KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[Rutabaga22]

2 minutes ago, Superluminal Gremlin said:

How many more stock parts do you reckon we will have on the very first early access release? The same? more? less?

I think we will have some of the new near future stuff, like the MSEVs we've seen and the new engines, pods, etc.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Superluminal Gremlin said:

2. How many more stock parts do you reckon we will have on the very first early access release? The same? more? less?

Less. Procedural wings eliminate a lot, as does not having any science parts in the first release. The smart interstage fairings also likely eliminates a few parts as well.

[t_v]

10 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

The smart interstage fairings also likely eliminates a few parts as well.

Wait, are these just fairings or do they have fuel in them?

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, t_v said:

Wait, are these just fairings or do they have fuel in them?

By smart interstage I assume no, KSP 2  probably have tapering fuel tanks but smart interstage sound a lot of how we use fairings as interstage now, combined with how engine plates works. 
So no need for linking upper and lower stage by an central engine or part. 

[Strawberry]

I think the early access will contain a lot of the newer engines? Maybe not the late game stuff like torchships, however stuff like plasma engines and non saltwater nuclear engines seem like fair game for day one. These will definitely up the part count, but considering that I think they will simplify the structural units a lot as well (I remember hearing that procedural truss's were a thing), it will probably be less. 

[Superluminal Gremlin]

If you follow the link the KSP 2 banner has on the main page of the forums, one of the photos showing a rocket in the VAB shows 2 new command pods...

 

Also the parachute in that photo on the rocket?

ugghhhh ima need restock for that...

 

Also, we can see new fuel parts, new engines, radiators and other unknown objects.

 

(This photo was taken from VAB interface components by @Vl3d

Edited October 25, 2022 by Superluminal Gremlin

[GoldForest]

Is it just me? Or does Faith of the Heart fit KSP 2's situation very well?

 

[The Aziz]

I believe that a lot of not-colony-resourcy-interstellary-offworldly tech we've seen in the last video is making its way to the game on day 1. Including crazy command pods, engines etc. Full experience without niche specific parts.

[SciMan]

On 10/24/2022 at 4:27 AM, PopinFRESH said:

And as others have said, I'm not "upset" that it will now be an early access release. I'm significantly disappointed at the poor communication and the very limited scale of what has been said to be coming at the release of EA considering their prior communications. This announcement does not inspire any confidence that we will see a feature complete version of the game anytime in 2023.

So what if they're incomplete games? 3 of the 4 games I have been playing for the past year are feature incomplete.
Right now, I've spent the past year playing Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere Program, KSP, and Factorio for the most part.

Factorio is so amazingly optimized that it's coming to the Nintendo Switch despite being originally developed for PC.
And when I say "developed for PC", I guess I don't mean "gaming PC", or at least that's what my experience has been.
I'm shocked at my own experience, but as a joke I installed Factorio on a 10 year old laptop that was originally like $300 (so not a gaming laptop) and this thing is these days basically only good for being a gorified web browser, but despite that I was able to import the save of a huge and complex factory (not the biggest I've ever built, but plenty big), and the game STILL ran perfectly fine at 60FPS after turning down some of the more demanding graphics options to account for the fact that I'm working with a GPU that's integrated into the CPU, and not a dedicated GPU that has its own VRAM.

The other 3 of those games are feature incomplete (KSP, Satisfactory, and DSP).
Of those, 2 of them are very open and transparent about the fact that they're still very much in early access, in fact you can't play them (without mods) without having a little part of the GUI in the corner of the screen put a label on there saying "Early Access build: blahblahlbah" or something like that.

Spoiler: Factorio on the Nintendo Switch is a pretty big deal, in actuality!

Spoiler

In case someone in here has forgotten what a Nintendo Switch is, it's Nintendo's current "game console", but it's more a hybrid between a game console and a handheld gaming device.
It uses a CPU/GPU combination that has MUCH more in common with smartphone/tablet processors than it does with what the PS5 and Xbox X|S are using (which is more or less "current or last-gen" PC hardware in both CPU and GPU), but that's what you get when you make a device small enough to fit in a (large) pocket that still has all the things you need to play a game on-the-go.
So the Nintendo Switch is not that powerful of a game console, that's a fair thing to say. In fact, you'd be perfectly accurate to say that it's the least powerful commercially available, widely produced, and well known gaming console that is still being produced right now, and that's true no matter which version of the Nintendo Switch you are comparing against.
However it's also a fair thing to say that the hardware of the Nintendo Switch is far and away much more capable than that 10 year old "non-gaming" $300 laptop I mentioned was delivering a good Factorio experience.

So, I have high hopes that at least Factorio will run fantastically on both the Steam Deck and the Nintendo Switch (since the Steam Deck is a device that's more powerful than the Nintendo Switch, and probably also out-computes the PS4 or Xbox 1, at least with respect to the base model of those consoles).

Who knows, if KSP 2's graphics options can be turned down enough, it might be possible to eventually cram that onto the Steam Deck, however I think putting it on the Nintendo Switch is indeed a bridge too far.

 

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, SciMan said:

So what if they're incomplete games? 3 of the 4 games I have been playing for the past year are feature incomplete.
Right now, I've spent the past year playing Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere Program, KSP, and Factorio for the most part.

None of which have existing prequels, which obviously is the massive difference there. 

[SciMan]

17 hours ago, Superluminal Gremlin said:

2. How many more stock parts do you reckon we will have on the very first early access release? The same? more? less?

More parts AND less parts, at the same time. Allow me to explain, because that probably sounded like "a lawyer that is trying to have their cake and eat it too by giving a non-answer to a legitimate question", but I promise that's not what was intended. It really IS "both" more parts and (maybe) less parts at the same time.

How is this possible? Procedural parts in both the "more parts" and "less parts" answers. It depends on how you look at it.

I know this might not be how it works in ACTUAL KSP 2, but let's just say for example that it works like in KSP 1, with each part having one config file.
From that, you can easily figure out "how many parts are in the game" by counting the number of config files that are parts that are included with the game.
And because procedural parts are adjustable parts but you only need one config file to represent them, you might end up with a game that has enough parts to allow the same amount of creativity in designing your creations, but uses LESS config files (and therefore "less parts") to do so.

However, from another angle each procedural part can be said to contain many parts "inside" it because it's adjustable.
This definition is still entirely valid, but I find it less useful than the first definition because if you can just type in "nearly any number" into each of the various adjustable parameters for the part, you end up with a functionally infinite (aka "big enough that just saying infinite doesn't change the answer enough to make a difference") number of parts even if you have just a single procedural part in the game.
Of course, they'll probably put limits on just how big of a number you can put in those boxes, and might also put limits on just how small of a change you can make to each value, just so that they don't have to use 64 bit signed floating point numbers to represent the shape of a procedural part because really the difference between 0.001mm and 0.1mm being the smallest change you can make to a part won't make or break the design of any large craft, and if you really need a wing that is 100m long you can probably make it out of several 10m long sections without angering the physics engine that much. And within those limits, you can make pretty much any shape or size part you desire or have need of, suited (or not) entirely to the task at hand.

 

But if you want my opinion on if there are going to be more or less parts in the game, going by the "1 part = 1 config file defining a part, even if it's a procedural part" definition, well here it is:
Short answer:
I have no idea!
Longer answer:
There's a lot of changes coming to KSP 2, some of them add parts, some of them take away parts, but I think that overall we'll have a "more complete" list of parts, even if the overall number of different parts is smaller.

Details:
I think we'll lose a lot of parts that we currently have in KSP 1:
We've seen in the latest trailer that we're probably only going to have a limited number of different wing panel and aerodynamic control surface parts to choose from, but they'll be procedural (effectively more parts, but less "config files for parts").
We also know that we're getting procedural radiators, but I haven't seen any data that shows if the KSP 1 non-procedural, sun-tracking (orients to edge-on to the sun), deployable radiators will still be in the game, or if those too will indeed become procedural.
I'm pretty certain that we'll also be getting procedural fixed solar panels, because well that's just low-hanging fruit if you already have a framework for making procedural flat parts like wings and radiators, but again we might also be getting solar panel parts that are procedural in more ways, like being able to choose if they can be deployed, retracted, track the sun, or have a cover to shield them from aerodynamic forces while retracted (likely only a few different kinds of solar panels in any case, with procedural options filling out the areas "in-between" the default options).
We do also know that we're going to be getting fuel tanks that are 7.5m or larger, which would be new parts even if they're procedural in length.
IIRC (but I forget where I saw it), we're going to be losing some parts that are dedicated to having only a single resource in them, because now we'll be able to choose the contents of fuel tanks when in the VAB (and maybe after, but that's something a mod will take care of if it's not in the vanilla game on day 1 or "eventually"). So the "liquid fuel" and "Rocket fuel" fuselages for 1.25m, mk2, and mk3 form factors will be unified into one line of "generic fuel tanks" that will have options to set what's actually in them. This might also get rid of many of the monopropellant tanks, tho I'm not sure of that.

However, I also think we'll GAIN a lot of parts.

I've seen at least a few "new-looking" crew capsule parts in the various feature videos that have been released for KSP 2, so that's more new parts.

I also think that they will be filling at least some of the gaps in KSP 1's parts offerings.
Those gaps in KSP 1's parts list include:

There's no good "booster" type engine that fits a 0.625m diameter fuel tank (the Spark is more a "mid-stage" engine, as it has "okay" ISP at both sea level and vacuum, and middling thrust, I want a BOOSTER engine that's heavier (maybe 0.375t), has higher thrust (maybe 40-50kN), as well as higher ASL ISP but lower Vacuum ISP. Such an engine might also make a good option when clustered on a 1.25m diameter low-mass booster stage that you'd otherwise have to put a full Swivel engine on.

There's only the one length of 0.625m LFO fuel tank (the Oscar-B), there should be a whole range of lengths that preserves the Oscar-B's excellent ratio of fuel amount to physical size (lengths should range from 1x Oscar-B to 8x or 16x Oscar-B, making the 0.625m diameter finally usable for tiny launch vehicles without turning into a wobbly noodle rocket).

I'd really like more RCS thruster options that use LFO instead of monopropellant, my large upper stages that dock things and then de-orbit themselves really could do with having lower part count instead of having over 12 Vernors just to get full 3-axis control in both translation and rotation.

I think that the idea of an engine that responds to the main throttle that uses Monopropellant should be expanded on, the Puff is plenty good but I'd love a version I can put on a 0.625m stack, as well as versions that have good ASL ISP, as well as lower thrust versions intended for probes (IRL plenty of satellites use "monoprop" aka Hydrazine for both RCS and main propulsion).

There is only the one Ion engine, and there is only the one NTR engine (I know that KSP 2 is adding at least one more NTR engine, thankfully).

There should be a higher efficiency option for RCS thrusters available, likely this means some form of quick-responding Electric propulsion thruster miniaturized into a series of RCS parts (both linear ports and many configurations of multi-port blocks).

Building on the 3 points above this one, I think there should be an entry-level electric propulsion option (as in you unlock it BEFORE the xenon ion engine).
This would be a Resistojet or Arcjet.
Initially, such a thruster would pass Monopropellant thru either a heating element or an electric arc in order to generate a jet of hot gas to be ejected out an exhaust nozzle.
If it wasn't already obvious, the laws of physics that dictate how rocket engines means that resistojet thrusters must have a lower vacuum ISP than Arcjet thrusters, because the propellant that is passed thru a Resistojet does not reach as high of a temperature as that passed thru an Arcjet.
One of the higher efficiency RCS thruster options I was thinking of in the point above this one is Resistojet or Arcjet RCS parts, the advantage that these would have over say a small Xenon Ion engine re-purposed as an RCS port or block would be that Arcjets and Resistojets are very versatile when it comes to what propellant they are willing to work with, so with these arcjet/resistojet RCS parts (and the associated engines which respond to the main throttle), you should eventually be able to unlock the ability to use them with other propellants instead of Monopropellant, such as Methane (aka KSP 1's Liquid Fuel), Hydrogen (good for vessels using NTR engines), Xenon (in a pinch, and this might be the way that the Kerbals discover that Xenon makes a good ion engine fuel), and even Atmospheric gases (assuming the presence of a related intake device more usually used for air-breathing engines, this last option would make it possible to build jet powered VTOL craft that don't have to carry around Monopropellant unless they also visit the vacuum of space).
Ideally (because Arcjets and Resistojets are SO versatile), you'd be able to choose which propellant to use in-flight without needing an Engineer to go EVA and actually change the plumbing, because it should be as simple as having more than one propellant supplied to the appropriate thruster or engine. Now that I'm thinking of it, provided a steady supply of electricity such RCS thrusters and engines would also make ideal propulsion for a craft that relies on ISRU, because there's gotta be SOMETHING in those rocks that you can refine and push out a rocket nozzle, right?

Speaking of ISRU, you know what a good way to push around an asteroid is? Sorry, this isn't a DART reference, instead I'm advocating for a Mass Driver part, that would take any mined resource and eject it at great speed in a very specific direction, in order to create thrust. This doesn't have to create a lot of thrust, or be particularly high specific impulse, but either or both of those things would be very welcome. It would however probably have to take a lot of power. And this would be a great way to do two things. I've already mentioned the use of a mass driver for propulsion, but there's more things you can do with this. You can throw rocks into high suborbital trajectories. If you put tiny rockets on those rocks, you can get them all the way into a stable orbit, for later collection by vessels that service an orbital station. From there, that station can make use of those raw materials, which means you can put the refinery in orbit instead of on the surface.
Just like using a mass driver for propulsion, it would take a lot of power, so it's probably best suited to use in a Colonization and Resource Gathering context, so maybe it isn't in KSP 2 on day 1. But I'd love to see it in the game.

Back to parts that KSP 1 doesn't have that I think should be in the list of parts that KSP 2 has:

There are literally zero "single-part" solutions for engines that fit a fuel tank diameter of 5m or larger, and we know we're getting at least 7.5m diameter fuel tanks (and probably larger) so that's a gap that needs filling.

There is no "low profile landing engine" similar to the Poodle but built for a main body diameter of 3.75m (or 5m and above but that stems from the above point).

There are no SRBs that have thrust vectoring that are of a diameter smaller than 2.5m (the Kickback should have it at least).
Speaking of SRBs, there are no SRBs larger than 2.5m, and there are no SRBs that are optimized for use in a vacuum by the presence of a larger exhaust nozzle to improve vacuum ISP.

Now on to the tiniest of the SRBs that are in KSP 1, the Sepratron.
We need more options for separating spent stages from our main launch stage:
A nose-cone that incorporates a Sepratron-like SRB (available in many diameters as well as perhaps Mk2 and Mk3 fuselage nose cone form factors).
A Sepratron-like SRB that mounts in-line but fires out the side to help push away the bottom of spent liquid-fueled booster stages (or creative people could use them as the final braking rockets for a lander that has parachutes for landing something on its side but doesn't quite have enough parachutes to slow down to a safe landing velocity, sort of like how the Soyuz capsule works IRL).
I'd love to see Radial and In-line decouplers that have built in sepratron-type separation SRBs, because that saves even more parts.

Most of the reason that I barely ever put the separation and ullage thrusters on my KSP launch vehicles is for one reason, and one reason only: I want to minimize the number of parts I use on the launcher, because that means I can use more parts on the payload (or just have a less laggy rocket overall).
It doesn't matter how much optimization they do, more parts will always and forever mean more lag and a lower framerate, and vice versa less parts will always and forever mean less lag and a higher framerate, assuming you have the same computer parts for both sides of that test.

A procedural airbrake would be a nice part to have, I guess it would replace the existing airbrake (or there could be more shapes of airbrake available).

It would also be nice to have Grid Fins available as a type of toggleable control surface (as in they would fold out from the craft like on the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, or alternately be able to be fixed in place (and largely ignored by the aerodynamics simulation) as they will be doing on Starship's SuperHeavy booster stage).

Also would be nice to have Starship type control surfaces available, that way we could make craft that do a similar "belly flop and flip" type EDL sequence.

Oh yeah and if I can ask for the moon and have a chance of getting it, a type of "landing gear" that I'd love to see is Airbags (complete with the bouncy-castle in a breeze like "bounding over the surface of the planet or moon" type final part of the EDL sequence, like what happened with Spirit and Opportunity, and Sojourner before that).

[MrFancyPL]

On 10/24/2022 at 6:38 AM, Serenity said:

Everytime they add a major feature there will have to be a cycle of optimizing it and then breaking it again until the completion of the next feature.

Ehh, where I know it form? (I played Escape From Tarkov)

[regex]

16 hours ago, Superluminal Gremlin said:

:ugh: that picture really doesn't bode well for procedural fuel tanks. Having to resort to mods to build a quality R-7-alike gives me a sadness.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

One thing that I’m hoping to see is more crewed parts.  I’m one of those guys who likes to give his Kerbals living space on missions beyond Minmus or longer term missions like stations and bases. I like to have at least two seats per Kerbal, and the lack of command modules and Hitchhiker cans in the larger part sizes makes me sad.  The shuttle parts are just too… spaceplane-specific.

[adsii1970]

On 10/24/2022 at 2:08 PM, TheSaint said:

They probably would have been better off not announcing the sequel at all until release day. At least from a mental health perspective.

Then the speculation of what KSP2 would have in it (and the KSP franchise is dead) would be even worse!

20 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

One thing that I’m hoping to see is more crewed parts.

I agree - berthing quarters, mess halls, hangar decks, the like. If we are going to have near future propulsion systems (which also border on science fiction on some levels), then I'd like some parts to create near future craft that have more capabilities.

[KSPLuster]

41 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

One thing that I’m hoping to see is more crewed parts.  I’m one of those guys who likes to give his Kerbals living space on missions beyond Minmus or longer term missions like stations and bases. I like to have at least two seats per Kerbal, and the lack of command modules and Hitchhiker cans in the larger part sizes makes me sad.  The shuttle parts are just too… spaceplane-specific.

[Scarecrow71]

6 minutes ago, KSPLuster said:

Well, looks like it will be time to learn how to mod parts I guess. 

[SSTO Crasher]

Remember the hitchhiker module was in utility, so it makes sense that we haven’t seen it

[obney kerman]

The options for 3.75m command modules look pretty fun, it'll be good to have those for larger ships. Since we haven't seen the utility section yet, I'd guess that we're probably also getting a 3.75m equivalent to the hitchhiker, which I'm very excited to see.

Also, love the new look of the spaceplane cockpits!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Not hype... But a question: I think it was confirmed, but, do we know whether parts can be connected to more than 2 others?  Or are we still doing lots of struts? 

[Zozaf Kerman]

@KSPLuster, that photo makes it way easier to see the modules! Could you possibly make one or two for the other categories (engines, wings, etc.)?

[MechBFP]

42 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Not hype... But a question: I think it was confirmed, but, do we know whether parts can be connected to more than 2 others?  Or are we still doing lots of struts? 

No idea. This might be one of those “foundational” things the devs want feedback on during Early Access. 
I personally think wobbly rockets make some sense during early game, as the space program is just starting out and perhaps their construction abilities are less than perfect lol but there should be a tech tree upgrade that can be obtained that removes the wobble, as it simply becomes an annoyance once the novelty wanes and you start building large vehicles. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by MechBFP

[KSPLuster]

3 hours ago, Zozaf Kerman said:

@KSPLuster, that photo makes it way easier to see the modules! Could you possibly make one or two for the other categories (engines, wings, etc.)?

@Zozaf KermanUnfortuantly the rest of the images that I have aren't really enough for the rest of the categories.

Edited October 28, 2022 by KSPLuster

[t_v]

1 hour ago, KSPLuster said:

On top of these, we saw two new command modules in the latest feature video. 

[Zozaf Kerman]

16 minutes ago, KSPLuster said:

 

49 minutes ago, Zozaf Kerman said:

@KSPLuster, that photo makes it way easier to see the modules! Could you possibly make one or two for the other categories (engines, wings, etc.)?

@Zozaf KermanUNfortuantly the rest of the images that I have aren't really enough for the rest of the categories.

 

Ok, that’s fine.