Large Info Dump

[Jacke]

25 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

An excellent mod indeed, but not a solution for stock players like me.

You can play KSP however you like.  I would never play KSP just stock.  Even a few mods, like the ones that give better names to screenshots and savegames, are a massive improvement.  A few mods can make KSP much much better.  But if you want to go without, that's your choice.

And if you don't want to run separate testbed and live careers, you can use the mod KRASH to add simulation inside a single career.

Quote

KerbalX (and by extension the directly related Craft Manager mod) has my undying support, but it's not a solution to the issue I describe. Aside from the obvious impact on rapid prototyping and iteration of craft designs:

• [ lots of detailed steps ]

You don't have to use KerbalX as Craft Manager can transfer craft between savegames.  Just save the craft in the testbed, then transfer the craft to the live career, then load the live career.  Or vice versa.  If your computer can handle it, you could even run 2 copies of KSP and have both the testbed and the live career quickly available at the same time (just take measures not to mix them up and always have one paused or escaped to main menu).

If it's something like an aircraft launched complete with a simple mission profile, build it based upon the parts and other constraints at the time in your career, then test fly and iterate the design for several cycles in the testbed.

If it's a complex spacecraft, there are better ways than trying to refine the whole craft over many complete iterations.  Mostly involved by breaking the craft down into modules that each perform one or more steps.

• Plan the mission in phases.
• Use delta-V subway map appropriate to the variant of KSP you're playing to add in the delta-V plus reserve needed at each phase.
• If you're hazy on a particular lander, make a rough design of the lander alone, launch it in the testbed, then either use the ingame Debug menu or a mod like Hyperedit to set it up on the start of its phase, then test fly it.
• Build the mission craft backwards, from the last phase to the whole craft in Kerbin orbit, with each increment providing the needed delta-V and other things.
• Find a way to put the complete mission craft in LKO.

You test the parts that you are uncertain of getting close enough to right.  To really refine a design, you have to fly it complete start to finish.  Then take what you learned and apply it to the next craft or a similar career.

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Jacke

[OOM]

It is very good that they removed the regime in which there was financing. Colonization of outer space is a common cause and the whole world should be engaged in this and not some kind of miserable space program. I play KSP exclusively in the sandbox, where I test various high-tech ships using Interstellar and the Atomic Rocket online magazine.

However ... however ... it is better to return the OLD interface and controls. We all got used to it.

On 5/29/2020 at 1:03 AM, Cavscout74 said:

Lovely, so they are taking away the mode I spend 90+% of my time and replacing it with something called adventure mode that sounds to me like a big step backwards - random optional contracts for no reason other than what, Steam achievements?  Or will they lock more advanced parts behind these optional contracts?

This is ridiculous

Edited May 31, 2020 by OOM

[Jacke]

20 minutes ago, OOM said:

It is very good that they removed the regime in which there was financing. Colonization of outer space is a common cause and the whole world should be engaged in this and not some kind of miserable space program.

Funding represents the limitation of obtaining and consuming resources that are part of a society towards space exploration and other space activities.

It's the first principle of economics: can't do everything, have to choose only some things.  Everything else in economics is figuring out the consequences of various ways of allocating resources.

[OOM]

34 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Funding represents the limitation of obtaining and consuming resources that are part of a society towards space exploration and other space activities.

It's the first principle of economics: can't do everything, have to choose only some things.  Everything else in economics is figuring out the consequences of various ways of allocating resources.

Oh god, what I just read. Everyone wants (absolutely unnecessary) financing. But no one needs more realism ... so much nagging was on the topic, where it was proposed to replace the fuel with realistic analogs (kerosene, hydrogen-methane) ... facepalm

Spoiler

 

[mcwaffles2003]

9 minutes ago, OOM said:

Oh god, what I just read. Everyone wants (absolutely unnecessary) financing. But no one needs more realism ... so much nagging was on the topic, where it was proposed to replace the fuel with realistic analogs (kerosene, hydrogen-methane) ... facepalm

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It's about gameplay mechanics. Being restricted via resources incentivizes creativity and problem solving. When you have a limited resource you tend to treat it with more care and nuance making you think of new ways to use that resource more effectively and efficiently. Also, no one is saying:

Quote

Everyone wants (absolutely unnecessary) financing

Please, point me to the person who says sandbox mode should not exist... Some of us want a game that challenges us by rigidly confining our possibilities or gives a structure. For instance, what fun is an RPG where your character starts with every ability at max level? It can be fun for a while, but personally it starts feeling cheap and boring after a while.

Edited May 31, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[OOM]

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It's about gameplay mechanics. Being restricted via resources incentivizes creativity and problem solving. When you have a limited resource you tend to treat it with more care and nuance making you think of new ways to use that resource more effectively and efficiently.

I do it for conscience. An attempt to reduce the cost of things and reuse is automatically developing. But I’m not going to waste time making money, as if I’m playing some kind of online game where it’s required to either collect in-game money for months or donate

Edited May 31, 2020 by OOM

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, OOM said:

I do it for conscience.

This is literally a non-sequitur. What is "it"?

Quote

con·science

noun

1. an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

7 minutes ago, OOM said:

An attempt to reduce the cost of things and reuse is automatically developing. 

What's the point of reducing cost in a game that doesn't have money? Actually, if there is no money, HOW can you reduce cost if those parts have no price?

7 minutes ago, OOM said:

But I’m not going to waste time making money, as if I’m playing some kind of online game where it’s required to either collect in-game money for months or donate

What? I do not understand what you are implying here... 

I don't mean to be rude but is english your native language? If not, I feel there may be a heavy language barrier.

Edited May 31, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

6 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

This is literally a non-sequitur. What is "it"?

What's the point of reducing cost in a game that doesn't have money? Actually, if there is no money, HOW can you reduce cost if those parts have no price?

What? I do not understand what you are implying here... 

I don't mean to be rude but is english your native language? If not, I feel there may be a heavy language barrier.

Perhaps what they're saying is that they want to use the minimum amount of materials for a given task; due to the fact that those materials have to be extracted, refined and then shipped to their ultimate destination all at a great cost to the surrounding environment.

But yeah; if KSP2 doesn't have an actual career mode day one I'm not buying it. And if it still doesn't a few months later? I'll buy it on a deep discount and make it myself.

[Jacke]

35 minutes ago, OOM said:

Oh god, what I just read. Everyone wants (absolutely unnecessary) financing. But no one needs more realism ... so much nagging was on the topic, where it was proposed to replace the fuel with realistic analogs (kerosene, hydrogen-methane) ... facepalm

The way you want to limit play in KSP is not the way everyone wants to play KSP.  Funding made possible careers that were not possible before.  Like @mcwaffles2003 said:

27 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It's about gameplay mechanics. Being restricted via resources incentivizes creativity and problem solving. When you have a limited resource you tend to treat it with more care and nuance making you think of new ways to use that resource more effectively and efficiently.

As well, the shear extend of funding throughout KSP makes it almost impossible to add such a feature in a mod.  If it's not put into stock KSP 2, it may not be part of it, even as a mod.

 

24 minutes ago, OOM said:

I do it for conscience. An attempt to reduce the cost of things and reuse is automatically developing. But I’m not going to waste time making money, as if I’m playing some kind of online game where it’s required to either collect in-game money for months or donate

As @mcwaffles2003 put it in other words, why are you bringing issues into KSP that have no place in it?  This is about a simple model of a space program for us to have fun playing with it.

But let's cover some simple principles.

If you don't gather and consume resources, warmth, oxygen, water, food, other things, you die.

Money is just a medium to record a rough value of exchange of resources.  It's part of the real world and many games in one form or another.

This isn't about the more complex issues and other complications.  Again, this is about a simple model of a space program for us to have fun playing with it.

Finally, reuse does not automatically make things better.  There were originally hard-shell reusable condoms.  They were replaced with disposable condoms.  For this matter in the usual use cases, disposable is better.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Jacke

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Perhaps what they're saying is that they want to use the minimum amount of materials for a given task; due to the fact that those materials have to be extracted, refined and then shipped to their ultimate destination all at a great cost to the surrounding environment.

But yeah; if KSP2 doesn't have an actual career mode day one I'm not buying it. And if it still doesn't a few months later? I'll buy it on a deep discount and make it myself.

I feel you a bit, I'd probably still buy it. The mods who made RP-1 probably wouldn't pass up a chance to create a campaign for the game, so long as it is possible to implement. I'm not a great programmer, but I wonder if getting rid of money entirely from the game would even make it difficult to implement as a mod as it's such a basic and fundamental structure (I am speculating here).

In all honesty though, if the game was a pure sandbox that ran with great efficiency, had a large scope in space to explore, was well kept in regards to bugs/kraken attacks, and was truly a great platform for mods to be added as seamlessly as possible... Id buy it. Soley on the fact of knowing how insanely strong and lively the modding community in this game is. If Private Division won't give me a career worth playing, I know someone on these boards will.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I feel you a bit, I'd probably still buy it. The mods who made RP-1 probably wouldn't pass up a chance to create a campaign for the game, so long as it is possible to implement. I'm not a great programmer, but I wonder if getting rid of money entirely from the game would even make it difficult to implement as a mod as it's such a basic and fundamental structure (I am speculating here).

In all honesty though, if the game was a pure sandbox that ran with great efficiency, had a large scope in space to explore, was well kept in regards to bugs/kraken attacks, and was truly a great platform for mods to be added as seamlessly as possible... Id buy it. Soley on the fact of knowing how insanely strong and lively the modding community in this game is. If Private Division won't give me a career worth playing, I know someone on these boards will.

Nah it wouldn't so long as the tools are there to implement new systems like KSP1 has allowed; you could use a pretty simple range of datatypes to represent money.

Hardest part would actually just be plumbing it all into parts, launch costs, etc. And making sure that it worked as intended reliably, but it's nothing that's actually too hard.

And yeah I'm sure mods would do it, but I'm patient anyway so waiting doesn't actually put me off too much.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Nah it wouldn't so long as the tools are there to implement new systems like KSP1 has allowed; you could use a pretty simple range of datatypes to represent money.

Hardest part would actually just be plumbing it all into parts, launch costs, etc. And making sure that it worked as intended reliably, but it's nothing that's actually too hard.

And yeah I'm sure mods would do it, but I'm patient anyway so waiting doesn't actually put me off too much.

IDK, would missions in RP-1 have been possible if there was never a contract system to overwrite? Any part mod that a user had would have to be explicitly supported to balance part costs and if there is no baseline everyone independently setting up their own standard would become a great mess.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

IDK, would missions in RP-1 have been possible if there was never a contract system to overwrite? Any part mod that a user had would have to be explicitly supported to balance part costs and if there is no baseline everyone independently setting up their own standard would become a great mess.

You could've created one from scratch, so yeah.

And the last part is just how modding works in the early days until everyone converges on a single standard.

[Gotmachine]

I agree with @mcwaffles2003
Such core systems are very hard to implement through mods, first because that mean hooking in a lot of places, and consequently because of inter-mod compatibility issues.
While it's sometimes possible to extend the existing code, doing such deep modifications often require replacing the existing code.
And even on the conceptual level, if you extend or alter the fundamental gameplay mechanics (ex : by introducing a funds system in a game that is designed to work without), you're almost certainly breaking the core assumptions that every other mod is built on.
Which mean specific compatibility for each mod, which mean a never ending source of bugs, limitations and balance issues.

I don't buy the "eventually, everyone converges on a single standard." argument. I've seen quite a lot of modding scenes, this absolutely NEVER happen.
It can happen for modding tools (think ModuleManager or ContractConfigurator), but not for actual game altering core features.
That's what such mods are usually in the "total conversion" class, which mean they are a closed ecosystem, independent from the base game and it's mods. Think RO/RP-1 for example.

Edit : And also, side note : people seem very confident that KSP 2 will be the holy grail of modding.
I certainly think they will implement a nice system for config modding (something like MM), perhaps even some sort of light scripting features.
They will probably give us out of the box planet modding trough configs (something like Kopernicus)

As for plugin developmement, I am quite skeptical. KSP 1 is one of the easiest game to mod, ever.
The combination of it being an Unity game (which are intrinsically highly moddable because of C#), of the few hooks implemented by Squad, and of the relative simplicity of overall implementation make it quite an easy game to plug into. There is certainly some awkwardness here and there because of the uneven and complex dev history, but nothing too bad.
But KSP2 will be a multiplayer game. Now, it all depend on how that multiplayer aspect is implemented, but if it is a real full client-server stack, this introduce quite a bit of complexity, especially regarding the implementation of complex core systems trough modding, like for example a funds system.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Gotmachine

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Gotmachine said:

I agree with @mcwaffles2003
Such core systems are very hard to implement through mods, first because that mean hooking in a lot of places, and consequently because of inter-mod compatibility issues.
While it's sometimes possible to extend the existing code, doing such deep modifications often require replacing the existing code.
And even on the conceptual level, if you extend or alter the fundamental gameplay mechanics (ex : by introducing a funds system in a game that is designed to work without), you're almost certainly breaking the core assumptions that every other mod is built on.
Which mean specific compatibility for each mod, which mean a never ending source of bugs, limitations and balance issues.

I don't buy the "eventually, everyone converges on a single standard." argument. I've seen quite a lot of modding scenes, this absolutely NEVER happen.
It can happen for modding tools (think ModuleManager or ContractConfigurator), but not for actual game altering core features.
That's what such mods are usually in the "total conversion" class, which mean they are a closed ecosystem, independent from the base game and it's mods. Think RO/RP-1 for example.

This dude built kerbalism... He's actually a modder... for a rediculously expansive and in depth mod. Just plugging that info in for context.

[Guest]

People it's not difficult, you have the transcript of the whole article.

Here is what the article has to say about contracts:

Quote

The structure will include will include specific missions, but creative directore Nate Simpson says that these will feel more "compelling" than some of the first game's missions, which would direct you to fly to a specific latitude/longitude and trigger a part on your ship. "Those felt grindy. We're going out of our way to make the mission goals for avventure mode more meaningful: real first that feel unique relative to every other goal in the game."

Simpson said that adventure mode has a lot in common with the first game's science mode, which gave you unlimited funds but made you earn science points to advance the tech tree. In KSP2 missions will still be there for players who wants them, but you can also set your own goals.

and then this:

Quote

The campaign is "explicitly designed to be non punitive" so you'll never reach a fail state where you've run out of money and have to start over.

 

I can't read anywhere that there will be no money in the game, what I'm understanding here is that they want to change the contracts to be relative to other gameplay systems and that's the right thing to do.

In KSP2 we'll have all sorts of actually useful and working bases and stations: colonies, spaceports, cities, mining operations, shipyards and so on, mission will probably reflect that and the new, bigger, scope of the game.

That's what I read from the statements in the article, less "bring this parachute on Minmus and test it while splashed down" contracts and more "Artemis City lacks water, set up a new supply line to provide it"

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, Master39 said:

People it's not difficult, you have the transcript of the whole article.

Here is what the article has to say about contracts:

and then this:

 

I can't read anywhere that there will be no money in the game, what I'm understanding here is that they want to change the contracts to be relative to other gameplay systems and that's the right thing to do.

In KSP2 we'll have all sorts of actually useful and working bases and stations: colonies, spaceports, cities, mining operations, shipyards and so on, mission will probably reflect that and the new, bigger, scope of the game.

That's what I read from the statements in the article, less "bring this parachute on Minmus and test it while splashed down" contracts and more "Artemis City lacks water, set up a new supply line to provide it"

Thank you for settling my slight panic...

[swjr-swis]

4 hours ago, Jacke said:

You can play KSP however you like.

Thank you, very generous of you.

[snip large bit of text telling me I'm playing the game wrong and really should be playing it differently, including all kinds of workarounds to make the identified issues less inconvenient]

 

4 hours ago, Jacke said:

To really refine a design, you have to fly it complete start to finish.

All that, to end up agreeing with me in the end anyway.

I've said my piece and gave my reasons, I feel no need to keep rehashing them to 'defend' them. I'm out of this exchange.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Gotmachine said:

I agree with @mcwaffles2003
Such core systems are very hard to implement through mods, first because that mean hooking in a lot of places, and consequently because of inter-mod compatibility issues.
While it's sometimes possible to extend the existing code, doing such deep modifications often require replacing the existing code.
And even on the conceptual level, if you extend or alter the fundamental gameplay mechanics (ex : by introducing a funds system in a game that is designed to work without), you're almost certainly breaking the core assumptions that every other mod is built on.
Which mean specific compatibility for each mod, which mean a never ending source of bugs, limitations and balance issues.

I don't buy the "eventually, everyone converges on a single standard." argument. I've seen quite a lot of modding scenes, this absolutely NEVER happen.
It can happen for modding tools (think ModuleManager or ContractConfigurator), but not for actual game altering core features.
That's what such mods are usually in the "total conversion" class, which mean they are a closed ecosystem, independent from the base game and it's mods. Think RO/RP-1 for example.

Edit : And also, side note : people seem very confident that KSP 2 will be the holy grail of modding.
I certainly think they will implement a nice system for config modding (something like MM), perhaps even some sort of light scripting features.
They will probably give us out of the box planet modding trough configs (something like Kopernicus)

As for plugin developmement, I am quite skeptical. KSP 1 is one of the easiest game to mod, ever.
The combination of it being an Unity game (which are intrinsically highly moddable because of C#), of the few hooks implemented by Squad, and of the relative simplicity of overall implementation make it quite an easy game to plug into. There is certainly some awkwardness here and there because of the uneven and complex dev hiistory, but nothing too bad.
But KSP2 will be a multiplayer game. Now, it all depend on how that multiplayer aspect is implemented, but if it is a real full client-server stack, this introduce quite a bit of complexity, especially regarding the implementation of complex core systems trough modding, like for example a funds system.

To be fair i don't know that much about KSP under the hood, so i didn't consider the first part.

And i did generalize a bit too much on that one to be frank, there's normally several competing ones floating around even years later. But the general point i was making was that it's going to be the wild west in the beginning no matter what.

Hmmm; while i could see that being the case I'd also say a system similar to FAR could be implemented to reduce this. Have whatever passes for MM in KSP2 automatically patch values for the cost of parts based on some formula, then have some exception handling to prevent anything weird (Once you find those cases heh) from blowing up.

And honestly; I'm downright expecting Multiplayer to be off-limits for mods until some kind of standalone server client is released. But yeah; synchronizing funds, spending and rewards across a session would be a nightmare and prone to exploits and bugs.

Not really disagreeing with you here; just providing more context to my thought process. All good points on your part though.

[mcwaffles2003]

I just noticed...

Quote

I don’t know much about astrophysics, aerodynamics, or anything else to do with rocket science, but I do know how to tell when someone is trying very hard to avoid saying the words “kerbal orgy”. New studio Intercept, which has taken the reins of KSP, is busy crafting a sequel coming next year, that include intergalactic travel, multiplayer and helpful tutorials for science-challenged players like me. Reading between the lines of my first look at Kerbal Space Program 2, the kerbals themselves are getting busy too.

MULTIPLE GALAXIES CONFIRMED?!?!

But how? If every planet and moon etc is handcrafted...?

Quote

“We’ve heard this concern many times from fans, and it’s something we wanted to address really hard early on in the design, ‘Once I’ve successfully performed a resource delivery between two distant locations, I’m not going to want to do it again’. So you establish those footholds and then let them run automatically.” Simpson says. “The thing that makes it an interesting experience, as you’re setting up all these individual resource collection operations, is the puzzle of successfully landing on and extracting the resources on every celestial body is ideally different enough that you’re having to solve a new set of physics problems with a new vehicle design. That’s even more the case with the new celestial bodies we’re bringing in on some of the other star systems”.

SCANSat confirmed?

Edited May 31, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[GluttonyReaper]

5 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

MULTIPLE GALAXIES CONFIRMED?!?!

Given they literally said they don't know much about astrophysics in the previous sentence, I think it's more likely to be a typo than a sneaky reveal of a massive feature

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, GluttonyReaper said:

Given they literally said they don't know much about astrophysics in the previous sentence, I think it's more likely to be a typo than a sneaky reveal of a massive feature

I hope not but you're probably right.... why can't people who are actually interested in the game being reported on be the interviewers? :<

[The Aziz]

37 minutes ago, GluttonyReaper said:

Given they literally said they don't know much about astrophysics in the previous sentence, I think it's more likely to be a typo than a sneaky reveal of a massive feature

Well I mean, quoting from the same fragment

45 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

New studio Intercept, which has taken the reins of KSP,

They have a lot of fact-checking to do. Of course assuming the whole thing is legit.

EDIT: cut that, I was wrong and learned something new.

https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/dev-diaries/introducing-intercept-games/

Nobody mentioned that yet anywhere, really?

Edited May 31, 2020 by The Aziz

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

People it's not difficult, you have the transcript of the whole article.

Where can I find the full transcript? The ones Ive seen are clipped. 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Where can I find the full transcript? The ones Ive seen are clipped. 

Dunno, I bought a digital copy of the magazine and read from there