KSP 2.0 why we need it and what it needs

[Renae]

I know, these are a dime a dozen and everyone has an opinion.  This is mine.  
Who am I?  An avid KSP player, with 1096 hours logged so far.
My dad flew F-4's, I'm a Navy Vet, with a huge Sci Fi Nerd background, and my favorite movie of all time is "The Right Stuff"
 

I love KSP, I do.  You don't put 1k+ hours into something that you don't like. Well, at least not something you aren't being paid for

However, I have reached a point in playing that it's time for me to address what "I think" needs to be in the next iteration.  No not a DLC, the next KSP.

But why do we need a KSP 2.0?  Simple, the KSP Engine is woefully inadequate at this point.  It was great for it's time, it's serviceable, but it's old.  It cannot take advantage of the leaps in PC gaming hardware and DX updates.  It has memory leaks, it has inabilities that keep the KSP experience... limited.

I'll state upfront, I would have zero issues paying 60 for a new KSP, with the amount of time I've put in so far, 60/1096= about $0.05 per hour of ROI.  That's how I look at games, is it worth money in terms of time played?

So what does KSP 2.0 Need?  IMHO of course:

1.  DX12 and beyond compatibility.  We're in an era where games look better than ever.  It's time KSP took advantage of that.

2.  A Quarterly set patch Schedule. Imagine if we knew, barring critical security patches in case someone figured out how to use KSP to hack your rig, that on 15Mar, 15Jun, 15Sept and 15Dec KSP would be patched. No surprise patches that wreck your mods, no mess, no fuss.  

3.  A CKAN built in.  Look, I hate manually patching the game, Mods are the lifeblood of the experience.  Make a patcher part of the game... please?

4.  MekJeb Style Auto Pilot, part of the game.  Don't say it's cheating, you can play the career mode with 1000% rewards for science and money if so you choose.  Space flights are by their nature highly automated.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  

5.  FP POV, that isn't fisheye.  

6. (goes with 5) Imagine, if you, instead of just POOF, were on the runway, or the launch pad, you could walk out/ride out to your aircraft, walk around it, get a feel for its size from the ground.  If you took a bus to the launch tower (YES, add launch towers of variable size/function please) and had to ride up the elevator to your launch capsule.  The sense of SCALE and SIZE that could be achieved with modern DirectX graphics... 

7.  As you move up the tech tree, you move from dials, knobs and switches to fully glass cockpits.  Sure that Mk1 Capsule was in early game hard wired, but imagine you had a MK1-Delta Variant that was fully glass fly-by-wire affair that you could, with the POV system, fly from ready room to splashdown/touchdown FP!

8.  Automated launch functionality (i.e. dual launches)  In the movie "First Man" they have Armstrong on the pad as the Agena Target Vehicle launches before he does.  Imagine being able to set that up.  Put a launch window, a timer and do that mission...  Of course, that would mean...

9.  Preset Launch vehicles.  What I mean is, going off of 8. above, let's say I built a rocket capable of placing, let's call it a 3 ton payload in orbit.  I could do the launch, save the launch profile and as long as the next payload is +/- 200lbs the system could launch and do this without me needing to "control it".  Just set the launch window and as long as I had funding...

10.  Mission Campaigns.  Look, the contract system is okay, but it's SOO random.  Imagine a "Campaign system" that had you, instead of one mission, launching a tourist right after you first achieve orbit and then it's asking you to plant a flag on the moon...  You had missions that lead logically one step at a time ala real NASA launches.  First you get that teeny satellite into orbit, and then you get bigger, and
bigger payloads and then finally Kerbal's.  This is taking both historical and yes the Unmanned before manned mod concepts to their logical next step.

11.  A REAL FLIGHT PHYSICS ENGINE.  I HATE the flight system in KSP, aircraft building is my "least" favorite part of game.  I actually managed to 180 a plane and it flew backwards, just with rudders.  Absurd.  

12.  The Space Shuttle Problem.  I don't know about y'all, but I consider it a great achievement to actually successfully put a space plane into orbit. And one of the most aggravating things to build in the game.

13.  Give us things to do on planets.  I still remember the first time I put Jeb on the Mun, and I called my son over, he was like "Great mom!" and I said "Okay now what do I do?" when he said "Collect science from the surface, EVA science, in the pod, run those two experiments you brought..." and 5 min later I was plotting to return to my mothership for the flight back to Kerbal.  What a let down!  Yes with mods and such I can "make up missions" but even those are kinda weaksauce.

14.  Create a Mod Squad, the say, top 50 modders, bring them in the patch loop, let them test their mods against the patches before the patches are live so that the players, don't either have to "stop
updating" and wait for all their mods to catch up or just stop playing till their mod list is updated.  That has wrecked more than one space campaign I've run.

15.  Atmospheric affects.  Yes, I mean clouds, I mean seeing the envelope around the plant.  

16.  Put a Ceti Alpha Star with planets as end game.  Something 4-6 LY out, that should take time to reach in the science tree.  That, would be uber cool and allow for amazing sci-fi exploration.

17.  Funding should matter.  Resources should matter.  Build Times, should matter.  I know I FF the game just to simulate time passing, it's rather silly I can do the first 4 missions and then launch to the moon on the same day in career mode!

18. Space Stations should be launch platforms late game.  Space building, launching.  Make finding asteroids, resources on planets matter to be able to build and launch from orbit.  Think of the ships you could build that way?

19.  Can the Kerbals, a new space faring culture, have a city?  Even a town?  I've had to "create" absurd theories that they lived underground and that is why there is nothing but a barren green world and a space launch facility.  It's stupid, silly, and be great if y'all corrected that.  KK Thanks

20.  The military was a prime driver of rocket tech, that could be woven into the campaign mode missions.  Say a side branch of missions to... test MIRV's hitting targeted areas around the planet.    Just as a challenge, I do that.  Can I put a small payload on a 30 min or less launch profile and have it hit "the target".  Be nice if you added that in too.  

That above, were it launched as KSP 2.0 would make me, a very very happy gal.    If anyone from Squad reads this, thank you for your time.
 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Renae

[Xavven]

Good ideas. I'd support a KSP 2 with all those features. Here are 2 more for the sequel:

 

1. Stock life support
2. Planet and moon axial tilt

[Renae]

Just now, Xavven said:

Good ideas. I'd support a KSP 2 with all those features. Here are 2 more for the sequel:

 

1. Stock life support
2. Planet and moon axial tilt

I totes forgot about LS.  Good call, and planetary axis tilting!  Thank you.

[kirmie44]

I 1000% on board for a new game.

I think Mecjeb, if implemented into the full game, should be a setting like quick reverts that can be turned off before a new save. 

Also, I love the idea of a prelaunch view. I can't see any way it would be implemented without it being more like a cinematic though. 

[Renae]

41 minutes ago, kirmie44 said:

I 1000% on board for a new game.

I think Mecjeb, if implemented into the full game, should be a setting like quick reverts that can be turned off before a new save. 

Also, I love the idea of a prelaunch view. I can't see any way it would be implemented without it being more like a cinematic though. 

It'd be an optional, that you could have on or not, skippable.  I mean, I get chills at the thought of how neat it would be to ride up the elevator to see and feel the size of the ship I just built.  

[mattinoz]

I think if auto-pilot (MechJeb) is in the games it should be tied to the Kerbals themselves as a resource.

Make them valuable and I think it could scale from a simple mechanic such as seats in a facility gives you basic function. Have enough Kerbals to forfill demand and have to train and the function increases. From there add Risk and Reward of sending Kerbals out on Missions for hands on development.

So it's not just an unlock and go. If you kill your staff you go backwards and need to staff up again. That then Ties in to life support now Kerbals are valuable.

 

Although If Kerbals does have these sort of mechanic added there should be enough management tools in the system that you can queue up a flight in the future and not have it require micro-management to avoid production delays.

Edited May 22, 2019 by mattinoz

[kirmie44]

I like that idea. I didn't even think about that way. I still think it should be a setting to be selected, specifically for some of the parts that allow the rocket to take off and land on its own.

[razark]

3 hours ago, mattinoz said:

I think if auto-pilot (MechJeb) is in the games it should be tied to the Kerbals themselves as a resource.

I would just like to see Kerbal pilots be able to execute maneuver nodes.

The higher the level, the better they do.  Low level pilots repeatedly steer around the correct direction, and start/stop the burn at mostly the correct times.  Mid-level pilots have greater precision tracking the burn direction and timing.  Top-level pilots get the direction and timing almost precisely.

 

Beyond that, I'm not sure.  Perhaps some level of auto-landing could be possible, but I haven't put any thought into it.

[KerikBalm]

10 hours ago, Renae said:

1.  DX12 and beyond compatibility.  We're in an era where games look better than ever.  It's time KSP took advantage of that.

I've seen some youtube videos where the game looks quite pretty, I don't know what mods they were using, it was more than just scatterer for sure. But sure, better graphics are nice. I'm not sure KSP 2.0 is needed for that though... but I'm not sure how I'd feel about a "High Def" graphics overhaul DLC.

Quote

2.  A Quarterly set patch Schedule. Imagine if we knew, barring critical security patches in case someone figured out how to use KSP to hack your rig, that on 15Mar, 15Jun, 15Sept and 15Dec KSP would be patched. No surprise patches that wreck your mods, no mess, no fuss.  

3.  A CKAN built in.  Look, I hate manually patching the game, Mods are the lifeblood of the experience.  Make a patcher part of the game... please?

For 2: that's really just a squad business model, doesn't really relate to KSP 2.0 or KSP 1.9 DLC...

For 3... again, I don't know if they need to go to KSP 2.0 for that. With that said, I do like the system that many games have - where you just subscribe on steam, and select the mods you want from a launcher on start-up.

Quote

4.  MekJeb Style Auto Pilot, part of the game.  Don't say it's cheating, you can play the career mode with 1000% rewards for science and money if so you choose.  Space flights are by their nature highly automated.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  

5.  FP POV, that isn't fisheye.  

While I accept that mech jeb isn't unrealistic, it is a game, and before I got the game I had an interest in it, but I then lost all interest in mechjeb. It is a game. Right now astronauts are kind of useless as far as getting to space: not needed at all, they are a payload. Given the scale of the game and dV margins, I'm fine with it being manual.

Anyway, given that we have mech jeb already, I'd again say this isn't a reason that we need a KSP 2.0 (not that I wouldn't like a KSP 2.0 if it was polished and had the right features)

5) I'm pretty sure that would be easy for them to change (even games back in the 90s often had console commands that let you change the FOV, like "FOV 90" or "FOV 70"). I really doubt KSP 2.0 is needed for that. KSP 1.X could probably do that

 

Quote

6. (goes with 5) Imagine, if you, instead of just POOF, were on the runway, or the launch pad, you could walk out/ride out to your aircraft, walk around it, get a feel for its size from the ground.  If you took a bus to the launch tower (YES, add launch towers of variable size/function please) and had to ride up the elevator to your launch capsule.  The sense of SCALE and SIZE that could be achieved with modern DirectX graphics...

I mean.... sure... but I don't think modern direct X graphics really are needed for a sense of scale? KSP already has a sense of scale that puts most other games to shame. All that is really needed for your suggestion is that a plane starts just outside the spaceplane hangar, or you add a crawler animation for rockets. You can already spawn an unmanned plane on the runway, then spawn a bus from the launchpad and go drive your kerbal to the plane. KSP as it is supports adding launch/ spawn points so really they could just add a kerbal spawnpoint near the astronaut complex, and add an option to spawn rockets/planes outside the VAB/SPH or on the runway/launchpad.

I'm pretty sure all this could be modded in, so while I think they are good suggestions, I don't think they need KSP 2.0

Quote

7.  As you move up the tech tree, you move from dials, knobs and switches to fully glass cockpits.  Sure that Mk1 Capsule was in early game hard wired, but imagine you had a MK1-Delta Variant that was fully glass fly-by-wire affair that you could, with the POV system, fly from ready room to splashdown/touchdown FP!

Perhaps this could be implemented with the part switching function, and the (currently unused in the stock game, but the framework was put in place) part upgrade system?

Quote

8.  Automated launch functionality (i.e. dual launches)  In the movie "First Man" they have Armstrong on the pad as the Agena Target Vehicle launches before he does.  Imagine being able to set that up.  Put a launch window, a timer and do that mission...  Of course, that would mean...

9.  Preset Launch vehicles.  What I mean is, going off of 8. above, let's say I built a rocket capable of placing, let's call it a 3 ton payload in orbit.  I could do the launch, save the launch profile and as long as the next payload is +/- 200lbs the system could launch and do this without me needing to "control it".  Just set the launch window and as long as I had funding...

Well, a big thing I think we need is mission planning. I mean, the ability to make manuever nodes and such before launching a craft. I'd love to have a mission planner function where you can enter in a launch time, and already start placing maneuver nodes, then start the mission with all the maneuver nodes already there and in place (or perhaps you select a target starting orbit, and then once you reach it within acceptable deviation, as in a contract, you can load the maneuver node set)

I'd also like probe cores to be able to execute maneuver nodes on their own, automatically (even if signal is lost, as long as the maneuver was entered before signal loss, it should do it). It could be nice if they'd even execute the nodes while "on rails" in the background/not the active flight, as long as their TWR is within a certain range, and the maneuver node estimated burn time is within a certain percent of orbital period (so you don't have a 9km/second burn with ion engines executing on some probe that is on rails and not the active vessel). This would allow you to set up target vehicles and let you handle routine cargo launches.

Currently the limit of 1 active vessel is one of the biggest creativity limits. Trying to make flyback boosters when only 1 vessel is controllable at a time is very difficult. Air launch to orbit from something with high bypass turbofans will basically only ever let you get your payload to orbit, or recover the launcher aircraft, not both. If the rocket payload could have its maneuver nodes pre-set and if it executes them on its own, you could air drop it, and fly the launching craft back to KSC, while your air dropped rocket continues to orbit.

Mabye KSP 2.0 is needed for this? I dunno

Quote

10.  Mission Campaigns.  Look, the contract system is okay, but it's SOO random.  Imagine a "Campaign system" that had you, instead of one mission, launching a tourist right after you first achieve orbit and then it's asking you to plant a flag on the moon...  You had missions that lead logically one step at a time ala real NASA launches.  First you get that teeny satellite into orbit, and then you get bigger, and
bigger payloads and then finally Kerbal's.  This is taking both historical and yes the Unmanned before manned mod concepts to their logical next step.

Yes.. they need a mission set... they kind of maybe sort of get close to this with some missions that sort of come up sequentially... like get to orbit, rendezvous in orbit, dock, explore Mun (flyby, then orbit, then land)... but often this progression gets broken (oh, you flew by the Mun before rendezvousing first... never mind your explore mun contracts, and I think the docking contract may go away).

The "worlds first" achievements sort of kind of get close to this... especially with "leadership initiative"... you can do missions to reach those goals, ignoring contracts. The problem is that you can't really rely on "leadership initiative" early in the game because of the investment needed to upgrade the admin building, and commit to it at 100%... by the time you've accepted enough contracts and done enough stuff to unlock all that, most of the achievements are already gone, and you need to go interplanetary for more, and each planet gets you only a handful of bonuses.

A campaign consisting of a structured and well defined contract/mission sequence would be good. Alternatively, a list of "worlds first" achievements remaining (as another tab, so you can switch between those and cotnracts) could help. I'd rather have the option to effectively start with a 100% commitment to leadership initiative..and then later switch to a "commercial space initiative"... basically reversing the situation with leadership initiative

Quote

11.  A REAL FLIGHT PHYSICS ENGINE.  I HATE the flight system in KSP, aircraft building is my "least" favorite part of game.  I actually managed to 180 a plane and it flew backwards, just with rudders.  Absurd. 

Well, that's a consequence of building planes part by part. I don't know of any flight simulator that allows you to build craft the way KSP does. That said... something more like FAR would be great. Wing aspect ratio currently doesn't matter, straight vs swept wing doesn't matter. you can clip a bunch of wings into each other, and they all work equally well, etc.

I'd guess a KSP 2.0 could do this better than the way FAR does it as a patch on top of the KSP system.

That said, its quite possible to have something that is aerodynamically stable in two orientations... and woe to anyone who exceeds the limits of one, and ends up transitioning to another.

Quote

12.  The Space Shuttle Problem.  I don't know about y'all, but I consider it a great achievement to actually successfully put a space plane into orbit. And one of the most aggravating things to build in the game.

A space plane to orbit? super easy with KSP's small size and the high performance of jet engines for that size. An STS style rocket, much harder due to asymmetry and shifting center of mass. That said... this is difficult because of physics concerns. KSP 2.0 isn't going to help. You've already got the tools to do it in KSP, and many many people do it quite successfully. I'd like a better SAS though, that would help.

Quote

13.  Give us things to do on planets.  I still remember the first time I put Jeb on the Mun, and I called my son over, he was like "Great mom!" and I said "Okay now what do I do?" when he said "Collect science from the surface, EVA science, in the pod, run those two experiments you brought..." and 5 min later I was plotting to return to my mothership for the flight back to Kerbal.  What a let down!  Yes with mods and such I can "make up missions" but even those are kinda weaksauce.

Well, that's what the DLC is meant to address... but even so, there are practical limits. The game No Man's Sky basically ran headfirst into this problem. With no real storyline, players got bored pretty fast of just wandering around planet after planet... collecting stuff, fueling their ship, going to a new planet, collect stuff, refuel their ship, repeat.

You could add all the interation that NMS has, and it would still be the same issue. I like to set up modular and relocatable surface bases myself... but once built, there's nothing really to do with them. The DLC is going to allow me to use them as a home base (necessary as I play with life support, otherwise I could endlessly rove with Kerbals) to go searching for nearby terrain features, but its only ever going to be: land, plant flag, do science. People have commented over and over on this, but I have yet to see any suggestion better than what the DLC is doing (add science hotspots that you have to search for). More interesting small scale terrain detail seems like it would help, but NMS had that, and it seems players get equally bored (never played it, so... I can't speak from experience)

I would like a planet overhaul, but that doesn't need KSP 2.0 either

Quote

14.  Create a Mod Squad, the say, top 50 modders, bring them in the patch loop, let them test their mods against the patches before the patches are live so that the players, don't either have to "stop
updating" and wait for all their mods to catch up or just stop playing till their mod list is updated.  That has wrecked more than one space campaign I've run.

That's just changing the companies organization, they could do this with KSP 1.8

Quote

15.  Atmospheric affects.  Yes, I mean clouds, I mean seeing the envelope around the plant.  

16.  Put a Ceti Alpha Star with planets as end game.  Something 4-6 LY out, that should take time to reach in the science tree.  That, would be uber cool and allow for amazing sci-fi exploration.

Mods can do that, but I'm not sure another star system is within the scope of the game, especially not something lightyears out. Instead, making KSP a binary star system, with a companion star hundreds of AU out is a much better idea to me. Even something like proxima centauri vs alpha centauri AB is too much... Proxima centauri is about 13,000 AU from A cen AB (0.21 light years).

Quote

17.  Funding should matter.  Resources should matter.  Build Times, should matter.  I know I FF the game just to simulate time passing, it's rather silly I can do the first 4 missions and then launch to the moon on the same day in career mode!

I agree, a budget model could be good, better than the contract system, or in combination. Build times have been modded, so I don't think KSP 2.0 is needed. Even very early they had a part inventory (I guess you'd have to buy/stockpile certain amounts of parts, and could only use the aprts you had to construct a rocket). So limiting the rate at which you can acquire parts could do this.

Quote

18. Space Stations should be launch platforms late game.  Space building, launching.  Make finding asteroids, resources on planets matter to be able to build and launch from orbit.  Think of the ships you could build that way?

I think this is beyond the scope of the game, and not very realistic... although I suppose if you've got an entire asteroid to mine. And again... mods allow this, where you can mine and manufacture stuff, then launch ships. KSP 1.X could do this as the game as it stands has the ability to make additional launch sites.

Quote

19.  Can the Kerbals, a new space faring culture, have a city?  Even a town?  I've had to "create" absurd theories that they lived underground and that is why there is nothing but a barren green world and a space launch facility.  It's stupid, silly, and be great if y'all corrected that.  KK Thanks

Yea, at least add buildings as a type of terrain scatter (ideally clustering to form towns), and have some basic highway/train system crossing the land... this could be done fairly easy. I could make a planet with a road network using kopernicus.

Quote

20.  The military was a prime driver of rocket tech, that could be woven into the campaign mode missions.  Say a side branch of missions to... test MIRV's hitting targeted areas around the planet.    Just as a challenge, I do that.  Can I put a small payload on a 30 min or less launch profile and have it hit "the target".  Be nice if you added that in too.  

Could be a new contract type, I suppose.

Overall, I don't see many things that would require a new game engine/KSP 2.0.

Many are suggestions that could be used to improve KSP 1.X, or as a DLC.

[Renae]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I've seen some youtube videos where the game looks quite pretty, I don't know what mods they were using, it was more than just scatterer for sure. But sure, better graphics are nice. I'm not sure KSP 2.0 is needed for that though... but I'm not sure how I'd feel about a "High Def" graphics overhaul DLC.

For 2: that's really just a squad business model, doesn't really relate to KSP 2.0 or KSP 1.9 DLC...

For 3... again, I don't know if they need to go to KSP 2.0 for that. With that said, I do like the system that many games have - where you just subscribe on steam, and select the mods you want from a launcher on start-up.

While I accept that mech jeb isn't unrealistic, it is a game, and before I got the game I had an interest in it, but I then lost all interest in mechjeb. It is a game. Right now astronauts are kind of useless as far as getting to space: not needed at all, they are a payload. Given the scale of the game and dV margins, I'm fine with it being manual.

Anyway, given that we have mech jeb already, I'd again say this isn't a reason that we need a KSP 2.0 (not that I wouldn't like a KSP 2.0 if it was polished and had the right features)

5) I'm pretty sure that would be easy for them to change (even games back in the 90s often had console commands that let you change the FOV, like "FOV 90" or "FOV 70"). I really doubt KSP 2.0 is needed for that. KSP 1.X could probably do that

 

I mean.... sure... but I don't think modern direct X graphics really are needed for a sense of scale? KSP already has a sense of scale that puts most other games to shame. All that is really needed for your suggestion is that a plane starts just outside the spaceplane hangar, or you add a crawler animation for rockets. You can already spawn an unmanned plane on the runway, then spawn a bus from the launchpad and go drive your kerbal to the plane. KSP as it is supports adding launch/ spawn points so really they could just add a kerbal spawnpoint near the astronaut complex, and add an option to spawn rockets/planes outside the VAB/SPH or on the runway/launchpad.

I'm pretty sure all this could be modded in, so while I think they are good suggestions, I don't think they need KSP 2.0

Perhaps this could be implemented with the part switching function, and the (currently unused in the stock game, but the framework was put in place) part upgrade system?

Well, a big thing I think we need is mission planning. I mean, the ability to make manuever nodes and such before launching a craft. I'd love to have a mission planner function where you can enter in a launch time, and already start placing maneuver nodes, then start the mission with all the maneuver nodes already there and in place (or perhaps you select a target starting orbit, and then once you reach it within acceptable deviation, as in a contract, you can load the maneuver node set)

I'd also like probe cores to be able to execute maneuver nodes on their own, automatically (even if signal is lost, as long as the maneuver was entered before signal loss, it should do it). It could be nice if they'd even execute the nodes while "on rails" in the background/not the active flight, as long as their TWR is within a certain range, and the maneuver node estimated burn time is within a certain percent of orbital period (so you don't have a 9km/second burn with ion engines executing on some probe that is on rails and not the active vessel). This would allow you to set up target vehicles and let you handle routine cargo launches.

Currently the limit of 1 active vessel is one of the biggest creativity limits. Trying to make flyback boosters when only 1 vessel is controllable at a time is very difficult. Air launch to orbit from something with high bypass turbofans will basically only ever let you get your payload to orbit, or recover the launcher aircraft, not both. If the rocket payload could have its maneuver nodes pre-set and if it executes them on its own, you could air drop it, and fly the launching craft back to KSC, while your air dropped rocket continues to orbit.

Mabye KSP 2.0 is needed for this? I dunno

Yes.. they need a mission set... they kind of maybe sort of get close to this with some missions that sort of come up sequentially... like get to orbit, rendezvous in orbit, dock, explore Mun (flyby, then orbit, then land)... but often this progression gets broken (oh, you flew by the Mun before rendezvousing first... never mind your explore mun contracts, and I think the docking contract may go away).

The "worlds first" achievements sort of kind of get close to this... especially with "leadership initiative"... you can do missions to reach those goals, ignoring contracts. The problem is that you can't really rely on "leadership initiative" early in the game because of the investment needed to upgrade the admin building, and commit to it at 100%... by the time you've accepted enough contracts and done enough stuff to unlock all that, most of the achievements are already gone, and you need to go interplanetary for more, and each planet gets you only a handful of bonuses.

A campaign consisting of a structured and well defined contract/mission sequence would be good. Alternatively, a list of "worlds first" achievements remaining (as another tab, so you can switch between those and cotnracts) could help. I'd rather have the option to effectively start with a 100% commitment to leadership initiative..and then later switch to a "commercial space initiative"... basically reversing the situation with leadership initiative

Well, that's a consequence of building planes part by part. I don't know of any flight simulator that allows you to build craft the way KSP does. That said... something more like FAR would be great. Wing aspect ratio currently doesn't matter, straight vs swept wing doesn't matter. you can clip a bunch of wings into each other, and they all work equally well, etc.

I'd guess a KSP 2.0 could do this better than the way FAR does it as a patch on top of the KSP system.

That said, its quite possible to have something that is aerodynamically stable in two orientations... and woe to anyone who exceeds the limits of one, and ends up transitioning to another.

A space plane to orbit? super easy with KSP's small size and the high performance of jet engines for that size. An STS style rocket, much harder due to asymmetry and shifting center of mass. That said... this is difficult because of physics concerns. KSP 2.0 isn't going to help. You've already got the tools to do it in KSP, and many many people do it quite successfully. I'd like a better SAS though, that would help.

Well, that's what the DLC is meant to address... but even so, there are practical limits. The game No Man's Sky basically ran headfirst into this problem. With no real storyline, players got bored pretty fast of just wandering around planet after planet... collecting stuff, fueling their ship, going to a new planet, collect stuff, refuel their ship, repeat.

You could add all the interation that NMS has, and it would still be the same issue. I like to set up modular and relocatable surface bases myself... but once built, there's nothing really to do with them. The DLC is going to allow me to use them as a home base (necessary as I play with life support, otherwise I could endlessly rove with Kerbals) to go searching for nearby terrain features, but its only ever going to be: land, plant flag, do science. People have commented over and over on this, but I have yet to see any suggestion better than what the DLC is doing (add science hotspots that you have to search for). More interesting small scale terrain detail seems like it would help, but NMS had that, and it seems players get equally bored (never played it, so... I can't speak from experience)

I would like a planet overhaul, but that doesn't need KSP 2.0 either

That's just changing the companies organization, they could do this with KSP 1.8

Mods can do that, but I'm not sure another star system is within the scope of the game, especially not something lightyears out. Instead, making KSP a binary star system, with a companion star hundreds of AU out is a much better idea to me. Even something like proxima centauri vs alpha centauri AB is too much... Proxima centauri is about 13,000 AU from A cen AB (0.21 light years).

I agree, a budget model could be good, better than the contract system, or in combination. Build times have been modded, so I don't think KSP 2.0 is needed. Even very early they had a part inventory (I guess you'd have to buy/stockpile certain amounts of parts, and could only use the aprts you had to construct a rocket). So limiting the rate at which you can acquire parts could do this.

I think this is beyond the scope of the game, and not very realistic... although I suppose if you've got an entire asteroid to mine. And again... mods allow this, where you can mine and manufacture stuff, then launch ships. KSP 1.X could do this as the game as it stands has the ability to make additional launch sites.

Yea, at least add buildings as a type of terrain scatter (ideally clustering to form towns), and have some basic highway/train system crossing the land... this could be done fairly easy. I could make a planet with a road network using kopernicus.

Could be a new contract type, I suppose.

Overall, I don't see many things that would require a new game engine/KSP 2.0.

Many are suggestions that could be used to improve KSP 1.X, or as a DLC.

Most of what you bring up, you keep saying "I don't think DX12 is needed..."  DX12 support would GREATLY improve performance as the way the programming makes the system more fluid and reduces the demands of the CPU and places more graphics onto the GPU.  Thus, not only would the game look better, it would run better.  You could have more parts.

The crux of my points was features I want to see in KSP 2.0.  A better graphics engine, better performance, and a more immersive gameplay.   While mods and such can replicate much of my requests, due to the game engine limits and using DX9 limits the extent that Kerbal manage.  Period.  
https://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/directx-12-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters-to-pc-gamers-1318636
That should cover the DX discussion if you have any questions.  

Thus, they need to overhaul the entire game engine, and that's not a light undertaking, and while their at it, they can make some changes

[cantab]

17 hours ago, Renae said:

But why do we need a KSP 2.0?  Simple, the KSP Engine is woefully inadequate at this point.  It was great for it's time, it's serviceable, but it's old.  It cannot take advantage of the leaps in PC gaming hardware and DX updates.  It has memory leaks, it has inabilities that keep the KSP experience... limited.

I agree with this. Unity is a good general-purpose game engine that's made many great games including KSP possible, but KSP is far outside what most games do. Few other games can have you walking on the ground one moment, and the next moment travelling at a thousand miles an hour mere metres above the terrain before travelling realistic interplanetary distances. Even just explorable ground area, not much is on the same scale as KSP. It's amazing Unity can handle it at all, but I feel KSP would seriously benefit from an engine built for that kind of cosmic scale, either created or licensed from somewhere (SpaceEngine perhaps).

The rest is just features, some I agree with, some I don't. But a new engine is what would make KSP 2 really a new game, and not just an update with a pricetag.

[halleyyy]

I'm all on board with this suggestion, heh.

[Lisias]

I want mutexes for handling concurrency on some critical parts of KSP guts. As GameDatabase.

[SlinkyMcman]

13 hours ago, Lisias said:

I want mutexes for handling concurrency on some critical parts of KSP guts. As GameDatabase.

Building a multithreaded physics engine(and it's associated UI for dev) isn't a simple task. Do you know if there is a way to do multi-threading in Unity as it is now? 

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

Building a multithreaded physics engine(and it's associated UI for dev) isn't a simple task. Do you know if there is a way to do multi-threading in Unity as it is now? 

Ask Squad.  There're some concurrency right now on KSP, and that's the reason I'm asking for mutexes while accessing the GameDatabase. And no, I'm not talking about co-routines.

KSP is calling Add'Ons concurrently on the Main Menu Scene. Making History, ScanSAT and KIS (that i'm currently aware of) instruments the GameDatabase simultaneously and I had to do some interesting stunts on TweakScale to cope with them. A mutex on the GameDatabase would had saved me from handling a lot of nasty stuff.

Module Manager 4 is doing that too - it's the reason it's loading faster now, it applies the patches while KSP is loading the textures/meshes/etc. It's tricky, but it is doable.

About multithreading on UI, frankly this is common business. I already had that on Win32 (1995, baby), I already had that using AWT, I already had that using LWUIT (on freaking Nokia and Samsung feature fones!), I already had that in Android. You just don't handle UI events on the main program loop (or vice-versa), and this is common business for about 25 years already (and I'm plain ignoring UNIX, shove more 10 years on it). Last time I had to cope with a single threaded UI I was coding for Windows 3 or for MS-DOS using Turbo Vision. It's time to stop excusing this by now, Unity is late due on this. Utterly.

Developers get paid by doing hard stuff - the easy stuff end users can do it by themselves, they don't need to pays us for that.  

[purpleivan]

I'd certainly support a new version of KSP (even with cold hard cash), with a significant overhaul. However that would only be viable financially if it was sold as an entirely new game, the same way as any other game series works.

The list of things the OP suggests seems good to me, possibly a bit ambitious for what at heart is a space sandbox game, but nothing wrong with ambition. One thing I'd personally steer away from though is anything explicitly military. I know this has been a/the prime motivator of space research in the real world, but it would be nice to keep this little universe of chubby green aliens a peaceful one... in stock at least.

In mods however feel free to treat it as a free fire zone.

[KerikBalm]

20 hours ago, Renae said:

Most of what you bring up, you keep saying "I don't think DX12 is needed..."  DX12 support would GREATLY improve performance as the way the programming makes the system more fluid and reduces the demands of the CPU and places more graphics onto the GPU.  Thus, not only would the game look better, it would run better.  You could have more parts.

Ummm I never said what you quoted once. I said one thing that maybe you could construe to mean that.

If DX12 would give large performance returns for KSP (just because it does for one game doesn't mean it will for another, its variable depending on the game), and KSP would need a new engine to make use of it, then fine. However, based on your arguments, I think it could be better stated as KSP needs better multithreading/multicore support. If I understand correctly, DX12 allows more stuff to be offloaded to the GPU. KSP is already not so great at utilizing other CPU cores, and I doubt DX12 would help that.

Quote

The crux of my points was features I want to see in KSP 2.0. 

Yes, but the title starts as "KSP 2.0 why we need it...", and your justification is:

" Simple, the KSP Engine is woefully inadequate at this point.  It was great for it's time, it's serviceable, but it's old.  It cannot take advantage of the leaps in PC gaming hardware and DX updates.  It has memory leaks, it has inabilities that keep the KSP experience... limited."

So in there, the DX updates is not emphasized and seems to be a minor reason. You mention a limited experience, yet most of what you mention can be managed by the current engine, as mods do it with the current engine.

Quote

A better graphics engine, better performance, and a more immersive gameplay. 

Well, not speaking to the engine you can get much better graphics out of KSP, and more immersive gameplay seems possible (this latest DLC seems to try to address that), given what mods do (and some of what you mentioned you don't even need mods for... like driving up to your spaceplane before getting in).

Better performance... a while back they had an update that improved performance, and they added some multicore support... but yea, I guess a new engine would be needed to fully take advantage of multiple CPU and GPU cores... but would they need to abandon Unity for that entirely? if so, that is asking a lot.

Quote

Thus, they need to overhaul the entire game engine, and that's not a light undertaking, and while their at it, they can make some changes

So if I understand your point, "Why we need it" is that a new engine could deliver better performance, yes?

And yes, if they're going to do an entirely new engine, they need more features, if its just a KSP clone that runs smoother... that would be disappointing given all the potential there.

I guess I confused your wishlist with reasons that there should be a KSP 2.0, as if KSP 1.X couldn't deliver what you were requesting.

If I understand, you acknowledge most of what you ask for can be managed on the current KSP engine, but KSP could do it better and smoother, correct?

[jagfour]

Great minds think alike. I posted this last week.

I was an engineer in the RAF for 27 years. Celebrated my 2 anniversary of being a civvy again yesterday. I miss it more than I thought I would. 

[Fraktal]

On 5/21/2019 at 9:44 PM, Renae said:

3.  A CKAN built in.  Look, I hate manually patching the game, Mods are the lifeblood of the experience.  Make a patcher part of the game... please?

The problem with this is, what server would that patcher be connecting to? Because if it would be a Squad server, everyone would be hosed as soon as they dropped support for the game and pulled the plug. And rest assured, they will. Whether in 2030 or 2040, doesn't matter. What matters is that core functionality should not be hardcoded to require a single, fixed remote machine.

It would be convenient, yes, but giving the devs an instant killswitch to permanently render every copy of the game in existence unplayable with as soon as it's no longer profitable has already killed multiple games in the past. Modding with the Sword of Damocles hanging above your head ready to render all your modding efforts null and void as soon as the IP holder's executives say so is an atmosphere I don't think many modders would enjoy working under.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Fraktal

[mattinoz]

5 minutes ago, Fraktal said:

The problem with this is, what server would that patcher be connecting to? Because if it would be a Squad server, everyone would be hosed as soon as they dropped support for the game and pulled the plug. And rest assured, they will. Whether in 2030 or 2040, doesn't matter. What matters is that core functionality should not be hardcoded to require a single, fixed remote machine.

Along time ago in a developer team far far a member ofSquad talked about wanting to create a torrent sync based mod support in the game. 

That would solve the hosting issue as the server would be people who mod and people who use the mod. There would be hosting as long as there were player. 

Clearly the idea died for reasons but it sounded like a good idea at the time. 

[Renae]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Ummm I never said what you quoted once. I said one thing that maybe you could construe to mean that.

If DX12 would give large performance returns for KSP (just because it does for one game doesn't mean it will for another, its variable depending on the game), and KSP would need a new engine to make use of it, then fine. However, based on your arguments, I think it could be better stated as KSP needs better multithreading/multicore support. If I understand correctly, DX12 allows more stuff to be offloaded to the GPU. KSP is already not so great at utilizing other CPU cores, and I doubt DX12 would help that.

Yes, but the title starts as "KSP 2.0 why we need it...", and your justification is:

" Simple, the KSP Engine is woefully inadequate at this point.  It was great for it's time, it's serviceable, but it's old.  It cannot take advantage of the leaps in PC gaming hardware and DX updates.  It has memory leaks, it has inabilities that keep the KSP experience... limited."

So in there, the DX updates is not emphasized and seems to be a minor reason. You mention a limited experience, yet most of what you mention can be managed by the current engine, as mods do it with the current engine.

Well, not speaking to the engine you can get much better graphics out of KSP, and more immersive gameplay seems possible (this latest DLC seems to try to address that), given what mods do (and some of what you mentioned you don't even need mods for... like driving up to your spaceplane before getting in).

Better performance... a while back they had an update that improved performance, and they added some multicore support... but yea, I guess a new engine would be needed to fully take advantage of multiple CPU and GPU cores... but would they need to abandon Unity for that entirely? if so, that is asking a lot.

So if I understand your point, "Why we need it" is that a new engine could deliver better performance, yes?

And yes, if they're going to do an entirely new engine, they need more features, if its just a KSP clone that runs smoother... that would be disappointing given all the potential there.

I guess I confused your wishlist with reasons that there should be a KSP 2.0, as if KSP 1.X couldn't deliver what you were requesting.

If I understand, you acknowledge most of what you ask for can be managed on the current KSP engine, but KSP could do it better and smoother, correct?

Much of what needs to be done, could technically be done with the existing, but with the limitations of DX9 places on both the game and the PC's running it.  I have a i5 with a 1080Ti and plenty of Ram, yet even I run into part count slow down.   That's a problem  Better engine would not only boost performance but allow them to expand features and gameplay.    I don't think you quite understand how the current Unity engine is underpowered for modern gaming, there is a reason, aside "shiny" new graphics that games are built to work with the newer DX protocols.    I'd be quite content with a new "clone" of KSP that delivered a better, smoother and prettier experience and had better capabilities.  

Oh, earlier when I talked about space planes, I meant Space Shuttles, like replicating a real shuttle launch is a pain in the WAZOO.

[Kerbinchaser]

I don't think KSP should increase the graphics level. I agree that we need a faster engine, but there is a certain charm to how KSP looks at the moment. People have really increased the graphics themselves with mods, and I think that if people want to play 100% stock they should be able to. I love how KSP looks at the moment. I really do. 

I run on a high-end computer and I don't even want to install that many graphics mods just because it is so nostalgic and charming to play the current game. 

[Chel]

3 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

I run on a high-end computer and I don't even want to install that many graphics mods just because it is so nostalgic and charming to play the current game. 

And for people who run the game on low end PCs, increasing the graphics can make the game nigh unplayable,  causing people to uninstall or just delete the game. I'm fine with KSPs graphics at the moment, they look good. And if people want better graphics, a lot of mods are available that do just that

[Renae]

7 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

And for people who run the game on low end PCs, increasing the graphics can make the game nigh unplayable,  causing people to uninstall or just delete the game. I'm fine with KSPs graphics at the moment, they look good. And if people want better graphics, a lot of mods are available that do just that

To be fair, it would take a while to build the game, so... 

 

[Guest]

My reactions/votes:

1. abstain
2. no
3. no
4. no
5. abstain
6. no
7. no
8. no
9. no
10. yes
11. yes but not a priority (the current one is passable but stock FAR would be nice)
12. no
13. yes (but already being addressed in Breaking Ground)
14. no
15. yes
16. no
17. no
18. no
19. no
20. strong no, keep Kerbin demilitarised!

What you're describing sounds like a pretty cool game but it wouldn't be KSP anymore.

A visual overhaul with stock atmospheric effects would be nice, better atmospheric physics would be nice, and somewhat more structured campaign missions would be nice. None of these would be high priorities for me however. 

My priorities for KSP 2.0 would include:

1. Optimisation for scalability, e.g.:
   • dynamic autowelding which would limit the number of physics parts per craft to a value the engine can easily handle (I'm sure this could be done without materially affecting gameplay)
   • optimisations for landed craft and bases -- remove them from physics calculations when they're stationary and not interacting with anything so they don't gum up the framerate
2. Better surface interactions, notably:
   • stationary craft stay stationary and don't slide or jump around (fudge it if necessary)
   • ground effect (fudge it if necessary)
3. More procedural parts, notably:
   • fuel tanks -- currently we have so many it's starting to be tricky to find the right one in the set; these could be collapsed into just one tank per diameter allowing you to specify the length (capped by your tech level)
   • wings -- wing assembly from elements is fiddly and clunky, a few simple procedural wings would help a lot
   • parachutes -- would be nice to be able to optimise them for the craft
4. More planets -- a stock OPM basically
5. Some near-future tech way at the end of the tech tree -- spaceborne nuclear reactors for example

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Guest