Jump to content

Some more KSP2 footage


Recommended Posts

  On 8/25/2019 at 6:27 PM, Kaerbanogue said:

Hi guys there's this interview that had been released today, but it's in german... 

Any german folk to tell us if something new is said? 

https://youtu.be/ftLT_puDtxo

Expand  

Here is the german transcript stolen and edited from the subtitles

  Reveal hidden contents

and here is the english translation, edited for clarity.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited by nikokespprfan
very strong =/= very strongly broken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just found this video...it’s all of the KSP2 pre-alpha gameplay footage we have at the moment.

What do you think?

- I like the look of the Kerbals and their little animations.

-The art style is interesting - it’s somewhere between the old style and the new revamp style. Since this is pre-alpha, it may change, but it’s interesting to see.

-The explosions are much cooler than KSP1’s.

-I was hoping to see realistic expanding plumes a la RealPlume, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Of course, it’s pre-alpha so it could change, but if it doesn’t we can count on the modding community to fix it.

Overall though, there’s a lot of information that could be gleaned from this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/25/2019 at 11:55 AM, lajoswinkler said:

It's definitively early work and you can see it with the reflections and framerate getting wonky. I like the look of the engines.

What I can not forgive are two things:

  1. skybox being there all the time, even in the brightest conditions possible (Kerbol is literally shining into our faces)
  2. skybox AGAIN being that awful "London fog" with splotchy stars

It looks so cheesy and ugly. ;.; Why on earth are the developers making this same mistake again, is incomprehensible to me. They basically just repeat the trope seen in space video games.

 

Make the skybox nicer, peppered with tiny, point like sources of light, and extinguish it when it's daylight or when Kerbol is in the view. One of the things that's nice and grand about space is that unnerving void in which worlds just "hang". I'm not advocating for removal of skybox, just make it less cloudy, more starry, and make it reveal itself when the conditions are right. It's most rewarding.

AS17-134-20471.jpg

Expand  

Keep in mind that's a limit of photo cameras. The human eye can deal with much higher contrasts than cameras, both film and digital

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4:20 was weird an Kerbal in an one seat cocpit with shadows passing over him. 
to far to slow to be an helicopter rotor or similar, he is in atmosphere it looks like so it could not be an rotating habitat next to him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 6:55 PM, juanml82 said:

Keep in mind that's a limit of photo cameras. The human eye can deal with much higher contrasts than cameras, both film and digital

Expand  

But still, have you ever seen the milky way, I've never seen the milky way, and tried it at the telescope park at La Palma when I was there. And that was at night. During the day, which also happens sometimes, you'll be hard-pressed to see any stars at all. All of this, even though I know that the sky is seeded with stars of the milky way.

 

A variable skybox would still matter, even if you posit that eyes, not camera's, are seeing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 7:04 PM, magnemoe said:

4:20 was weird an Kerbal in an one seat cocpit with shadows passing over him. 
to far to slow to be an helicopter rotor or similar, he is in atmosphere it looks like so it could not be an rotating habitat next to him

Expand  

That was just Jeb doing barrel rolls. He does that whenever he gets to fly a jet. Haven't found a way to stop him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 7:11 PM, nikokespprfan said:

But still, have you ever seen the milky way, I've never seen the milky way, and tried it at the telescope park at La Palma when I was there. And that was at night. During the day, which also happens sometimes, you'll be hard-pressed to see any stars at all. All of this, even though I know that the sky is seeded with stars of the milky way.

Expand  

I've seen the Milky Way. Go out on a clear night in the countryside without much light pollution and it's quite easy to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested to hear more about what life support-ish stuff they are doing. Also, I'm quite surprised that the engine on the Munar transfer stage in the trailer is meant to be metallic hydrogen. Would a magnetic nozzle really work with metallic hydrogen? One of the metallic properties could include magnetism, I guess... And a magnetic nozzle would be a great way to somewhat counteract the whole issue of extremely hot exhaust.

Unless, of course, the Poodle and Thuds are suddenly metallic hydrogen powered. Which I don't think is the case since stock parts are supposed to retain their original balance.

fVMMRl3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 7:16 PM, Brikoleur said:

I've seen the Milky Way. Go out on a clear night in the countryside without much light pollution and it's quite easy to see.

Expand  

I envy you. I live in the netherlands, there is just too much light pollution. I realize I implied that no one ever sees the milky way, which I didn't mean. I just meant that there are plenty of reasons not to see the milky way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/24/2019 at 4:18 PM, GoldForest said:

But in all seriousness, KSP 1's unstability comes from lack of deep code fixing. The code is unstable and it's a wonder the game works as well as it does. 

KSP 2 will have hard code fixed by launch. Stability should be at least 5 times that of KSP 1's, or more. 

Expand  

Stability does not come from 10 nerds hacking on something in secret for 2 years; new code always contains bugs! Stability comes from iteratively crashing code up against the reality of users over and over until all the bugs you didn't know about are exposed and fixed. This "deep code fixing" idea is highly dubious, especially for things that already work "well enough."

We know they're using Unity. We also know they already have (access to) a successful product that already does a huge amount that they need, also using Unity. SQUAD have been improving KSP1 for years, working out kinks, solving tricky problems, and it would be utter lunacy to throw that all away and start over from scratch. Why bet the farm that you can beat the code quality of a years-long effort on your first try, when you can stand on the shoulders of giants instead?

What is more likely? They'll start with the KSP1 code, then make the changes they think are needed to deliver their design goals and vision, including backwards-compatibility-breaking changes that could not be made for KSP1:

  • They've promised multiplayer, so they will have to refactor the game into some semblance of a client-server architecture, then create network code and UI and content for that game mode.
  • They've promised interstellar travel and exotic new planetary systems with rings and double planets, so they'll have to enhance how celestial bodies are handled and make stars and planets.
  • Colonies and next gen tech will probably be mostly content-oriented; new parts plus a few new mechanics to go with them.
  • "Improved Onboarding" sounds like somebody forgot to filter the internal project-speak out of public-facing documents, no player cares about onboarding but it reveals that they also plan to spend time working on the tutorial-type content.
  • Under the hood they'll probably update any easy-to-update engine technology to stay current.

If you are interested in those features, then they're working on changes you'll like, and you should be excited. If those features require another change that you care about (it has been speculated that colonies will require improved surface friction handling, which I find quite plausible), then that's also good news for you. If you are hoping for something that's not on the announced list and has nothing to do with it, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

They will probably have performance targets of some sort, but they'll be based on what typical players are expected to do in a typical game. They're not going to assign one of the new devs to spend his or her scarce time between deadlines trying to squeeze a few more FPS out of a 2000-part megacraft so a few Youtubers can build gigantic ships and fly them comfortably (even assuming that was possible!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 7:19 PM, pschlik said:

I'm quite surprised that the engine on the Munar transfer stage in the trailer is meant to be metallic hydrogen. Would a magnetic nozzle really work with metallic hydrogen? One of the metallic properties could include magnetism, I guess... And a magnetic nozzle would be a great way to somewhat counteract the whole issue of extremely hot exhaust.

Unless, of course, the Poodle and Thuds are suddenly metallic hydrogen powered. Which I don't think is the case since stock parts are supposed to retain their original balance.

Expand  

Metallic hydrogen rockets use normal nozzles, not magnetic nozzles. The energy comes from the fact that the phase transition from metallic hydrogen to gaseous/liquid H2 releases energy. In order to deal with the heat, extra H2 is pumped into the nozzle to absorb the heat. The end result is rocket exhaust of a similar temperature as chemical rockets, except that the exhaust is H2 instead of H2O. The lighter exhaust means the ISP is approximately 9 times higher.

  On 8/26/2019 at 8:03 PM, HebaruSan said:

Stability does not come from 10 nerds hacking on something in secret for 2 years; new code always contains bugs! Stability comes from iteratively crashing code up against the reality of users over and over until all the bugs you didn't know about are exposed and fixed. This "deep code fixing" idea is highly dubious, especially for things that already work "well enough."

Expand  

Stability doesn't, but optimization can :wink:. If what you have is a huge spaghetti (which I'm pretty sure is the case with KSP), sometimes the best thing to do for better performance is to throw it all away and rewrite it from scratch. This won't necessarily make it less buggy, but it definitely can make it 1) easier to optimize, and 2) easier to update/add to, both of which are very desirable features. There are many areas where KSP doesn't work "well enough." The devs at Squad have mentioned multiple times that there were some features they could not implement because of limitations in the game engine. And the performance of KSP often leaves much to be desired as well.

EDIT: Also,

  Quote

no player cares about onboarding

Expand  

I suspect new players care quite a bit

Edited by chaos_forge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 8:34 PM, chaos_forge said:

Metallic hydrogen rockets use normal nozzles, not magnetic nozzles. The energy comes from the fact that the phase transition from metallic hydrogen to gaseous/liquid H2 releases energy. In order to deal with the heat, extra H2 is pumped into the nozzle to absorb the heat. The end result is rocket exhaust of a similar temperature as chemical rockets, except that the exhaust is H2 instead of H2O. The lighter exhaust means the ISP is approximately 9 times higher.

Expand  

That's what I figured...so what part of that Mun rocket has anything to do with metallic hydrogen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 8:39 PM, pschlik said:

That's what I figured...so what part of that Mun rocket has anything to do with metallic hydrogen?

Expand  

If I understand the interviews correctly, I believe metallic hydrogen will be a new fuel type to replace LiquidFuel and Oxidizer in chemical rockets. So the Mun lander is fueled with metallic hydrogen, but using chemical rocket engines with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  12 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

The devs at Squad have mentioned multiple times that there were some features they could not implement because of limitations in the game engine.

Expand  

And that will probably still be true of KSP2. Are those features on the announced feature list for KSP2?

  12 minutes ago, chaos_forge said:

I suspect new players care quite a bit

Expand  

It can greatly affect their experience and is definitely worth working on, but nobody looks at a game trailer or web site and makes a purchase decision based on whether "onboarding" is mentioned. Nowadays gamers take for granted that the game will teach them how to play. That's what I meant about filtering project-speak out of public-facing documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 8:03 PM, HebaruSan said:

Stability does not come from 10 nerds hacking on something in secret for 2 years; new code always contains bugs! Stability comes from iteratively crashing code up against the reality of users over and over until all the bugs you didn't know about are exposed and fixed. This "deep code fixing" idea is highly dubious, especially for things that already work "well enough."

We know they're using Unity. We also know they already have (access to) a successful product that already does a huge amount that they need, also using Unity. SQUAD have been improving KSP1 for years, working out kinks, solving tricky problems, and it would be utter lunacy to throw that all away and start over from scratch. Why bet the farm that you can beat the code quality of a years-long effort on your first try, when you can stand on the shoulders of giants instead?

What is more likely? They'll start with the KSP1 code, then make the changes they think are needed to deliver their design goals and vision, including backwards-compatibility-breaking changes that could not be made for KSP1:

  • They've promised multiplayer, so they will have to refactor the game into some semblance of a client-server architecture, then create network code and UI and content for that game mode.
  • They've promised interstellar travel and exotic new planetary systems with rings and double planets, so they'll have to enhance how celestial bodies are handled and make stars and planets.
  • Colonies and next gen tech will probably be mostly content-oriented; new parts plus a few new mechanics to go with them.
  • "Improved Onboarding" sounds like somebody forgot to filter the internal project-speak out of public-facing documents, no player cares about onboarding but it reveals that they also plan to spend time working on the tutorial-type content.
  • Under the hood they'll probably update any easy-to-update engine technology to stay current.

If you are interested in those features, then they're working on changes you'll like, and you should be excited. If those features require another change that you care about (it has been speculated that colonies will require improved surface friction handling, which I find quite plausible), then that's also good news for you. If you are hoping for something that's not on the announced list and has nothing to do with it, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

They will probably have performance targets of some sort, but they'll be based on what typical players are expected to do in a typical game. They're not going to assign one of the new devs to spend his or her scarce time between deadlines trying to squeeze a few more FPS out of a 2000-part megacraft so a few Youtubers can build gigantic ships and fly them comfortably (even assuming that was possible!).

Expand  

Yes, new code contains bugs, but new code also fixes core problems. KSP 1 CAN'T fix some of it's 0roblems because it was coded so poorly. 

It's not lunacy to want to build KSP 2 from the ground up to fix those problems. They wont copy any code from KSP 1, not in the sense you're talking about. They might borrow some code, but they will fix it and make it better. KSP 2 for all terms and purposes is new code. I would argue 90 to 95 percent is new. That's more likely. They have stated it even that they are rebuilding KSP from the ground up.

And we can get evidence of this:

You mention multiplayer, that would need a complete redesign of the code. KSP 1 needs a lot of hacks and works around for the multiplayer mod to work stably. 

Interstellar travel, again needs a complete rework on the planet system as KSP 1 can't really support new solar systems without hacks.

Improved onboarding is not just dev talk. It means making the game easier to learn.

And under the hood isnt easy to update. You basically have to start a game from scratch to update anything under the hood. Things like replacing DX9 with DX12/DX11. Using the latest unity engine, which would literally break KSP 1.

As for building giant ships, they said KSP 2 will allow for bigger ships with really better performance. 

All of what you said is not possible in KSP 1 because Squad built poor code and aren't willing to fix some of it because they dont want to brak people's games. But KSP 2 is willing to fix it and they have the knowledge and experience to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 8:43 PM, chaos_forge said:

If I understand the interviews correctly, I believe metallic hydrogen will be a new fuel type to replace LiquidFuel and Oxidizer in chemical rockets. So the Mun lander is fueled with metallic hydrogen, but using chemical rocket engines with it.

Expand  

Huh, I never thought of it as a retrofit option. That does sound far more practical than attempting to create a whole suite of new parts for new fuel types. MethalOx has been mentioned before, and I could easily see the devs getting quite tired of making chemical rocket motors over and over with only slight differences. I guess we will have to leave it to mods for the purpose-built engines.

Edited by pschlik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 1:38 PM, nikokespprfan said:

and here is the english translation, edited for clarity.

Expand  

Thanks muchos!

 

  On 8/26/2019 at 9:05 PM, pschlik said:

Huh, I never thought of it as a retrofit option. That does sound far more practical than attempting to create a whole suite of new parts for new fuel types. MethalOx has been mentioned before, and I could easily see the devs getting quite tired of making chemical rocket motors over and over with only slight differences. I guess we will have to leave it to mods for the purpose-built engines.

Expand  

I dunno if it's a retrofit to an old ship, or just a better way to make new ships.  The lander in that clip looks pretty much straight outta KSP1  So maybe what you see here is a standard lander, which wouldn't benefit from the new engine (maybe it's expendable and the new engine is expensive?), being taken to Mun by a new, reusable, highly efficient tug that's worth buying the new engine for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 9:03 PM, GoldForest said:

And we can get evidence of this:

Expand  

I hate to rain on your parade, but evidence in the form of developer quotes accompanied by a video released by said developers is not the most convincing evidence.

I agree with you that there’s a good chance that a lot of the KSP2  code will be written from scratch. Not because “KSP1 was coded so poorly” — that’s hard to judge without seeing the code. What we do know is that KSP1 has gone through various focus changes; starting as a 2D rocket launch simulator even without “space” to what it is now. There’s only so much you can stretch the original framework; I agree that it’s likely that there’s a new framework that  will support requested features (multi-play, large ships, etc). As to performance? We’ll find out when the game is released.I doubt it’s running on an Osborne 2 computer with a potato graphics card, so seeing anything that’s less than smoothin a video that showcases the best they have so far is not promising.

luckily we have about two years to argue over this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/26/2019 at 9:35 PM, Kerbart said:

I hate to rain on your parade, but evidence in the form of developer quotes accompanied by a video released by said developers is not the most convincing evidence.

I agree with you that there’s a good chance that a lot of the KSP2  code will be written from scratch. Not because “KSP1 was coded so poorly” — that’s hard to judge without seeing the code. What we do know is that KSP1 has gone through various focus changes; starting as a 2D rocket launch simulator even without “space” to what it is now. There’s only so much you can stretch the original framework; I agree that it’s likely that there’s a new framework that  will support requested features (multi-play, large ships, etc). As to performance? We’ll find out when the game is released.I doubt it’s running on an Osborne 2 computer with a potato graphics card, so seeing anything that’s less than smoothin a video that showcases the best they have so far is not promising.

luckily we have about two years to argue over this!

Expand  

The game releases in 7 months more than likely and at worst 10 months. Not 2 years. Unless you mean something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...