Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

[Guest]

I've never heard of this concept, and it's very silly anyway. They can't do it "in a matter of seconds" to manned craft, not to mention the pesky Newton's 3rd law would dictate they'd each need engines as powerful as the accelerator coils. You could, perhaps, set up a megastructure that would essentially be a conventional mass driver writ large, but if you have that kind of tech, you probably have other ways of getting that fast (which you'll need to use at your destination, anyway, unless you're making relativistic weapons). Besides, the devs said no FTL, not no relativistic drives.

In hard SF, you sometimes see mass drivers used to accelerate a ship they're mounted on. This we might see in KSP. We might also see electromagnetic catapults for launching things to space, for use on low-G, atmosphereless colonies, maybe some assisted launch systems for atmospheric ones. 

[GoldForest]

As the title says. I've seen a lot of talk about the engines and planet sizes and planet tilt, but I have yet to see any posts about the other parts that people want. Like, crawlers, launch towers, solar panels and more. 

So this thread is to talk about those parts. 

Please no talking about engine wants, planet wants, weapon wants, or anything like that. This is for cosmetic and support parts only. 

And just to make it clear:
Support part - A part that has functionality, but does not necessarily go with the rocket or space plane. Example, a crawler to move your rocket around or a refueling truck for your space plane. 

Support parts I would want are: 
Modular Crawlers in 5 sizes and 3 styles: 1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m, 5m, 10m. Styles: NASA crawler, Space X erector arm, and Russia's railway erector.
Modular launch towers in 5 sizes as mentioned above. 5 Styles: Mercury/Gemini, Saturn I + V, Space Shuttle, Space X's BFR concept tower and Russian Launch Tower
Modular mining equipment. Changing the size of drill bits, drill shaft lengths and drill drivers. 
Modular vehicles. Trucks, buses, etc. 

[lajoswinkler]

- sunshields (it would require addition of reflectivity in the heat model) for missions close to a star

- cryonic chamber for interstellar travel

- balloon of some kind, to support high altitude atmospheric probes (and Kerbals jumping)

- inline parachute - almost the sole reason people still cling to RealChutes

- ballast tank for underwater missions

- cables, pipes and struts Kerbals can work on during EVA

[Bartybum]

51 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Please no talking about planet wants

I WANT THERE TO BE A SPINNING NEUTRON STAR THATS 0.5 LIGHT YEARS OUT WHICH HAS A GAS GIANT ORBITING IT WITH 5 MOONS SPECIFICALLY CALLED KHADJFSO, LEDRDED, SASDAFF, URUHEFG AND GOJKAFD AND I WANT ONE TO HAVE LIFE ON IT WITH TREES AND CITIES AND KERMANS WALKING AROUND AND ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people are that specific in their wishlists, to the point of listing names. It screams a hilarious lack of awareness

Now that that's off my chest I don't care much for launch towers, or really anything else you've listed save for perhaps the mining equipment (a bit more complex mining could be nice I suppose), but I'd really like more realistic launch clamp options.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Bartybum

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, Bartybum said:

I WANT THERE TO BE A SPINNING NEUTRON STAR THATS 0.5 LIGHT YEARS OUT WHICH HAS A GAS GIANT ORBITING IT WITH 5 MOONS CALLED KHADJFSO, LEDRDED, SASDAFF, URUHEFG AND GOJKAFD AND I WANT ONE TO HAVE LIFE ON IT WITH TREES AND CITIES AND KERMANS WALKING AROUND AND ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people are that specific in their wishlists lmao. It totally baffles me.

Now that that's off my chest I don't care much for launch towers, or really anything else you've listed save for perhaps the mining equipment (a bit more complex mining could be nice I suppose), but I'd really like more realistic launch clamp options.

Because there are other threads for talking about planets, this one is not one of those. 

[Kaerbanogue]

I'd like to have inflatables sphere parts. So we could use them to make floating bases and airbags landers for light probes 

[DStaal]

Wheels.  Not the ice-skates-with-rocket-engines that the wheels in KSP1 to often reveal themselves to be, but something that works like real wheels.

[GoldForest]

Just now, DStaal said:

Wheels.  Not the ice-skates-with-rocket-engines that the wheels in KSP1 to often reveal themselves to be, but something that works like real wheels.

Not a support part but I do agree.

[Geschosskopf]

Having come to KSP from Orbiter, I was and remain appalled by the lack of in-game instrumentation for important tasks and calculations.  I really like the new-ish built-in dV/TWR calculator in KSP1 and I hope KSP2 continues that trend by adding some more.  Such as...

• Kerbal Alarm Clock.  It's the only way to have several missions going on at once.  KSP2 has even more of a need for this than KSP1.
• More detailed display of orbital parameters, especially higher resolution for orbital period, to better sync up satellites.
• Something like @NavyFish's Docking Port Alignment Indicator
• Some sort of ILS to make landing on a specific spot a lot easier.  Don't want to land on the colony's greenhouse instead of the pad.
• And the #1 thing.... MAKE THE MANEUVER NODE NAVBALL MARKER DRAW ON TOP OF THE DIRECTION MARKERS  

Hell, I wouldn't even mind some MJ-type automation being stock.  After all, real spacecraft fly either totally auto or mostly auto with human backup if needed.  Cars are even driving themselves these days.  Plus, after your 10,000th launch/rendezvous/dock/landing, they all seem tedious.  But one of the main reasons I use automation is that the existing in-game instrumentation is so bad and makes things unrealistically bothersome.

[Gargamel]

Multiple overlapping threads have been merged. 

[The CanineCraver]

If I had one thing I could submit as a request for the game, it would be improving and furthering the anomalies aspect of the game. Allowing more variety of anomalies and scientific data to be gathered from them or some other form of reward would really make anomalies that much more special. The "Breaking Ground" expansion did something similar, but I would like anomalies to receive the same attention ground based collection receives. Potentially going so far as to include contracts offering large sums of currency to find various anomalies or tourist contracts where you take them to visit pre-discovered ones. I think this would add depth of gameplay to singleplayer as well as another facet to multiplayer space races, with the science and financial gain going to the first player to find the "moon arch" sorta' thing. Mods have somewhat attempted these things in the past, but nothing beats having an aspect of the game integrated into it by the developers and a promise to keep it maintained and updated. Also as a side note, I hope they keep obelisks, even if they have to slap their own logo on it or something like that, please keep them, or at least randomly located anomalies of some sort.

[CyclonicTuna]

I really hope we'll get to see interiors that are more than just a point-of-view from a static camera on the inside. I hope we''ll get the ability to pilot rockets better from the IVA and that maybe we'll be able to float around inside the cabin. That would be cool.

[JMBuilder]

Looooonnnnng-time veteran of KSP here. Been begging for stock airship parts for the entirety of the 7 years I've been playing.

Will KSP2 finally satisfy my craving for giant floating bases and carriers?

[nikokespprfan]

Now that would be cool.

 

 

[jpinard]

For myself, and maybe many others (maybe not) - the single thing that ruins the game experience and immersion most, is the performance of the game.  The further you get into your career the more laborious it becomes to do stuff.  I desperately hope the developer make this their #1 priority over anything.  Yes, I would like an actual proper campaign that's not hodge podge pieces together, better graphics, more interesting textures and details on planets and moons... but for any of that to be enjoyable  - you need good performance.

 

Anyone else with me on this?

[Guest]

The biggest thing this game will bring is a rewritten code done with modern technology by professionals in the industry, I love this game but my dream all these years was always to see some bigger and better funded studio to pick up the idea and do a better game out of it, now we're getting that without even having the ip to change.

 

[JoaquinJAR]

Yes, i know that this is a rocket game, but airplane parts in a rocket game = spaceplanes, so, new parts?

if we do get new Airplane parts i would like:

1. A bunch more cockpits
2. More fuselage sizes
3. More wing pieces
4. MORE ENGINES!
   5.everything but twice.

also, complete cockpits (even if we dont get airplane parts)
 

 

[Francois424]

To quote my post from another thread :
 

Quote

I Sincerely hope so.  Assuming KSP2 has everything KSP1 with more glued to it, if the performance is there then I won't look back.
If KSP2 is missing a lot of stuff from KSP1 (Science tree, sandbox/science/career games, Antennas and telemetry, Kerbal skilling-up, etc) then not sure I would splurge 60$ on it.  TBF I probably would, but not clock that many hours into it.
But the performance alone is a HUGE selling point to me.  I just hope it improves on KSP1 and not "Streamline" it for 25IQ console players (like they did at first for the X-Com remake a few years back).

Agreed.  Hopefully we get that insane improvement...  But not at the cost of everything that makes the original fun to play.
Everytime someone remakes something nowadays it's a major point of failure in the new games.
* Fingers Crossed *

[Francois424]

A large cigar-shaped balloon
A pair of small size propellers or three
A few solar panels or a big RTG...

All the necessary ingredients of an AWESOME science-gathering contraption on Eve/Laythe/Kerbin/Jool and hopefully a few others.
There was a mod very long ago that allowed to do this, but I never installed it.
I hope KSP2 will have these things that we could research.

 

[Guest]

Honestly I hope for procedural tanks and wings, even as late-game unlockables

[jpinard]

10 minutes ago, Francois424 said:

To quote my post from another thread :
 

Agreed.  Hopefully we get that insane improvement...  But not at the cost of everything that makes the original fun to play.
Everytime someone remakes something nowadays it's a major point of failure in the new games.
* Fingers Crossed *

Absolutely.

[Francois424]

Electric and LF/LFO propellers please.
The game is about exploration and these parts make exploring atmospheric worlds an immersive and fun experience (Well until you get tired of moving at 50-100 m/s and bail it to land with a refueling lander who does parabolic jumps to biomes).
To link this with the other thread, balloon/blimp parts would be interesting too.

5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Honestly I hope for procedural tanks and wings, even as late-game unlockables

Will KSP2 even have procedural parts?  I hope so but haven't heard anything about it.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Francois424 said:

Will KSP2 even have procedural parts? 

They said nothing about them, but they would be a good feature to keep as a surprise

Edited August 25, 2019 by Guest

[cubinator]

8 hours ago, Kaerbanogue said:

I'd like to have inflatables sphere parts. So we could use them to make floating bases and airbags landers for light probes 

Considering Spirit and Opportunity were some of the most Kerbal landings ever, I agree.

[jpinard]

As my initial post just got a downvote:  Remember - content can always be added.  But underlying code and performance is not something you can "add" post release.  You can tweak things a bit, but you're stuck after years of development.  Obviously, some people have a fundamental unappreciation of how game development occurs.  Imagine if the new game had worse performance than this one.  No one would want to play much because enduring that kind of horrid frame rate and jerkiness would suck life out of the game, no matter how much content it had.

Edited August 25, 2019 by jpinard