Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

[Guest]

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

 

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.

To be honest it just reduces part count from the usual Vector - Rhino asparagus contraptions, the balancing factor should be the career economy.

 

3 hours ago, DjPreside said:

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.

That's because performaces are the big limitng factor in KSP1. 

The first thing everyone tought when seeing the trailer bases and stations (after the obligatory WOW) was "that would have a terrible framerate on KSP1"

[Snark]

3 hours ago, DjPreside said:

You guys have to aim to those graphics and performance, and possibly make it better.

Oh, they're definitely doing this.  Improving and optimizing performance is a high priority item for them, and they're putting tons of work into it.

Quite aside from wanting to address the performance complaints of the original, they also want to enable people to build much bigger ships with much higher part counts.

[Dakitess]

I Hope they'll look at this small article, I've link it to them on Twitter

Thanks for your Feedback, DjPreside ! 

 

[Zenteck]

I guess I'd like to put this out there as my most hoped-for feature.

It's safe to say that once you've got a firm grasp on KSP and you know the Delta-V map better than your hometown, the game loses a lot of it's challenge. It becomes trivial to just build the ship you want, then just put a big enough lifter underneath it.

For me, the idea of Realism Overhaul was too much, I still like to play stockalike KSP with stockalike parts. It took on a new lease of life for me when I found a mod (now dead) that increased the scale of all the planets and their orbits by 6.4*. More recently we have the popular JNSQ which scales them by 2.5*. These mods force players to think harder about how they build and fly their ships; for example stock gravity turns no longer work so easily you have to shallow your ascent to make it to orbit. But it's all do-able with stock parts if you plan it out carefully.

Essentially, I find scaling mods to be like a NG+ mode. They allowed me to get far more longevity out of KSP than I otherwise would have, and I hope Star Theory will consider this as a feature to include.

I don't know how difficult this would be to implement; I imagine it could be added easily, but dealing with the weirdness it'd cause would be a QC & balancing nightmare. Nonetheless it'd be great to have a couple of sliders in the options menu when starting a new game that can scale the size of the planets and system up or down. Put a big red disclaimer next to it that says, 'Not recommended for new players,' if need be.

[Superfluous J]

8 hours ago, Zenteck said:

Essentially, I find scaling mods to be like a NG+ mode.

Even considering all the stuff in the difficulty screen, scaling up the system to 2x, 2.5x, 3.2x etc was what actually made the game harder for me.

A+ suggestion, with the admitted caveat that while it's (relatively) easy to scale up the planets and distances, it's not so easy to balance the rest of the game around that rescale.

Edited September 1, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[DasValdez]

4 hours ago, Zenteck said:

Essentially, I find scaling mods to be like a NG+ mode. They allowed me to get far more longevity out of KSP than I otherwise would have, and I hope Star Theory will consider this as a feature to include.

Pssst.

What if going to other star systems was NG+? Kerbol system is the same, and more advanced players travel to more advanced (massive scale/tilted/ringed/binary/whatever) star systems...

They did show us massive, realtime changes to the stock planet system using scripts... literally, run a line of script and Kerbin gets bigger/inclined/axial tilt/etc.

Hah, ok, I can sit here all night answering these questions, but I've got a flight home at 7 AM. See you nerds Monday.

Edited September 1, 2019 by DasValdez

[dvader]

The biggest thing I want is a Wind Tunnel. Something you can switch to quickly, with no loading time to check the lift, drag etc at various speeds, atmospheric densities etc.

Once you've sent a probe with a barometer to lets say Eve, you should get the option to simulate the behaviour at altitude X. Even better, it could run an automated test sequence with the pressure changing from alt X to Y at Eve and watch how it behaves. It should be possible to change the angle to the airstream, watch the applied torque, get numeric force readouts etc (to compare with the engines thrust). It would be nice if I could test a craft before sending it on a 15 year mission.

It bothers me a bit that the only way to test a craft in another atmosphere is to use HyperEdit. That's not how NASA does it.

Other and more important requirements are:

1. Linux support
2. Faster load times (especially VAB->Launchpad)

KSP is my favorite game of all time. Making it better will be hard but I appreciate that they are trying

 

EDIT: Oh, and better time warp is a must. The time warp factor should change by the same factor every time, like 5x  (I like 7x with BetterTimeWarp). I have lost many transfers and ships by accidentally pressing the warp button one too many times and going from 100x -> 1000x (factor 10x) while the previous increase was just from 50x-100x (factor 2x). Also, built in PreciseNode so you can press the numeric keypad keys to change the burn just a bit. BetterTimeWarp and PreciseNode make the game much more pleasant. And better career mode...

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by dvader
Remembered PreciseNode and BetterTimeWarp

[SolarAdmiral]

5 hours ago, dvader said:

The biggest thing I want is a Wind Tunnel. Something you can switch to quickly, with no loading time to check the lift, drag etc at various speeds, atmospheric densities etc.

Holy crap. A wind tunnel for testing would be the greatest thing ever! I never thought of that. Fantastic idea.

 

Somebody make sure Star Theory hears this. I would love to be able to see what speed and lift my whiplash can hit at 10,000 m without flying all the way there every time I make a minor revision to a spaceplane.

[linuxgurugamer]

7 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Holy crap. A wind tunnel for testing would be the greatest thing ever! I never thought of that. Fantastic idea.

 

Somebody make sure Star Theory hears this. I would love to be able to see what speed and lift my whiplash can hit at 10,000 m without flying all the way there every time I make a minor revision to a spaceplane.

There is a mod for this already.  It would be nice, but if it happens, it will probably be a modder who does it

[KerikBalm]

On 8/31/2019 at 4:51 PM, Master39 said:

To be honest it just reduces part count from the usual Vector - Rhino asparagus contraptions

Not at all true. The tyranny of the rocket equation prevents it.

A metastable H engine is going to be able to have a lit more dV and payload fraction than a vector/rhino design. Reusable single stage vs asparagus staging is very different for gameplay too.

Not to mention there are forum challenges for rockets with the most dV, and just adding on stages has diminishing returns. No way will a 1000 Isp (perhaps higher, up to 1700s if its using tech to get around the temperature limit, which based on some interviews from pax west, it will) engine have its role filled by a rhino or vector

[Guest]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Not to mention there are forum challenges for rockets with the most dV, and just adding on stages has diminishing returns. No way will a 1000 Isp (perhaps higher, up to 1700s if its using tech to get around the temperature limit, which based on some interviews from pax west, it will) engine have its role filled by a rhino or vector

I can have doubts on their science knowledge but being game designers I totally trust them on the actual gameplay balance.

[Goody1981]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet (forgive me if it has)... but has there been any talk of a craft simulator? Somewhere you can test designs under a range of conditions without alt-F12-ing yourself to the actual planet and ruining the surprise/delight of seeing it for the first time.

Edit: I see the wind-tunnel post (top idea!)... but would like to extend it to simulate landing/roving on a body. Or an atmospheric entry.

Edit2: I’m imagining in the simulator the planets would be a featureless, perfectly smooth sphere, and obvious that you’re in the matrix (ie it looks like a computer program, not the planet you’re simulating). The only things that change are the gravitational conditions and the atmosphere/pressure. So it’s simulating info you already have about the planet (maybe you have to do a flyby and scan first before you get the option to simulate!! That’d be cool) without ruining the discovery of being there. And simulation time costs money! Oh man... so many good mechanics to build in here

Edited September 1, 2019 by Goody1981

[Leopard]

One thing I'd quite like to see, as an option, is the option to randomise certain in game parameters - basically make it so when you start a new game it can be slightly different to the last one - e.g. if say planning a flight to Duna and you want to use aerobraking, you will need to find, by experimentation, where the atmosphere ends and what the optimum altitudes are.

perhaps the science returns vary a bit, perhaps the orbits of a few planets and moons change a bit, not vastly, but tweaked a bit

engine performance varies slightly, maybe a range of parameters and the ability to 'fix' or 'vary' them.

in effect a way to make exploration matter, you are learning stuff you can't just look up, but if that doesn't appeal a way to switch it all off

[dvader]

8 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

There is a mod for this already.  It would be nice, but if it happens, it will probably be a modder who does it

Do you mean this one:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/177302-17x-kerbal-wind-tunnel-121/?

It looks interesting but I haven't tried it yet so I don't know if it does what I want.

Besides charts, I would like to see the actual drag and lift vectors coming off the various parts (or see the turbulence like in a real wind tunnel). It often helps to see which exact part is causing issues. I've had antennas cause too much drag and make the rockets flip over. I've also seen drag vectors coming from inside fairings which is something I would never figure out if I couldn't actually see it. Right now, I'd love to have a wind tunnel to test some weird things I've seen while flying a space plane with a Kerbal on a ladder. I "think" there is unexpected behaviour but I'm not sure since my flights are not consistent enough to be directly comparable.

@Goody1981 A rover simulator would be nice too. You can simulate lower gravity in real life using strings and weights so it is not too far fetched.

[Klapaucius]

They've alluded to more stuff to find underwater. So, while I think it is too much to hope for (at least initially) for more underwater parts, I would like to see underwater (and surface water) propulsion get a makeover.  

 

Right now, the best way to efficiently travel underwater is with air-breathing jets.  This stretches credulity.  It would be nice to see the one or more of the following:

 

Proper marine props that can be attached to electric motors.

Proper water jets  (can be air-breathing for surface craft)

for example:  

 

 

And just general physics improvements that make water (or whatever liquid a planet happens to have) interaction more realistic (within reason).  

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Kerbinchaser]

On 8/20/2019 at 4:02 AM, cyberKerb said:

I'd love to have less 'hard line' biome boundaries and more of a gradual change from one area to another.

I didn't realize until now how much I've wanted that. 

[Mikenike]

On 8/19/2019 at 2:25 PM, Kaerbanogue said:

Functional IVAs, life support, more planes parts, recoloring parts, and I wish there wont be a kraken 2 feature

Hey, my major wish list!

And how about Star Theory listening to Console players as well as PC. More parts, more plane parts especially! Actual base parts. Nuke engines, and more, larger SRBs. Pre done STS, and Ares. Breaking ground parts. A LES tower that is detatched by itself in space, a heat shield ( has to cover the module,, kinda like the saturn 5 heat shield) that is on the LES tower and also is detatched with the LES tower. Prop engines at the start, as well as rotors.

14 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

They've alluded to more stuff to find underwater. So, while I think it is too much to hope for (at least initially) for more underwater parts, I would like to see underwater (and surface water) propulsion get a makeover.  

 

Right now, the best way to efficiently travel underwater is with air-breathing jets.  This stretches credulity.  It would be nice to see the one or more of the following:

 

Proper marine props that can be attached to electric motors.

Proper water jets  (can be air-breathing for surface craft)

for example:  

 

 

And just general physics improvements that make water (or whatever liquid a planet happens to have) interaction more realistic (within reason).  

 

Another thing they need!!!!!!

Clouds!!!!!!!!!

[gorebello]

Although I played KSP for some 2~3 years I never managed to recover a manned mission to mars. Delta V maps seems to be always off, I find it impossible to build something that works. I know other people can, but how the heck they do it? This needs to be tought by the game, cuz clearly internet doesn't do it right. I think that a way to do this is by having an optional better automated system for burns, orbits transfers and even gravity assists.

It liquided me off the ammount of mods I had to use to make the game playable. It always took hours to fiddle them into working. The game needs to implement mods slowly maybe.

Having a rover was previously a frustrating experience. They can be easily lost in low gravity environments and you need to drive them manually. I wish there was an auto moving option for long distances.

In  short. I want an option for things to be more antomatic. Sometimes I have more fun planning than failing to execute what I planned.

[Arugela]

That would be nice. And hint hint to anyone involved. The easiest way to teach(engineering trick) is to simply translate the information completely. That means language and math. then everyone can learn it. 95% of learning is tranlation of information and the brain trying to find it. Remove that and anyone will learn it almost instantly. But you have to completely translate it. Also if you keep examples(which is good) make sure everything is defined and give examples where needed. The mechanical point of communication is to simply get all info. Once it has it it can do whatever is needed. When you know that it simplifies everything. Correct answers by definition are just all the info. Any problems comes from a translation or lack of information. The two basic things that can cause problems for the brain to think something out. Which are technically the same thing.

Scope of the subject is also good. Shortcuted information is only useful for work efficiency. You want to understand the complete subject for the brain to utilize this fully. And remember the game works via the game mechanics. Not real world physics. Although ideally it would. So having a complete list of all is the best way to do things. This can be done in many ways. Especially in a virtual environment. Libraries are much easier to make in 3d than they are with actual books.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Arugela

[cubinator]

On 8/31/2019 at 10:01 AM, Snark said:

Quite aside from wanting to address the performance complaints of the original, they also want to enable people to build much bigger ships with much higher part counts.

So what I'm hearing is a 4x4 Rubik's Cube

[purpleivan]

On 8/31/2019 at 1:59 PM, tseitsei89 said:

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.

Don't know if I agree with that, it depends on how big you mean (100 tons, 1000?). If KSP2 allowed for example, the easy launch of large (again it depends how big... multi hundred ton launches in KSP1 are already possible) bases or stations, then it feels like they've just added a "make base/station" button.

Sending up a reasonable sized station in one launch is fine, but building things in a modular way and docking, should still play their part in making huge structures.

[Xd the great]

3 hours ago, purpleivan said:

Sending up a reasonable sized station in one launch is fine, but building things in a modular way and docking, should still play their part in making huge structures.

And lets hope the fix all that wobble.

[Bartybum]

14 hours ago, cubinator said:

So what I'm hearing is a 4x4 Rubik's Cube

How do you mean?

[cubinator]

18 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

How do you mean?

More parts = more versatility in what I can create. Potentially, that includes a more complex version of the Rubik's Cube I once created in KSP1.

[tater]

The entire science/tech/career paradigm in KSP is broken, and that gameplay issue should be of primary concern.

Sandbox is easy, it literally requires no effort at all.

Any sense of progression should have a fog of war (unknown data about other bodies that can only be determined via space travel).

The new scatter (assuming they all have collision models) is a good sign, so that landing someplace requires doing some work first to establish either a flat site, or a better vehicle that can deal with the terrain (assuming the scatter is made such that landing on it is a bad idea).

The goal of career---or goals if multiple forms of gameplay are to be a thing---is critical. Pick a desired goal, then make career to enable that. Don't just replicate the stupid tech tree bought with science idea, it's truly awful.