DasValdez KSP2 Interview Information

[GoldForest]

Spoiler

 

Here's some information from @DasValdez interview with Nate Simpson. Keep in mind I'm paraphrasing some questions and answers. For full answers watch the interview on Twitch. 

 

Quote

Q: Where is KSP 2 in terms of just new parts to a complete redesign?
A: Nate talks about upgrading the core code and programming of KSP, basically a full rebuild of KSP from the ground up and not just a new coat of paint. 

Q: What are some specific things you have done to bring KSP to modern machines?
A: Nate talks about how they've moved to more modern techniques of coding, PBR, Planetshine, etc. He mentions that there's been 10 years of technological advancement and that has been implemented. He goes on to talk about physics and how part limit has been a concern from the start. He does not want players to have a part limit. As Das put it, if a player wants to build a 5000 part craft that gives you 1 fps, you should be allowed to do it. Nate also mentioned that scalability is a huge factor in the sense that better hardware = better performance.  

They talk a little about multi-core and single-core and optimization. Nate mentions they want to optimize for a user-experience. Vas mentions that it doesn't matter how many cores the game runs on as long as the game runs and runs good. 

Q: Do you understand that SRBs have thrust-vectoring?
A: I do now! 

Q: We saw the nuclear pulse propulsion drive (Project Orion)... If I launch that over the space center, is that going to be a problem?
A: It's a huge problem. No more space center.
Q: How is it a problem? The nuclear bomb will put forces in all directions? 
A: Yes
Q: So if I have a rocket next to the bomb, that rocket will fly sideways?
A: Yes. 
Q: Is there any radiation concerns with it?
A: No comment 

They talk about metallic hydrogen and gate way tech.

Q: Metallic Hydrogen is a new resource, can I harvest it? Do I get to harvest it?
A: You don't harvest it, you synthesize it from other collected resources. 

Nate goes on to talk about how resources are a big part of the game and how colonies rely on resources synthesized or natural. 

Q: On a scale of 0 to 5, 0 being simplest resource (Ore to anything) to 5 being all out, where is KSP 2's resource system? 
A: Between 3 and 4, but the scale is highly subjective.

Q: How many resources are in the game? 
A: *Nate Shrugs with a happy grin on his face* Stay tuned (No comment as of right now)

Q: Say I want to just push a button and the rocket flies into orbit, is there any kind of autopilot or guidance computer or anything like that?
A: *Thinks a while about his answer* No comment

Q: Are trees destructible or indestructible? 
A: I don't have an answer for that.

Q: How will base building work?
A: No comment, but we do want base building to be an augmentation and not a chore. We see people loving building bases just as much as other people love building rovers. .

Q: We've seen the interstellar ship being deployed from the space station. How will I build that ship? Do I use the VAB and it just appears or what?
A: There's going to be 2 new VABs, Colonial VAB which is the building you see under the launch pad, and an orbital VAB that has yet to be named due to the fact that it's not a building your building in, it's space. Both VABs work like the one at KSC. The Orbital VAB has no constraints on size. Nate mentions that you don't want to light up engines anywhere near your base (At least that's what I hear, can't quite make out what he says)

Take aways (Opinions): 

Radiation concerns: I don't know how I feel about having to deal with fallout. This makes me think that a full fledged life support system will be in the game, which I honestly don't want. Hopefully it is an option that can be turned off. On the other hand, it would be interesting to accidently nuke a colony and then find that it's uninhabitable for the next few years or you have to do decontamination somehow. 

Autopilot/automation: Sounds like mechjeb, KOS, or some other form of automation will be in game. Likewise it could just be as simple as you have the option for the rocket to just launch by itself and then it either fails or succeeds.
So like, you launch with auto-pilot and a screen pops up telling you a few stats: 
Aerodynamics: Unstable or Stable
Rocket stability(Will it fall apart): Unstable or stable
Fuel needed for Mission: Not enough, enough or plenty
Chance of success: 0% to 100%
Chance of failure: 0% to 100%
Time to mission completion: [Years] [Months] [Days] [Minutes] [Seconds]

Upon completion, you will find your payload at its destination upon mission complete, or you will at a random point receive a message telling you a random failure event has occurred. "You ran out of fuel." "A passing asteroid affected the rocket's course, sending it into the sun." "Someone at mission control hit the self destruct switch."

Orbital VAB: An unlimited spaced VAB would be nice, but I feel that there will be a limit, namely, the size of the Space Station. He does mention the truss with robotic arms which builds the ship. So Length might be limited as well as Width, but only to the degree of the space station's Truss. 

Edited September 1, 2019 by GoldForest

[TBenz]

18 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

"and an orbital VAB that has yet to be named due to the fact that it's not a building your building in, it's space."

Orbital Dry Dock. ODD. There, Star Theory, now make it happen.

 

[DasValdez]

I'm impressed people can hear that interview haha... on my Monday stream I'll release the lav audio version that should have way better sound. What people are finding is just raw off the little Sony action cam I carry.

Nate is awesome, BTW.

[Ultimate Steve]

4 minutes ago, DasValdez said:

I'm impressed people can hear that interview haha... on my Monday stream I'll release the lav audio version that should have way better sound. What people are finding is just raw off the little Sony action cam I carry.

Nate is awesome, BTW.

Did you get to see any gameplay footage? If so, how was it?

[GoldForest]

5 minutes ago, DasValdez said:

I'm impressed people can hear that interview haha... on my Monday stream I'll release the lav audio version that should have way better sound. What people are finding is just raw off the little Sony action cam I carry.

Nate is awesome, BTW.

It was really hard to make out some parts, but I persisted, also, yes, bring that term that @TBenz said to Star Theory. "Orbital Dry Dock." except maybe Space Dry Dock, since I'd imagine people will take their space stations out of orbit. XD

[DasValdez]

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

Did you get to see any gameplay footage? If so, how was it?

I do have copies of pre-alpha gameplay footage and permission to release it... will be showing it and providing commentary when I get back to the studio Monday. 

Its legit... in terms of "gameplay" it reveals the most about new parts, mechanics, UI, and visuals... 

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

It was really hard to make out some parts, but I persisted, also, yes, bring that term that @TBenz said to Star Theory. "Orbital Dry Dock." except maybe Space Dry Dock, since I'd imagine people will take their space stations out of orbit. XD

ODD is pretty good... one of my stream mods offered up the "Orbital Operations Facility" (the OOF) via Discord... but the winner so far?

Quote

 

GREAT FEATURE: the Gargantuan Remote Expedition Assembly Truss, Floating Effortlessly Above Terrain Utilizing Resources from Exoplanets

-Kujuman, via discord

 

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, DasValdez said:

I do have copies of pre-alpha gameplay footage and permission to release it... will be showing it and providing commentary when I get back to the studio Monday. 

Its legit... in terms of "gameplay" it reveals the most about new parts, mechanics, UI, and visuals... 

ODD is pretty good... one of my stream mods offered up the "Orbital Operations Facility" (the OOF) via Discord... but the winner so far?

Gather all the suggestions you can, make a poll, then the top 2 or 3 winners get suggested to Nate. 

[TBenz]

12 minutes ago, DasValdez said:

GREAT FEATURE: the Gargantuan Remote Expedition Assembly Truss, Floating Effortlessly Above Terrain Utilizing Resources from Exoplanets

That's a fantastic enough acronym that I can almost forgive it for not being exactly 3 letters long. 

[Jestersage]

So this confirm my request to use Orion drive in KSC then? (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

I can already forsee a challenge for sandbox (not that we will like it): Test out Orion Drive across KSC.

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, DasValdez said:

I'm impressed people can hear that interview haha... on my Monday stream I'll release the lav audio version that should have way better sound. What people are finding is just raw off the little Sony action cam I carry.

Nate is awesome, BTW.

I just enjoyed your conversation about using nuclear propulsion at the KSC. I can see wonderfully destructive challenges in the future.

[theJesuit]

Dry dock is too navalish.  Spacecraft are cans of spam, not sardines?

Anywho.  So VCD? Vacuum Construction Dock.  It may take an evening to complete a better one.

[DasValdez]

19 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I just enjoyed your conversation about using nuclear propulsion at the KSC. I can see wonderfully destructive challenges in the future.

Nuclear.

Pulse.

RCS.

[The Aziz]

30 minutes ago, theJesuit said:

 

Anywho.  So VCD? Vacuum Construction Dock.  It may take an evening to complete a better one.

Orbital Construction Dock

OCD

That's the one I have would have

[Jollyrodger]

5 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Orbital Construction Dock

OCD

That's the one I have would have

I thought something like this but instead OAB (Orbital Assembly Building) I know its not a building in space but I just like saying OAB.

[theJesuit]

27 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Orbital Construction Dock

OCD

That's the one I have would have

Yea, OCD is definitely the best

[nikokespprfan]

9 hours ago, DasValdez said:

ODD is pretty good... one of my stream mods offered up the "Orbital Operations Facility" (the OOF) via Discord... but the winner so far?

oof, that is a difficult choice. Both are a little odd.

 

Both already are pretty good, in all seriousness. If we don't want to say "orbital" because the thing can be outside planetary SOI's, then use off-world instead of orbital.

Edited September 1, 2019 by nikokespprfan
offworld

[DasValdez]

40 minutes ago, nikokespprfan said:

If we don't want to say "orbital" because the thing can be outside planetary SOI's, then use off-world instead of orbital.

Good point. You're always orbiting something haha.

 

[KerikBalm]

Does the KSP2 team understand that an Orion drive uses shaped charges with highly directional blasts? Based on the graphics and statements here, I have doubts.

Sure being to the side still shouldn't be good, but being behind it would be terrible. A force should go out in all directions, fine - but it should be very uneven

[DasValdez]

2 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Does the KSP2 team understand that an Orion drive uses shaped charges with highly directional blasts? Based on the graphics and statements here, I have doubts.

Sure being to the side still shouldn't be good, but being behind it would be terrible. A force should go out in all directions, fine - but it should be very uneven

The dev team might understand that... but do the Kerbals? 

[Xurkitree]

Hey look, I don't care if it irradiates KSC, I'm going to build my Orion Drive Airplane.

[ShawnPhillips]

11 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Radiation concerns: I don't know how I feel about having to deal with fallout. This makes me think that a full fledged life support system will be in the game, which I honestly don't want. Hopefully it is an option that can be turned off. On the other hand, it would be interesting to accidently nuke a colony and then find that it's uninhabitable for the next few years or you have to do decontamination somehow. 

I'd be perfectly OK with them as long as they offer a good set of difficulty options. KSP1 already has plenty of options to adjust difficulty of things like entry heat, comm-net, Plasma blackout, G-forces, etc. So I hope KSP 2 continues to offer plenty of adjustment options to fine tune each player's desired difficulty.

[pschlik]

And if there isn’t a difficulty option for something, there is almost a guarantee for a mod to do the job. Though in KSP 1 the mods usually added the extra constraints like radiation, not removed them. Guess what comes around goes around.

[Snark]

10 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Orbital Construction Dock

OCD

They should name it "Orbital Construction Dock" and then abbreviate it "ODC" everywhere.

<evil grin>

[Bosun]

17 hours ago, TBenz said:

Orbital Dry Dock. ODD. There, Star Theory, now make it happen.

 

Merchant Mariner, tall-shipper, and all round boat guy here:  

It's not a dry dock.  "Dry" implies the removal of the ship from it's operating environment.  If it is designed to operate in a vacuum, with no gravity, a 'dry dock' would mean removing the ship into a pressure-controlled chamber with artificial gravity and atmosphere.   Launching a ship into a body of water is similar to launching a rocket from a planet, into space.  Where it belongs.  

One of my BIGGEST pet peeves in space games is the use of the term 'dry dock.'  It is simply, a 'dock.'  That's all.  No 'dry.'  Also, it wouldn't be a dry dock in space.  It's already dry.  Nothing was wet to begin with.  It's an Air-dock, or Pressure-Dock.  Not a 'dry' dock.   Instead of "Yeah, I'm getting hauled out", the phrase in space-faring would be more aptly, "Yeah, I'm getting hauled in," or "My ship's in on the dock," etc.  Or maybe "My ship's chambered at the moment, another 3 weeks til launch again."  That's elegant, even.  Chambered.  Heh.

Also - shipyard would work.  Sometimes shipyards HAVE dry docks.  But not all do.  

Finally - Ships have many things that happen to them in yards and docks, and dry docks, but the only reason you would EVER go through the trouble of hauling a ship out on the dry, is for hull testing, or for work that requires holes, or patching, that cannot be accomplished with the ship in it's operating environment.  Minor welds above waterline, painting, even sometimes engine repair and removal/replacement, can allll be done while the ship's in the water.  Dry dock is always a last resort.  It's expensive, and time consuming and all around will add 3 weeks to whatever estimated time of repair you had in mind. 

Another pet peeve - I always see 'welding' happening in these 'space dry docks' everyone likes to mislabel.  You know what I don't see?  I don't often see connections for power, life-support, or water.  In a dry dock situation, you shut your generators down.  You shut ship-board power supplies down.  Shut your water-makers or reclamation down. If you HAVE to get hauled out for any reason or even go to a yard and pay for slip space while you're there, you CAPITALIZE on that time, and do any and every project you think you can, even if it might not directly need it, because you're paying to be there, and don't want to come back soon. 

Most likely, you're in yard because one of those needs maintenance, which requires you be hooked to station support while it's off line for the ship to continue functioning.  Which means cutting a hole in the side of the boat or the deck, to remove the unit and repair/replace it.  In the mean time, you run systems support lines to the ship like an IV at a hospital, so that those living aboard during the yard period have running water, heat, power, food.  You have multiple connections to the ship where entry ramps for crew, ports for stowage and dunnage, and things like trash and waste can be transferred back to the yard for disposal, and access to normally-sealed ports where maintenance and equipment can attend to business.

If any one of you folks ever designs a game that has space ports - please, please consult a real sailor about what goes on in yards and dry docks.  We'd be HAPPY to help you create a plausible, immersive ship yard in your game.  


And for the love of all that is holy - if you're making a ship for Elite Dangerous - consult someone who knows something about physics.  You will never have a ship that has no space for plumbing, coolant lines, or any other machinery space that actually runs the ship, and you would never, EVER put a guest quarters right up against a bulkhead that has a massive engine behind it, which is literally just a magic nozzle, because where is the actual engine attached to it going to go?  ::Sigh::  


To reply to the original idea:  Call the object the Orbital Assembly Module, Space Assembly Module, or Colonial Assembly Module or something similar.  I feel like 'Module' would work well with some combination of acronymmable adjectives.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Bosun

[NoMrBond]

15 hours ago, DasValdez said:

Nuclear.

Pulse.

RCS.

Are we getting the ability to assign engines to different control schema?

i.e. right-click > you respond to RCS controls now etc?