018 by Redneck

[StarStreak2109]

I am not really knowledgable when it comes to game engines and game programming. But my understanding is that in order to make the scale of KSP happen in Unity, some pretty hefty hacks had to be employed to allow to calculate the player's ships physics on a small scale and the planetary system's physics on a large scale at the same time. This is also the heritage I think KSP has to cope with even today.

On this note, I do not know, if this can be handled better by another game engine, but there are certainly examples of such within Unity, CryEngine or Unigine.

Having said that, I still doubt KSP will be a thing, but if it is, I think it will have the advantage that its scope will be quite fixed from the beginning...

[Sharpy]

23 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I guess the issue is that real world "science" is not limited to point measurements. It is often long term observation and data analysis to "gain science points". There is one mod, that properly emulates that, and that is ScanSat, which forces you to have satellites in specific orbits, which observe the planet below until they have covered 100% of the surface. Another mod that emulates real science quite well is this telescope mod (forgot the name). But in the real world, we do not do "biome hopping" or the likes. Again, emulating a real world approach would be to have a satellite in orbit, which would then identifiy "science potential". This could be quantified for instance by certain geographical features (cliffs, ancient river beds, ...). These locations could then be targeted for a ground mission to exploit the "science potential" and gather "science".

The real-world science is all of these things, and more, and less.

There are things that can be found momentarily, in a most general way. A rough atmospheric analysis of a planet, with 1% precision - you do it at a point and you have it all. Mark the whole planet as done for this experiment. There are experiments that work over time, but don't require movement. Say, a space telescope, it only needs to rotate, but it doesn't really matter where you put it as long as you put it in space. There are area experiments that don't care about timing - say, mapping gravitational field of a planet; it won't change within next several thousand years, but you need to orbit all over the whole planet. There are these, that don't care about the exact location, but require a specific layout, like eLISA, measure of gravity waves by a constellation of satellites that remain at a constant distance from each other, to within a millimeter, while staying roughly 0.1AU apart. And area experiments that need to cover a large area over a specific time - measurement of various variable fields - so a grid of scattered landers or a swarm of micro-probes will work. Sounding experiments that require a pair of devices on two sides of a body, take a short time, but benefit from motion of at least one (like Rosetta+Philae).

All of that can be implemented and would add a lot of flavor to the game. And they can be added as "science is depletable", with various kinds of the "science resource", various area depleted, various time to extract it, and the extraction point not necessarily located at the experimental device - say, that sounding experiment would extract science distributed throughout the volume of the body, over area drawn by the line connecting the transmitter and the receiver; ScanSat would extract surface science over the area covered by cone below it. Your swarm would connect the microprobes that are within range of each other with a surface that sweeps science from the volume of space as it travels. And a long-time space observatory would drip science points over a long time as long as it's up there and operating.

[kerbiloid]

Resources like BioScience, GeoScience, AstroScience, AtmoScience, SeaScience, PhysScience, ChemScience, ArcheoScience, etc.
Produced by different parts at corresponding labs.

Even MathScience (a silent habitat for mathematicians, lol).

An AcademyOfScience building or module, converting these science points into integral Science points.
Maybe in some required proportions. Maybe various proportions make some parts or processes be cheaper or run faster.

***

Same with arts.
The more inspiring is the landscape/skyscape around, the more inspired are the artists, writers, and so on.
A planetary/orbital base with habitats and various studios, producing PaintArt, BookArt, MusicArt, DanceArt, etc..
Multiple studios at the same base enforce each other, so it's wise to build a whole village of arts, and place this in most spectacular places of the space.
Also gives bonus if deliver tourists to there.

An AcademyOfArts for similar purposes as AcademyOfScience.

***

A Market building where you can exchange excessive Science and Arts points to money or so.

***

(Not sure if this already present in DLC - autogenerated "Kerbal News" newspaper).

Edited September 11, 2018 by kerbiloid

[0something0]

So, I was envisioning something like this:

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by 0something0

[CanOmer]

- First person camera: Moving in craft as a kerbal.

- Better performance: Allowing building much bigger crafts, stations with thousands of parts. To achieve this I think there should be somewhat grid system similar to Space Engineers which would make some sections of a station act as one physical part that's actually made of a lot of parts. For example, all parts inside an hangar could be physically part of the hangar. So, when hangar moves, parts inside of it don't vobble due to acceleration, collision...etc

- Ability to build real ground bases, not a craft landed on landing legs or wheels.

- Supply, survival elements such as USI Life Support

- CPU multicore support

- And fix the garbage collection!

[Enceos]

I really hope that TakeTwo bought KSP not just to pump out DLCs but to develop KSP 2 on a new engine, just like Valve did with Dota 2.

[RealKerbal3x]

On 9/20/2018 at 4:27 PM, CanOmer said:

 

- Better performance: Allowing building much bigger crafts, stations with thousands of parts. To achieve this I think there should be somewhat grid system similar to Space Engineers which would make some sections of a station act as one physical part that's actually made of a lot of parts. For example, all parts inside an hangar could be physically part of the hangar. So, when hangar moves, parts inside of it don't vobble due to acceleration, collision...etc

So kind of like a welding mod but automatic.....maybe when a station/base reaches a certain number of parts it automatically welds assemblies together to save physical part count.

6 hours ago, Enceos said:

I really hope that TakeTwo bought KSP not just to pump out DLCs but to develop KSP 2 on a new engine, just like Valve did with Dota 2.

KSP 2.0 would be great in my opinion if SQUAD/T2 kept everything from the old game, but added more shiny features. I imagine KSP 2 would be on a new game engine too.

A save file converter would be nice, so we wouldn't have to start from scratch when the new game released.

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

KSP 2.0 would be great in my opinion if SQUAD/T2 kept everything from the old game

Please no.  So much could be done better, from career mode to the UI.  Hopefully, with Take Two involved, these things will get sorted out for KSP2.

[wumpus]

On 9/10/2018 at 8:09 AM, RealKerbal3x said:

I agree with everyone above: science needs a serious overhaul should KSP 2.0 make an appearance. So it's no longer 'thanks to these temperature readings on Minmus, we can now make a new kind of ladder!'. It needs to actually make sense.

While I don't really agree with this, if you want things to make *sense* then make temperature readings give "science points" (which only help with PR and *maybe* budget) and unlock the tech tree by using things in the tech tree (the more you use the prerequisite tech, the further down the tech tree you go).  This is about as close to how the "tech tree" gets to real life as you can model in a game.

It would also really force missions (especially crewed missions) to look a lot more like Mercury->Gemini>Apollo.  Gemini only makes sense when you realize you need to "push the tech tree" by doing/testing the tech you need (although KSP comes close in this in that the skills needed for an "Apollo style" mission pretty much need a Gemini program's worth of practice before success.

Count me as one not terribly interested in a KSP 2.0.  My only suggestion to Squad would be to conceptually throw all the gameplay away, and rebuilt the thing around career mode.  KSP 1.0 is a great sandbox game with career mode grafted on, so most of the complaints are about career mode.  Whether this would leave a sufficiently good sandbox is a good question: I can't imagine a broken sandbox, but if career was sufficiently possible it might happen.  Breaking KSP 2.0 sandbox would probably leave 1.0 the better game, with Take Two refusing to sell it.  Be careful of what you ask for.

The problem with KSP is that it really doesn't have much in the way of any path to a sequel.  I'd suggest the Civilization model: just "remake" the game with the latest graphics tech and lessons learned, but I can't really expect that much has changed to justify a KSP 2.0

[Gargamel]

13 hours ago, Enceos said:

I really hope that TakeTwo bought KSP not just to pump out DLCs but to develop KSP 2 on a new engine, just like Valve did with Dota 2.

TTi bought Squad to turn a profit, not make games.   How ever they see fit to make that profit, then that's what they will do. 

[Francois424]

Well, I hope they continue to pump out some DLCs... however they really should add more core parts to the game.
I must really sound like an old broken record by now, but things like propellers of different sizes, Nuclear reactors, spherical LF containers, etc. (see a post by me about game part in the suggestion forum).  It's good for these parts to be stock so one does not have to maintain them each update or favprite mod getting broken each update.
Another thing for DLCs, expend the Kerbal System.   Buy OPM mod rights and implement them in-game.  Same for scatterer/Eve/SVE.   Heck I'd even be okay with basic Life Support (air, snacks, water). 
So much room for additional content to be part of the core game... as long as they don't become game breaking.

As for a plain KSP2... I'm split on the subject.  On one side, it would be great to have 2018 graphics, multi-core support, full orchestral music/voiced game... rebuilt KSP.  On the otherside, there's just too many ways the game could get messed-up beyond repair.

As for having no more development on KSP per say?  It makes mods final and ultimately bug free.  Not that bad of a deal, really.

[klgraham1013]

8 hours ago, Gargamel said:

TTi bought Squad to turn a profit, not make games.   How ever they see fit to make that profit, then that's what they will do. 

Just to limit confusion, Take Two bought KSP, not Squad.  Squad is currently contracted to continue development on KSP.  Anything else is under NDA.

[Superfluous J]

23 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Just to limit confusion, Take Two bought KSP, not Squad.  Squad is currently contracted to continue development on KSP.  Anything else is under NDA.

Random thought.

Squad is currently contracted to continue development on KSP 1.x

Anything else is under NDA

[SpaceMouse]

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

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.

I wouldn't mind seeing a proper sequel to KSP. I've long felt KSP has been outdated for quite a while, I'd like to see it sit on a newer engine that can proceduraly generate a galaxy. Or at least randomize elements of planets. That said, There's no way the modding community would be able to do anything until there was a released product. KSP isn't open-source.

On 7/3/2018 at 12:28 AM, The Aziz said:

A day is only 24-

 

hour long and resources and Squad crew are not infinite. You know what happens when small studio starts working on multiple titles simultaneously? Nothing. At least nothing good.

Ksp is already resource-heavy as it is currently and you know what happens when you install tons of mods. Even if it was written from scratch it might be hard for average pc to keep up. I don't want it to become an AAA title in terms of requirements (when 2018 game needs 2019 tech to work on full details). Keep in mind that main target in this game since alpha was "slap a rocket from parts and send it to space". That's why there are another games. Caves, survival? Astroneer. Colonization? Space Engineers. Life on planets? Nobody says about it but No man's sky. Too much content in one game means neither is 100% finished and polished. And we don't want that since we know what happened to career mode. (which, imho, is fine but definitely needs improvement)

I intend no offense here, but if your PC can't run KSP, it's probably time for a upgrade. KSP runs decent on my laptop that's pushing 8 years old now, and it's only got a GTX 555m.

Yaaaaaay, there's a single solitary other person that likes NMS besides me!

Too much content in one game? Why there IS no such thing! it's not like someone has been working on one since 2013 that's still no-where near.... oh right...

[Tyko]

On 9/23/2018 at 8:13 AM, wumpus said:

While I don't really agree with this, if you want things to make *sense* then make temperature readings give "science points" (which only help with PR and *maybe* budget) and unlock the tech tree by using things in the tech tree (the more you use the prerequisite tech, the further down the tech tree you go).  This is about as close to how the "tech tree" gets to real life as you can model in a game.

It would also really force missions (especially crewed missions) to look a lot more like Mercury->Gemini>Apollo.  Gemini only makes sense when you realize you need to "push the tech tree" by doing/testing the tech you need (although KSP comes close in this in that the skills needed for an "Apollo style" mission pretty much need a Gemini program's worth of practice before success.

<SNIP>

I progressed from Mercury to Gemini with only one orbital launch (plus lots of science collected by probes). I'd agree that using parts should be required and money as well when you're playing Career.

I'm picturing something like this...three different resources are required to develop a new part - let's say a new engine.

1. Science points - these are generated using science parts - I'm not getting into how those should work because this is about the tech tree, but it does need to be tweaked
2. Rocket Engine research points - these are generated using rocket engines. Recovered engines generate more points than expended engines.
3. Money - if you're using Career mode.

This would require a new tech tree that's sorted to match the different research point categories, but would force users to do a number of launches or a lower number of launch / recovery tests to unlock the next tier of the tree. You could maybe get more granular are require additional resources to unlock a given part within an unlocked tier...not sure about that

The big trick is the make it challenging, but not just a grind to launch the same rocket over and over again.