New idea about other Solar Systems

[Kerminator K-100]

So I was thinking about how the devs were going to approach the problem of new solar systems. As we all know by now, new solar systems are a major  part of KSP2. It is the main reason behind the new parts and even the game. So how are the devs going to handle new solar systems? I came up with two ideas (feel free to suggest more):

1. Hand crafted planets

If you are like me, then this is the first idea you had when you heard the words "interstellar travel". But this would be insanely limiting. First the devs would have to make a sun, planet, any moons and all the other planets and extra bits. But inspiration flags and the work that they are doing to make the stock planets look amazing can't be easy. Also KSP is a game of discovery and imagination. While KSP has all the stock planets named specific names, if you have hundreds of exoplanets, you will run out of names, and the community will want different names. If a planet is hand crafted, the devs will want to make the name themselves. 

2. Randomly generated planets

After hearing about No Man Sky and all the problems with that, I noticed something:

Quote

 Players are free to perform within the entirety of a procedurally generated deterministic open world universe, which includes over 18 quintillion planets.

- Wikipedia

I immediately realized how awesome KSP2 would be if the exoplanets were procedurally generated! You could fly around to the new system, name all the planets with cool names that you came up with (this is the planet of MOAR BOOSTERS in the Jebolar system), and you would be the only person with those planets. This would also take a huge load off the developers as they could just set this up and let people play. They could put in special features like canyons and caves, and let the game engine do the rest. This would encourage you to do interstellar travel, as no one has ever set foot on that planet. With the stock planets, lots of people have landed on Eeloo, and you can just look up a picture of what it looks like. But you would be discovering new landscapes! Many modern video games do this. Minecraft is the obvious one, World of Warcraft, No Man Sky, 

 <--- Example of Procedurally generated terrain

 

So in conclusion:

Hand Crafted Planets

Pros-

• More of a Kerbolar system feel
• Greater possibility of Easter Eggs and cool terrain
• More manageable amount

Cons- 

• Amount of dev time needed
• Inspiration may flag, resulting in boring planets/names
• Less exoplanets/solar systems

Procedurally generated planets

Pros - 

• Much more exoplanets
• The ability to name them
• More terrain to explore

Cons - 

• Less of a 'homemade' feel that the stock planets have
• More CPU intensive (if you have a hundred planets)
• Less of a connect with fellow KSP2 players (its more difficult to make a post about your visit to JebBillBobVal if no-one else has that planet)

[AlamoVampire]

While that would be cool it poses a significant hurdle to support. Thats why you see like 4 support forums for ksp. Stock, modded, ps4 and xbox. But even then the base game is (unsure how different console version is) at least mostly  the same across the board. Streamlines support. Im sure there may be a way to streamline it in a variation such as your proposed idea but im not savvy enough to know what it is. 
 

I would imagine that eventually a mod for ksp2 may provide such features.  

 

184409302020

[Okhin]

The main issue with proceduraly generated planets / systems, is that there's no knowledge sharing between community member. You cannot have challenge such has "Let's build a SSTO which can go through all of the Stellar systems" because no one will have the same systems.

Same goes for multiplayer, which has been announced as being a part of KSP2. To have multiplayer, you need a shared identical and synchronized universe (and with the time warping involved it already raise a lot of issues that developer have to fix).

You can instantiate the universe when starting the game, you would say. And that is a perfectly valid point. It will though require to sync the universe each time you start the game. Sharing a game seed might be enough however, but then each player would have to generate the whole universe.

What could probably be done is driven generation. Like the developers create some part of the planets they want, and let the generation fills the blank. And then packs that as a planet and system packs, and delivers it with KSP 2. Where every player will have the same set of planets ans stars, which would allow them to discuss about their experience and discover new way to get better at stuff. Or to explodes stuff.

And there will be mods nad custom planet pack at some point, for all your planet diversity needs

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, Okhin said:

The main issue with proceduraly generated planets / systems, is that there's no knowledge sharing between community member.

This is true of randomly generated planets and systems, but not necessarily of procedurally generated ones. Procedural != Random (though each can be extended with the other)

Also, KSP1 already has several systems where things were generated procedurally and with a random seed, but are the same for all players. Mun's craters (other than the ones big enough to be biomes) are all procedurally and randomly generated. They're just always generated from the same seed so they always show up in the same place.

Regarding my thoughts on ksp2, I doubt they'll make quintillions - or even dozens - of systems using procedurally-generated worlds. (I think) They want control over the experience and (I also think) this is the right way to go.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Superfluous J

[Incarnation of Chaos]

As far as we know all the planets in KSP2 are handmade. A procedural system using templates could be implemented using mods, and would allow challenges in the form of "take specified craft to eve-like planet"

But procedural planets are beyond the scope of KSP2.

[Kerminator K-100]

15 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

As far as we know all the planets in KSP2 are handmade. A procedural system using templates could be implemented using mods, and would allow challenges in the form of "take specified craft to eve-like planet"

But procedural planets are beyond the scope of KSP2.

I have seen a few hints toward a procedurally generated system. Mainly this quote: 

Quote

All I can say about that is that it’s a big universe and it’s worth exploring. We expect that there will probably be something out there that’s worth finding.

This seems to imply that the exoplanets will be procedurally generated.

28 minutes ago, Okhin said:

Same goes for multiplayer, which has been announced as being a part of KSP2. To have multiplayer, you need a shared identical and synchronized universe (and with the time warping involved it already raise a lot of issues that developer have to fix).

To solve this problem, I would point to Minecraft. Minecraft manages to handle a multiplayer mode with procedurally generated terrain. Perhaps that is how it would work in KSP2. A server admin sets up a server and people can log onto it.

 

35 minutes ago, Okhin said:

The main issue with proceduraly generated planets / systems, is that there's no knowledge sharing between community member. You cannot have challenge such has "Let's build a SSTO which can go through all of the Stellar systems" because no one will have the same systems.

Same goes for multiplayer, which has been announced as being a part of KSP2. To have multiplayer, you need a shared identical and synchronized universe (and with the time warping involved it already raise a lot of issues that developer have to fix).

You can instantiate the universe when starting the game, you would say. And that is a perfectly valid point. It will though require to sync the universe each time you start the game. Sharing a game seed might be enough however, but then each player would have to generate the whole universe.

What could probably be done is driven generation. Like the developers create some part of the planets they want, and let the generation fills the blank. And then packs that as a planet and system packs, and delivers it with KSP 2. Where every player will have the same set of planets ans stars, which would allow them to discuss about their experience and discover new way to get better at stuff. Or to explodes stuff.

And there will be mods nad custom planet pack at some point, for all your planet diversity needs

I actually feel that this may be a better system. Although it does remove the idea of discovering new worlds that completely random terrain gives you.

40 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

While that would be cool it poses a significant hurdle to support. Thats why you see like 4 support forums for ksp. Stock, modded, ps4 and xbox. But even then the base game is (unsure how different console version is) at least mostly  the same across the board. Streamlines support. Im sure there may be a way to streamline it in a variation such as your proposed idea but im not savvy enough to know what it is. 

I really don't think that that would cause very much difficulty getting support. The number of asteroids in your game doesn't affect the time it takes to get help with KSP. 

If what you are saying is that there would be strange planets (Rask and Rusk in another system) I really don't think that would happen. They might model the planets off the stock planets, but the difficulty with it wouldn't affect people's ability to help. You could just model it on a stock planet.

[Kerminator K-100]

43 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

184409302020

Also what does the number mean at the bottom of every post you make? I've been wondering this for a while.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I have seen a few hints toward a procedurally generated system. Mainly this quote: 

This seems to imply that the exoplanets will be procedurally generated.

No it doesn't; especially since we've seen nothing but handcrafted planets in the little bit of teaser material we've seen.

And mind you "big" isn't hard to get relative to KSP1. Even if they are making everything by hand they have an entire team, and the advantage of a game built from the ground up for multiple systems.

So until we get direct confirmation, assume KSP2 isn't using procedural planets. It might have procedural elements, atmosphere or they might even be using procedural tools for the bulk of the work. But that's a far cry from the entire thing being procedural.

Just now, Kerminator1000 said:

Also what does the number mean at the bottom of every post you make? I've been wondering this for a while.

It's their own personal system for time-stamping posts. Pretty sure it was discussed in another thread.

[Kerminator K-100]

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

No it doesn't; especially since we've seen nothing but handcrafted planets in the little bit of teaser material we've seen.

And mind you "big" isn't hard to get relative to KSP1. Even if they are making everything by hand they have an entire team, and the advantage of a game built from the ground up for multiple systems.

Yes but the trailers seem to be only focusing on the Kerbolar system. They haven't said anything about interstellar travel and are keeping under wraps.

[Superfluous J]

19 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

Also what does the number mean at the bottom of every post you make? I've been wondering this for a while.

It's the time and date - likely local to @AlamoVampire, of the post.

They explained why but I still don't understand

30 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

All I can say about that is that it’s a big universe and it’s worth exploring. We expect that there will probably be something out there that’s worth finding.

I hadn't seen that quote. It changes my thoughts on it in regards to what they're doing. I'd say it's tantamount to proof that there will be (or at least at the time of the quote there was planned) a large number of procedurally generated systems in the game.

[AlamoVampire]

@Kerminator1000 im talking about the loss of continuity between say your version of KSP2 and say my version and say player xyzabc's copy of the game. Even if modeled off a stock planet, if you toss in too much player freedom of customizable stuff you lose the ability to quickly diagnose the issue. Again, I am not savvy enough in the field of programming to fully contextualize what I am going on about, but, i think, in short, too much variation can lead to a loss of clarity. 

And as @Superfluous J said, those numbers you see are in fact a time/date stamp I place in my posts. It is for my own reference down the road. Sure, for the first 24 hours of a post being up you can see when exactly it was made, but, after that, you lose that specificity, and i like to keep it around. One never knows when or if one will need that level of specificity of detail. Rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it ya know? And, yea, he is also right in that its my local time/date

 

223609302020

[Guest]

I'm very against the idea of generated planets. The main reason is that this game has high standards and in this case Quality>Quantity.

Outer planets is also not really great at making such unique destinations. The devs want to make sure each destination has it's own challenge. In which a procedurally generated galaxy just doesn't make sense. I feel like that if many planets where to just be procedurally generated there would be no compassion to visit them because there is another. It's why almost to no one goes to the asteroids in the outer kerbol system in KSP. Because they are out there, but they are no different than the ones that flyby Kerbin every now and then. What's the point of heading to destination B when destination A is nearly Identical and is nearby. It makes me feel like what's the point of very far out interstellar travel when the more nearby planets are just the same as the ones out. 

I feel like the benefits of generation are outweighed by millions when doing hand crafted. Because that's the style KSP 1 has gone with.

[mattinoz]

5 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

As far as we know all the planets in KSP2 are handmade. A procedural system using templates could be implemented using mods, and would allow challenges in the form of "take specified craft to eve-like planet"

But procedural planets are beyond the scope of KSP2.

The developers want to keep developing KSP2 for 10 years surely over that time there would come a point procedural systems. Don't think it will be soon but could be lots of fun.

It will be very interesting to see what be under the hood in term of fine level detail terrain generation and if the system allows (first by mod) scaling of the stock system so they could repeat the systems but scale them up each repeat out the spiral arm of the galaxy.

[Guest]

Most people never fully explored the Kerbolar system in 8 years, and in KSP1 you could only do just that, explore them for the sake of exploration itself.

KSP2 will launch with 3 or more solar systems (I doubt they will sell an "interstellar travel" game with only 1 interstellar destination) full of new planets and a whole new set of things to do on planets other than just planting a flag and taking a screenshot. 

Even if they add a new manually crafted solar system every year it would be faster than we can explore them.

 

Also as a Elite: Dangerous player (CMDR EctoMastah, my main ship is a Diamondback Explorer) I would say that a "bazillion star system procedural galaxy" is way overrated.

[Kerminator K-100]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

bazillion star system procedural galaxy

I'm not saying it would have to be a "bazillion stars", it could just be 10 to 20 systems. The technologies we are seeing (Torchships, Daedalus engines) seem to imply many systems. If the Daedalus engine can go to another system in x years but can't maneuver around the system (because its too OP), then you may only use the engine a few times. However the presence of a lot of systems, would require the use of the engine, many times. 

8 hours ago, mattinoz said:

It will be very interesting to see what be under the hood in term of fine level detail terrain generation and if the system allows (first by mod) scaling of the stock system so they could repeat the systems but scale them up each repeat out the spiral arm of the galaxy.

They did say some things will be procedural, in this article Nate Simpson says, "These terrains have a certain amount of interacting procedural detail that I think is pretty cool" , in response to how detailed the planets will be. It also sounds like they are doing similar stuff as Parallax, with ground scatter becoming more important. 

9 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

I'm very against the idea of generated planets. The main reason is that this game has high standards and in this case Quality>Quantity.

Outer planets is also not really great at making such unique destinations. The devs want to make sure each destination has it's own challenge. In which a procedurally generated galaxy just doesn't make sense. I feel like that if many planets where to just be procedurally generated there would be no compassion to visit them because there is another. It's why almost to no one goes to the asteroids in the outer kerbol system in KSP. Because they are out there, but they are no different than the ones that flyby Kerbin every now and then. What's the point of heading to destination B when destination A is nearly Identical and is nearby. It makes me feel like what's the point of very far out interstellar travel when the more nearby planets are just the same as the ones out. 

I feel like the benefits of generation are outweighed by millions when doing hand crafted. Because that's the style KSP 1 has gone with.

But procedurally generated terrain can be amazing looking. Look at Minecraft, where the entire world is procedurally generated, yet has huge ravines, waterfalls, sweeping mountains. And this was made back around 2012. With modern technologies the devs would be able to make amazing looking planets. While handcrafted planets work for KSP1, KSP2 is supposed to have at least 2-3 (Personally I'm hoping for around 5) solar systems with at least 5-10 planets per system. That would mean 10 - 30 planets total. While I'm sure the devs could do it, I think hand crafting 15 planets would be very difficult and tiring.

10 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Kerminator1000 I'm talking about the loss of continuity between say your version of KSP2 and say my version and say player xyzabc's copy of the game. Even if modeled off a stock planet, if you toss in too much player freedom of customizable stuff you lose the ability to quickly diagnose the issue. Again, I am not savvy enough in the field of programming to fully contextualize what I am going on about, but, i think, in short, too much variation can lead to a loss of clarity. 

I see what you are getting at, but I do want to point your attention to other games that use procedurally generated terrain. Specifically Minecraft, because that does seem to be the closest type of game to KSP. When you have a problem in MC, the terrain details don't affect people helping you. If you want to model the problem in the same universe, it will be a little bit more difficult, as you would have to share the seed and the people helping you could boot up the same version. It may help if you give me an example of what type of problem you are talking about, because I feel like we are talking about different things.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I'm not saying it would have to be a "bazillion stars", it could just be 10 to 20 systems. The technologies we are seeing (Torchships, Daedalus engines) seem to imply many systems. If the Daedalus engine can go to another system in x years but can't maneuver around the system (because its too OP), then you may only use the engine a few times. However the presence of a lot of systems, would require the use of the engine, many times. 

10 or 20 are already 7 or 17 more than 90% of the players would explore.

We haven't heard anything about interstellar travel being different from interplanetary in any way or on interstellar engines having restriction on where you can use them (remember, you have to build the ship from gathered resources, refine the advanced fuel in specialized bases from other resources you've mined and then bring the fuel to the ship, this is already a pretty big constrain against casually using KSC sized engines and fuel tanks to do your average Apollo replica).

 As I said most people never fully explored the Kerbolar system and in KSP2 there will be a ton of things to do other than exploring (and to do to explore other systems) and the game is not your average NMS where space flight is basically a fancy teleportation/loading screen minigame between different Minecraft istances, I wouldn't worry about not having enough systems to explore.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Master39

[mcwaffles2003]

I'm largely of the opinion of having both systems at once, both hand crafted (local group) and procedurally generated (rest of galaxy). Something like this was attempted in the mod To Boldly Go:

Spoiler

 

It would allow for exactly the same experience for everyone within the local group and beyond people may have different experiences depending on whether there would be different seeds available

[Kerminator K-100]

57 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm largely of the opinion of having both systems at once, both hand crafted (local group) and procedurally generated (rest of galaxy). Something like this was attempted in the mod To Boldly Go:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It would allow for exactly the same experience for everyone within the local group and beyond people may have different experiences depending on whether there would be different seeds available

This is largely what I mean, The Kerbolar system would remain hand created and the exoplanets would be procedurally generated. In response to @Master39 when he said that people wouldn't visit the places, I think you may be right, I personally don't care if most people never visit every planet, I probably will, but the devs will need to worry about it. However not exploring every planet wouldn't cause people to not purchase the game and a huge diversity of planets might actually attract people to KSP2. One thing I think we frequently forget, I am guilty of this, is that we are a fringe group. Many of us will buy the game and complain about our various dislikes on the forums, but the people they need to attract are the new people. So what will most likely end up in the game is what will attract the most new customers, not what we are requesting. Of course they did say that they are paying attention to our comments, but I think the new customers will take priority over our ideas. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I'm not saying it would have to be a "bazillion stars", it could just be 10 to 20 systems. The technologies we are seeing (Torchships, Daedalus engines) seem to imply many systems. If the Daedalus engine can go to another system in x years but can't maneuver around the system (because its too OP), then you may only use the engine a few times. However the presence of a lot of systems, would require the use of the engine, many times. 

They did say some things will be procedural, in this article Nate Simpson says, "These terrains have a certain amount of interacting procedural detail that I think is pretty cool" , in response to how detailed the planets will be. It also sounds like they are doing similar stuff as Parallax, with ground scatter becoming more important. 

But procedurally generated terrain can be amazing looking. Look at Minecraft, where the entire world is procedurally generated, yet has huge ravines, waterfalls, sweeping mountains. And this was made back around 2012. With modern technologies the devs would be able to make amazing looking planets. While handcrafted planets work for KSP1, KSP2 is supposed to have at least 2-3 (Personally I'm hoping for around 5) solar systems with at least 5-10 planets per system. That would mean 10 - 30 planets total. While I'm sure the devs could do it, I think hand crafting 15 planets would be very difficult and tiring.

I see what you are getting at, but I do want to point your attention to other games that use procedurally generated terrain. Specifically Minecraft, because that does seem to be the closest type of game to KSP. When you have a problem in MC, the terrain details don't affect people helping you. If you want to model the problem in the same universe, it will be a little bit more difficult, as you would have to share the seed and the people helping you could boot up the same version. It may help if you give me an example of what type of problem you are talking about, because I feel like we are talking about different things.

KSP2 is using a single layer for terrain, so none of that is possible in KSP2. Procedural or not.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kerminator1000 said:

In response to @Master39 when he said that people wouldn't visit the places, I think you may be right, I personally don't care if most people never visit every planet, I probably will, but the devs will need to worry about it. However not exploring every planet wouldn't cause people to not purchase the game and a huge diversity of planets might actually attract people to KSP2. One thing I think we frequently forget, I am guilty of this, is that we are a fringe group. Many of us will buy the game and complain about our various dislikes on the forums, but the people they need to attract are the new people. So what will most likely end up in the game is what will attract the most new customers, not what we are requesting. Of course they did say that they are paying attention to our comments, but I think the new customers will take priority over our ideas. 

And new people will have the whole Kerbolar system to Explore, if they ever leave Kerbin's SOI. 

I'm honestly scared of how fast you all think you'll explore the new systems, I sincerely hope I'm not the only one not expecting a Elite: Dangerous kind of exploration experience.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Master39

[Kerminator K-100]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

I'm honestly scared of how fast you all think you'll explore the new systems, I sincerely hope I'm not the only one not expecting a Elite: Dangerous kind of exploration experience.

I am expecting realistic engines (This is what you meant right?) and reasonable speeds. I don't expect to reach interstellar travel for several weeks and don't expect to reach an interstellar destination for a few weeks after that (I usually try to play my game realistically, I can only time warp in Kerbin's SOI and only if I'm carrying out a mission), so I don't expect myself to be rapidly exploring. 

3 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

KSP2 is using a single layer for terrain, so none of that is possible in KSP2. Procedural or not.

How do you know that?

[mattinoz]

5 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

KSP2 is using a single layer for terrain, so none of that is possible in KSP2. Procedural or not.

At release or so hard coded in to the game it could never be any different?

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I am expecting realistic engines (This is what you meant right?) and reasonable speeds. I don't expect to reach interstellar travel for several weeks and don't expect to reach an interstellar destination for a few weeks after that (I usually try to play my game realistically, I can only time warp in Kerbin's SOI and only if I'm carrying out a mission), so I don't expect myself to be rapidly exploring. 

My expectations about interstellar travel:

1. You start by basically doing the whole KSP1 tech tree / progression (this point can be longer, shorter, easier, harder or even not being there at all and you start with all KSP1 parts already unlocked, I can see good arguments for all of those choices).
2. A whole new tech tree / progression going from KSP1 bases/stations to "the martian" style bases, then going to fixed research outposts/mining stations and then to autonomous colonies.
3. Colonies having their own per-colony progression (we already know that colony growth is linked with new discoveries and/or achievements, the so called "boom events") that leads to developing advanced features like ship launching capability and fuel refineries.
4. All of the above required to gather the needed resources to build the actual interstellar ship in orbit and to fuel/stock it for the travel (just immagine bringing in resources, refining them and then taking the resulting fuel wherever you built your interstellar ship, a full VAB worth of fuel mass)
5. the actual travel taking in-game years
6. Once at destination the ships needs to have all the needed sub-crafts to do what it's meant to do whatever it is: (this is why I think some system to put crafts into containers or kits is required)
   • Simple decade-long exploration: all exploration crafts/landers needed on the interstellar ship and double the delta-V to be able to go back (ship is now even bigger)
   • New colony settlement: the ships need all the non-immediately minable materials to build a new colony

Now immagine if some of the systems are not easily directly reachable from Kerbin because of their distance and instead require to launch mission to them from one of other systems that needs to have developed all of the above infrastructure and/or to have constant supplies from Kerbin.

 

I can't see the number of player doing that so fast and so often that they would benefit by having a procedural galaxy being so high that it's worth for the devs considering such a feature.

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I am expecting realistic engines (This is what you meant right?) and reasonable speeds. I don't expect to reach interstellar travel for several weeks and don't expect to reach an interstellar destination for a few weeks after that (I usually try to play my game realistically, I can only time warp in Kerbin's SOI and only if I'm carrying out a mission), so I don't expect myself to be rapidly exploring. 

How do you know that?

Developer interviews confirmed this wayyyy back. Also in all the teaser material the bases have been on stilts, raised on platforms, etc. So there's no underlying surface beyond the textured shell, because otherwise a true anchoring system could be developed.

4 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

At release or so hard coded in to the game it could never be any different?

They're pretty much committed to it, but hard-coded isn't how I'd describe it.

You could change it, but now every single planet in every single system must be changed alongside that change. Any part, vessel or function that references terrain now must also be updated and made aware of the new terrain layers and how to handle them, and therefore all of your previous saves are incompatible. And all previous versions, planets made for them are now incompatible. Both due to the new terrain layers not existing on those previous versions, and those references in the code not existing in those previous versions. So this as an update would be a hard break from whatever KSP2 was up to that point, basically KSP2.5.

KSP2 is being made because there was so much legacy code, outdated API cruft and other dependencies that it is easier to make a new game than bring KSP1 up to even half of what KSP2 could. This is similar; in that by the time you would even consider an update like this it would break so many things that you would seriously start looking at KSP3 as the easier option.

Now again i want to be crystal clear here; there's plenty of ways you can spice KSP2 up with procedural elements and work around the terrain system. There's also nothing preventing them from making hand-made canyons, caves, or other objects and blending them into the layer to work around this limitation partially. But a fully procedural KSP2 planet generator would be exceptionally general. Similar to the mods for KSP1 in most aspects.

This is a compromise they made intentionally, mostly because I'd think even if we went with minecraft "Chunks" that the sheer size of the planets would overflow your datatypes even if we just represented them as 4 vertices with texture panels. Oh and forget physics calculations between them, that would literally demolish any computer not owned by NASA or CERN.

[Kerminator K-100]

25 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I can't see the number of player doing that so fast and so often that they would benefit by having a procedural galaxy being so high that it's worth for the devs considering such a feature.

This is a very good point, I don't belive I considered how long the interstellar travel would take, not just in game but real time too. Maybe you are right and they only add two or three solar systems, by the time people have explored all of those, they could have updated the game and added a new system.

23 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

 

Now again i want to be crystal clear here; there's plenty of ways you can spice KSP2 up with procedural elements and work around the terrain system. There's also nothing preventing them from making hand-made canyons, caves, or other objects and blending them into the layer to work around this limitation partially. But a fully procedural KSP2 planet generator would be exceptionally general. Similar to the mods for KSP1 in most aspects.

This is a compromise they made intentionally, mostly because I'd think even if we went with minecraft "Chunks" that the sheer size of the planets would overflow your datatypes even if we just represented them as 4 vertices with texture panels. Oh and forget physics calculations between them, that would literally demolish any computer not owned by NASA or CERN.

I also never considered this. I have been using Minecraft as the example here, but Minecraft is tiny compared to KSP2, which has whole star systems. I really do hope the devs spice up the planets a bit though. KSP1 had very little in the way of planet features, besides the Mun and Dres canyons and the Tylo cave. I really think they should add more interesting terrain. If the trailer reflects gameplay at all, we might have icebergs in some of the oceans!

Edited October 1, 2020 by Kerminator1000