Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

[adsii1970]

Threads containing similar topics have been merged into one.

[Clockwork13]

I'd like if KSP 2 has broader mod support, i.e adding new buildings to the KSC or changing its layout

[BuckleUpBones]

I hope Kerbals can traverse adjoining sections like the fuselage of crew cabins, control rooms and space station habitats, operating controls, airlocks and experiments (rather than just switching too). A kind of end game for completed vehicles.

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by BuckleUpBones

[Nikolai]

6 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Its been confirmed that they are not going to use n body physics.

I would expect not.  Predicting just where your spacecraft is going to go in the long term is hard without shortcuts like patched conics.

6 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Adding small SOIs was not addressed.

Yeah.  That's what I'd see as part of a potential "feeble gravity" simulation.  Of course, it's all up to them; there's already so much that we've been definitively told is part of KSP 2 that this would just be gravy.

[mcwaffles2003]

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Its been confirmed that they are not going to use n body physics.  Adding small SOIs was not addressed.

does that confirm they will be using conic sections again or is 3 body as opposed to n-body still a possibility? Its just hard to see how rask/rusk will be addressed if its going to be simple SOI again

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

does that confirm they will be using conic sections again or is 3 body as opposed to n-body still a possibility? Its just hard to see how rask/rusk will be addressed if its going to be simple SOI again

No.  I believe that rask/rusk will be a special case, probably handled with some custom code for them, but this is only an educated guess

[Cleperli]

I hope I can buy it...

[lighttail]

Procedural star systems, i hope beyond the ones they tease are a galaxy of stars with randomly generated planets to colonise, explore, and discover

[DunaManiac]

14 minutes ago, lighttail said:

Procedural star systems, i hope beyond the ones they tease are a galaxy of stars with randomly generated planets to colonise, explore, and discover

I don't really think so, because they have already announced one star system (a young star system with rings and rask and rusk) that is definetely going to be in the game, so I think there won't be procedural planets, (although that would be cool)

[mcwaffles2003]

19 minutes ago, lighttail said:

Procedural star systems, i hope beyond the ones they tease are a galaxy of stars with randomly generated planets to colonise, explore, and discover

THIS

I can see them handcrafting a stellar neighborhood and then beyond that leaving up the rest to procedurally generated systems. I doubt it will come at launch, but if theres an update or the coding allows  someone to mod it in.... and then with multiplayer, having a server where people have their own home system with procedurally generate systems filling the space between neighborhoods... if no mans sky can do it idk why ksp can and this technique has existed since elder scrolls daggerfall.

 

If techniques like  in the video can be used to generate planets and randomized, then held to an algorithm confining planet types to those that are  possible in solar systems and procedurally generated terrain. Mods will undoubtedly make magic drives like the alcubierre drive and you could effectively model a real possible galaxy and traverse it with a rocket youve built... with other people playing it.

Edited August 30, 2019 by mcwaffles2003

[jagfour]

I've seen some of my ideas mentioned already, but other additions and improvements could or should be considered:

 

First thing from the videos is the graphics. They are looking good. Hopefully the exhaust s will plume bigger with altitude in atmospheres.

 

I think I have seen gas exhausts from fuel tanks. Great. But, I haven't seen the tons of ice falling off the rockets at launch yet.

 

Sound time/distance delay. I hate hearing something immediately as it crashes 10k away. Someone else has mentioned doplar effect as well.

 

Multiple connections must be possible. A simple Ctrl+select will do.

 

LUT building blocks.

 

A full Solar system random builder, with various slider bars to play with, that determine various Kerbalistics.

 

Gimbaling must be nailed. Has been over compensating forever. 
Same issue with RCS unable to stabilise a body. I fix the problem by rhythmically turning it on and off.

[LekkoBot]

I just hope there is more to do on kerbin, I want some airports scattered around the planet so you could have passenger missions to specific places that make sense.

Edited August 30, 2019 by LekkoBot

[linuxgurugamer]

There will be.  Among other things, you will be able to create colonies on Kerbin

Edited August 30, 2019 by linuxgurugamer

[tseitsei89]

My biggest hope is that base building is well designed and balanced to give meaningful long term projects.

And related to this: I hope that engines are balanced so that we cant easily lift 100+ tons to orbit with single launch. Otherwise building big bases will just require huge lifter and 2-3 launches instead of long term projects and planning

[Kaerbanogue]

Would love to have planets with intern ocean reachable by caves systems. 

Could be so cool sending missions onto icy planets, exploring dark caves and finally get to a "bottomless" internal ocean... 

(definitely looking forward for JUICE mission although) 

 

[Guest]

I think that one thing that would immensely improve the game for many people would be a stock Kos that works with a real and supported language (if I can dream I would say Python). 

Maybe even with a optional visual  programming interface for replacing the stock action groups with a more powerfull tool without complicating it too much.

[Xd the great]

3 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

My biggest hope is that base building is well designed and balanced to give meaningful long term projects.

And related to this: I hope that engines are balanced so that we cant easily lift 100+ tons to orbit with single launch. Otherwise building big bases will just require huge lifter and 2-3 launches instead of long term projects and planning

IRL rockets can lift 100 tonnes easily. If you do not like this, just use a smaller rocket. 

[tseitsei89]

38 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

IRL rockets can lift 100 tonnes easily. If you do not like this, just use a smaller rocket. 

Falcon Heavy capacity to LEO is about 63t )according to some fast googling). Besides the actual number was not the point, balanced number obviously depends on the weight base parts needed. The point was that base building should (IMO) be a long term and gradually evolving project instead of just  1 or 2 launches to establish a self sustaining base...

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by tseitsei89

[Xd the great]

32 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

Falcon Heavy capacity to LEO is about 63t )according to some fast googling). Besides the actual number was not the point, balanced number obviously depends on the weight base parts needed. The point was that base building should (IMO) be a long term and gradually evolving project instead of just  1 or 2 launches to establish a self sustaining base...

Saturn 5 payload to LEO is way over 100 tonnes.

I agree that bases need more care, so instead of nerfing engines, create heavy base modules.

[tseitsei89]

2 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

Saturn 5 payload to LEO is way over 100 tonnes.

I agree that bases need more care, so instead of nerfing engines, create heavy base modules.

Thats fine also  It doesnt really matter if you nerf the engines or make all the parts heavier. The effect is the same.

[Dakitess]

Hi there, this is the most appropriate place to speak about our French Polls and results Everything is in French but our website has a Translate Button and i'm going to sum up the protocol as well as the results, here.

Recently, our association (Kerbal Space Challenge) has invited the French community to tell about the features they want the most. It went in three steps :

- Free text to gather all the idea from about 50 people in about 2 days, resulting in hundreds of propositions. We grouped them in 45 distincts features, 4 categories, being Technical Aspects and Game engine / Parts Contents and Design Tools / GamePlay / Performances.

This in French, but here is the link for reference : https://kerbalspacechallenge.fr/2019/08/24/quelles-sont-vos-attentes-pour-ksp2-donnez-votre-avis/

- Another poll with 10 selections to choose from these 45 features, from the most important to the less one (10 still belong the selection, so it is wanted !)

This in French, but here is the link for reference : https://kerbalspacechallenge.fr/2019/08/26/ksp2-votez-pour-les-features-que-vous-desirez-le-plus/

- Then, interpretations and results, the article is right here, this time you should be able to use the Translate Button to get the most of it, except pictures of course : https://kerbalspacechallenge.fr/2019/08/30/ksp2-resultats-de-vos-votes-les-features-les-plus-attendues-de-la-communaute-ksc/

Some numbers first :

• 114 participants
• 25 already subscribe to our Forum, 89 don't
• An average of 9.2 features selected
• 1049 featured selected in total

Now some statistics about categories as a basic sum of all the features selected, as well as a normalized sum : yeah, categories with 20 features obviously have more chances to get higher results than some other with only 3 features (say hi, Performances !)

• Title : Sum / Normalized
• Gameplay : 387.0 / 19.4
• Technical Aspects and Game engine : 343.0 / 31.1
• Parts Contents and Design Tools : 232.0 / 21.1
• Performances : 87.0 / 29.0

Easy to point out that normalized sum is more interesting ! In this regard, Technical Aspects and Game engine come first, followed by Performances and then Parts contents and Design tools : Gameplay seems to be already good enough in KSP1 and it comes last, yep ! And indeed, this is quite something we've seen often, here and other forums. People want to have a step up in technical aspects, be it aesthetics, performances or tools / informations.

Let's have a look to distincts features, now, to see if it follows the same trend. I'll only detail about the Top10, but you can find the whole 45 items here, translated with DeepL : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LPwFk4XL1ac3gIj6rhBWraD8-qaI-6ym/view?usp=sharing

So, what do we have ? With and without weighting (10 points for the first selection, 9 for the second one... 1 for the last one), results are about the same, which means that most of the time, People do want the same features and they want it in the same orders or about. Let's see the weighted ranking :

# Feature ; Result :
1 Improve environments to make people want to explore the surfaces of the stars: vegetation; topology; micro-reliefs; biomes; etc 490.0
2 Significantly improve graphics in terms of textures; polygons; effects; clouds; etc. 365.0
3 Optimize performance to build ever-growing crafts and foundations 310.0
4 Make physics more realistic: aeromodel; N-Body system; collisions; torsions; etc 292.0
5 Integrate a dynamic weather system with visual and physical impact 291.0
6 Do not start with a DLC and/or microtransaction logic 262.0
7 Integrate systems for the upstream discovery of stars and exoplanets: telescopes; scientific tools, etc. 216.0
8 Integrate a reliable and optimized Multiplayer 200.0
9 Have the functionalities of the essential information mods: KER; Kerbal Alarm Clock; Transfer Windows Planner; ScanSat; etc. 197.0
10 Be able to move around within bases; stations; vessels; as in EVA 187.0

Wow, so... by far, what is most wanted is the Environment enhancement, to be able to visit gorgeous places, with biome specificity, complexe relief, and so on. To have a reason to visit other places, taking the ultimate screenshot to share about the most beautiful place where you wanna set up a colony ! This is actually my first choice as well.

What do we have next ? Let's sum up the 5 first : they are all about technical aspects. Yes, aesthetics, performances, physics, etc : players want to have a beautiful game, matching 2019 standards. They quite are confident about gameplay so far, they mostly want to have a modern game, candy eye, and reliable physic, as well as good performance to expand further, build huge crafts without the annoying framerate drops. Weather system would also be great !

Okay. Then we have No-DLC nor microtransaction. It's been a long debate right here, much less in French Forums, but it appears here, so this is also a concern for us froggies. Please KSP2 Devs and Private Division, do now screw up

Multiplayer, obviously, comes next ! This is a feature that does not appear in the classic no-weighted sum, which means that this feature is not selected very often, but when it is, it comes mostly in Top3 if not Top1 : not every player wants to play Multi, and the overall experience with DMP and other mods had been "complicated". I'm personally not in that Multiplayer thing, but I'm pretty sure I would appreciate it when released, If it works properly

And then only, Gameplay aspect, with some more "immersion", more linkage between game phases : being able to discover by ourselves the differents Stars and Exoplanet that we want to colonize, for instance ! Or having the common informations about our crafts and trajectories (like KER, KAC, TWP, etc) : in a word, filling what's missing. And the ability to walk / float in our crafts, bases, stations.

There is more to discover in this article and the data themselves, but this is an overview : what do you think about it ?

 

 

[DjPreside]

On 8/31/2019 at 3:49 AM, Dakitess said:

[snipped for brevity]

Love the effort for the poll! The results are quite similar to how I actually voted, the community sure knows what the game needs and I’m glad that the devs are actually fans of the first game and part of this community. I also want to add a thing to the devs, since I’ve just tried for the first time Simple Rockets 2 and the performance tab is very prominent in this poll. You guys have to aim to those graphics and performance, and possibly make it better. They’re using the same engine, you can optimize the game and make it pretty like that, if not more. Right now, the pre-alpha gameplay’s framerate is... wonky (but you have all the time to optimize it). Part of it is probably because of the flexible joints kept from KSP1, while Simple Rockets 2 doesn’t have them (and it’s great imo). It would be great to have the option to turn them off and gain a lot of performance. Guys, try that game, make experiments with the procedural parts and bring some of that to KSP2. We believe in you, Star Theory!

Edited September 1, 2019 by Vanamonde

[KerikBalm]

6 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

And related to this: I hope that engines are balanced so that we cant easily lift 100+ tons to orbit with single launch. Otherwise building big bases will just require huge lifter and 2-3 launches instead of long term projects and planning

Ummm, I don't know what to say to this, we already can, very very easily. I can scale Kerbin up by a factor of 3, and make an SSTO that lifts 150 tons to orbit - so 100 tons on 1x kerbin with a disposable system is super easy.

Scale isn't changing in KSP 2, and we're getting higher tech engines, so it will be super easy using the magic metallic hydrogen engines, for instance.

[tseitsei89]

Just now, KerikBalm said:

Ummm, I don't know what to say to this, we already can, very very easily. I can scale Kerbin up by a factor of 3, and make an SSTO that lifts 150 tons to orbit - so 100 tons on 1x kerbin with a disposable system is super easy.

Scale isn't changing in KSP 2, and we're getting higher tech engines, so it will be super easy using the magic metallic hydrogen engines, for instance.

I know we can do this in KSP 1. I just hope they "fix" it for KSP 2... And again the exact number is not the point. The point is that we shouldnt be able to launch huge bases and stations all on a single launch.

[KerikBalm]

Im guessing that is what mofs will bbe for, to scale up the system.

Also I imagine that you *should* need to lift several hundreds to thousands of tons to establish a colony, rather than just some fueling base