earlygame in ksp2

[jastrone]

so many have talked about lategame of ksp 2 and interstellar travel and colonys but not much have been said about earlygame.  this is probably an unpoppular opinion but I really hope there will be more and a longer earlygame in ksp2, i think it will really make a feel of technological improvements instead of just launching a few rockets to space and be able to go to the moon and then other planets.  and in ksp the first rockets you have are manned but in reallity the first rockets barely had control. it might be boring just siting there and waiting for the rocket to go up and just fall but what if we have airplanes that launch rockets in earlygame. in ksp1 airplanes are really uselles and take long time to drive sho why not in ksp2 have airplane launched rockets in earlygame. this would make for more realistic technological proggresion.

[linuxgurugamer]

5 minutes ago, jastrone said:

but what if we have airplanes that launch rockets in earlygame

You can do that now.

6 minutes ago, jastrone said:

in ksp1 airplanes are really uselles and take long time to drive

Ummm, let me direct your attention to @Rocketology, who spends lots of time building and flying planes/jets, etc.  Planes are not useless, sounds like you haven't explored the possibilities with planes, both on Kerbin and the other planets where there are atmospheres

[Caerfinon]

10 minutes ago, jastrone said:

in ksp1 airplanes are really uselles

Depends on your play style and interests. For me planes are one of the main reasons I play KSP

 

[Dientus]

I could see making more use of airplanes for sure. Thats something I wished were in base ksp1.  But in RL, launching rockets from airplanes just can not compare to launching from a pad. Old tech rocket guidance was pretty bad and would not be made any better by launching from an airplane, it just makes it more costly.

With that said, I would like the option to do so (such as contract). I think I can understand the "savoring" or enjoyment of lobbing explosives high in the air to figure out what works and what doesn't. It's just a fine line between playing earlygame for enjoyment and it suddenly becoming a grind.

I think options of how fast you can research technology, similar to career and science modes in ksp1, work fine for that part of it for me. Just adding more uses for planes without tedium would be a great goal.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jastrone said:

but what if we have airplanes that launch rockets in earlygame.

That would be cool. The main issue with them in KSP1 is that without some kind of stage recovery mod they get deleted as you fly the rocket to orbit, unless you design them specifically so that you have time to switch back and fly them home before that happens. It would be very nice indeed if KSP2 manages to lift this restriction. I would expect that at the very least multiplayer games will allow you to fly co-op missions to orbit where one of you is flying the rocket and the other one, the plane.

1 hour ago, jastrone said:

in ksp1 airplanes are really uselles and take long time to drive

Far from it! I love making planes and find them extremely useful, not only on Kerbin but especially Eve and Laythe, and they're a lot of fun on Duna as well. Atmospheric flight can be slow, but that could be addressed with basic autopilot features: set waypoints and fly to them, or even "hold straight and level at current airspeed." That would let you warp forward on autopilot without having to worry about physics.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Guest

[steuben]

Quote

airplanes are really [useless] and take long time to [fly]

Actually they take less time to get to their destination then stuff going to Münar orbit. Well using conventional Δv trajectories or me screwing up the transfer burn. A few hours vs about a day. As for useless, I have found them a good source of early game funds, rep, and a bit of science.

 

Quote

why not have ... airplane launched rockets in earlygame. [This] would make for more realistic technological progression.

Leaving aside game engine restrictions. IRL this technique has been a point of active discussion since the middle of the last century. (A phrasing I find mildly distressing. [Me too, ed.]) The raw technology has existed for about as long. And on a fly-by analysis it does have its merits. However, there are a few things that argue against it being in the realistic progression category.
1.a. If the bright sparks at NASA and Space-X aren't using it for regular production launches then it has drawbacks that aren't visible on a first approximation analysis.
b. The number of air launches is approximately 100 in the past 30-ish years versus 3000 for conventional rockets. 
2. The throw weight, to borrow a term from ballistic missilery, of the NG Pegasus system is about 500 kg to LEO. Conventional system range from 2000 kg to 30,000 kg. The Saturn V massed in at around 120,000 kg
3. The first launch systems were converted/test bed higher throw weight ballistic missiles.
4. Someone crunched the math. The payload benefit IRL is roughly five percent more payload per launch. Not sure what the equivalent would be for KSP but it wouldn't expect more than fifteen percent. 
 

[shdwlrd]

It seems the early game would be very similar to KSP1. Once you start getting to the middle game will things will start to demerge from what we would be use to doing.

[Rocketology]

Aircraft usage in KSP mostly boils down to play style and how well you understand the aerodynamics of planes as they are more subject to them compared to a rocket since they spend the entire flight in atmosphere.  I use planes a LOT in the early career, they are great money makers and science gatherers for survey missions. And Kerbin itself is worth exploring, lots of easter eggs to be found and vistas to see! Mid to late game, I use aircraft (and boats) for recovery operations as I tend to play the game without using the 'recover' button unless I am at a launch facility for added challenge (and grief!). I also start using space planes a lot from mid to late game for trips to LKO and back as they are simply the most cost effective way of moving cargo and Kerbals from the surface to LKO and back. I hope that KSP 2 has a similar early game as I enjoy the challenge of the early game.

One of the big pillars that KSP 2 is being built around though is interplanetary travel - so likely the game will be geared to get you there fairly quickly in whatever "career" mode the game will have just as KSP 1 career gets you to Mun almost too quickly, IMO. I hope that it's as adjustable though as KSP 1 is  in how you choose to play, rapid advancement or slow.

[Guest]

Nice boat and seaplane.

[Kernel Kraken]

10 hours ago, jastrone said:

 In KSP 1 airplanes are really useless  [snipped and grammar corrected]

I can probably count the amount of times I've left the atmosphere on less that 4 or 5 hands. I've built actual naval destroyers that fly, hypersonic airliners, micro-gunships, and other ridiculous things because it's just so much fun.  I love building in-atmosphere things, because there's a whole different set of challenges. In space, you don't need to deal with center of lift, drag reduction, air management, drastic thrust curves, heat at high speeds, and other fun tidbits.

But, honestly, I mildly agree with you. In space, you don't need to deal with that stuff, and space is where the majority of the content and science points are. Why would I want to make it harder on myself and make it slower to progress through the tech tree and make more money? You can go through an entire career mode game without using any airplane parts. There's just no real incentive other than the passenger flight contracts, and after a while, all of those are space-based too. The only reason to be in atmosphere after your first few hours is during your ascent to orbit. I hope Intercept gives us some real reasons and benefits for in-atmosphere flight so I can convert even more people from airless-craft builders to aircraft artists.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Kernel Kraken
Re-arranged first paragraph, added more points to the second. This forum is great for writing practice :)

[Jacke]

16 hours ago, Dientus said:

Old tech rocket guidance was pretty bad....

Ah, no.  Old tech rocket guidance was as good as it had to be and was excellent for many vehicles.  Lack of guidance wasn't the thing limiting use of air-launched rockets to orbit.

What really limits it, as others have said, is the small amount of performance improvement from carrying a rocket to altitude.  Needing an aircraft to carry it to altitude limits the size of the launch vehicle.  And an air-launched rocket has to handle both the loads of being carried and under thrust.  It also has to handle the transition from air-drop to engine-start to stabilize to pull-up to climb trajectory, which is complex (see how much design work is done on air-launched missiles just to handle that).  if there are any serious faults after air-drop, like starting the rocket engine/motor (liquel fuel/solid fuel), the launch vehicle and its payload will be lost as opposed to a launch scrub.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Jacke

[Dientus]

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

Ah, no.  Old tech rocket guidance was as good as it had to be and was excellent for many vehicles.  Lack of guidance wasn't the thing limiting use of air-launched rockets to orbit.

What really limits it, as others have said, is the small amount of performance improvement from carrying a rocket to altitude.  Needing an aircraft to carry it to altitude limits the size of the launch vehicle.  And an air-launched rocket has to handle both the loads of being carried and under thrust.  It also has to handle the transition from air-drop to engine-start to stabilize to pull-up to climb trajectory, which is complex (see how much design work is done on air-launched missiles just to handle that).  if there are any serious faults after air-drop, like starting the rocket engine/motor (liquel fuel/solid fuel), the launch vehicle and its payload will be lost as opposed to a launch scrub.

To elaborate, I was staying in context of early game. Old rocket guidance systems were no where near as accurate as modern systems. Using only gyroscopes, accelerometers, and sometimes analog computers, the failure rate was higher, the accuracy rate was lower, and it was known that those systems would never work for deep space.

All I meant was couple that with the fact it was more expensive when a failure did occur as well as what you stated perfectly, the gains are minimal for to great a risk. There was little to gain from early plane/rocket launches other than science.

Of course we didn't realize it at the time un til we tried it. That's why I would like to see contracts of that in early game.

[PlutoISaPlanet]

Honestly, I see the early game being realy easy for me.

[Vanamonde]

I'd like the early campaign to spend some time on sounding rockets and the like, working out the principles before putting living crew in a ship. But I can see how that isn't necessary the spirit of Kerbals, who just want to fly regardless of the risks. 

[Dr. Kerbal]

To be honest. I think airplanes parts should be earlier be Casey in history planes existed way before rockets.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

To be honest. I think airplanes parts should be earlier be Casey in history planes existed way before rockets.

No argument here, but it _is_ called Kerbal Space Program

[Guest]

Yeah, as much as I love planes I think it would be a problem to put them first. Planes are much harder than rockets, and if you jump into KSP expecting to fly to the Mun and are find yourself faceplanting on the runway instead, it's not going to be much fun. I hope atmospheric craft will have (even) more niches in KSP2 than KSP1 and they will be well supported, but they will still be a side dish.

[Dr. Kerbal]

12 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

No argument here, but it _is_ called Kerbal Space Program

I guess so.

 The way you pointed made my day shine too. Thanks!

8 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Yeah, as much as I love planes I think it would be a problem to put them first. Planes are much harder than rockets, and if you jump into KSP expecting to fly to the Mun and are find yourself faceplanting on the runway instead, it's not going to be much fun. I hope atmospheric craft will have (even) more niches in KSP2 than KSP1 and they will be well supported, but they will still be a side dish.

I ALSO HOPE KSP2 HAS FULL CONTROLLER SUPPORT. I LEARNED THE KEYBORDS ARE NICE FOR FLYING ROCKETS. CONTROLLER BETTER FOR AIRPLANE.

[Bej Kerman]

13 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Yeah, as much as I love planes I think it would be a problem to put them first. Planes are much harder than rockets, and if you jump into KSP expecting to fly to the Mun and are find yourself faceplanting on the runway instead, it's not going to be much fun. I hope atmospheric craft will have (even) more niches in KSP2 than KSP1 and they will be well supported, but they will still be a side dish.

I'm not sure anyone expects a level of challenge below succeeding every one in fifty times from KSP.

[K^2]

I think I'd use planes in early KSP a lot more if there were fewer of these, "Collect science from 17km altitude" contracts early on, when I only have access to engines that flame out at 10km. There are definitely ways to make airplanes be a part of a more natural progression of the game. Especially, if we get props as starter tech instead of after we already have turbofans. 

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I think I'd use planes in early KSP a lot more if there were fewer of these, "Collect science from 17km altitude" contracts early on, when I only have access to engines that flame out at 10km. There are definitely ways to make airplanes be a part of a more natural progression of the game. Especially, if we get props as starter tech instead of after we already have turbofans. 

Besides that, planes would be easier if there were better tutorials, which KSP 2 should come with. As well as looking outwards to interstellar travel, the team should also keep their priorities in balance and enhance the aircraft aspects of the game - including providing ingame tutorials and documentation beyond a couple KSPedia pages.

[Kernel Kraken]

4 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

I'd like the early campaign to spend some time on sounding rockets and the like, working out the principles before putting living crew in a ship. But I can see how that isn't necessary the spirit of Kerbals, who just want to fly regardless of the risks. 

I absolutely want small-scale rocketry to be more fleshed out. There isn't any reason to really use the 0.625 meter parts other than detailing/aesthetics on larger crafts, and being able to just yeet them suckers into the ocean early game (or into the VAB if you want the game to end early) sounds like a lot of fun. I can see myself using smaller-scale sounding rocket parts as missiles and things for stock space combat. I wholeheartedly support this idea.

30 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I think I'd use planes in early KSP a lot more if there were fewer of these, "Collect science from 17km altitude" contracts early on, when I only have access to engines that flame out at 10km. There are definitely ways to make airplanes be a part of a more natural progression of the game. Especially, if we get props as starter tech instead of after we already have turbofans. 

This is a huge problem I have with KSP and one of the reasons I never get past the 4th tier of the tech tree. As soon as you hit the boundary between your pale blue dot and the inky black, it's just "GO LAND ON THE MOON". Challenges ramp up way too fast and seeing stuff like that is pretty intimidating if you're new or if you just suck (like me). I think a more gradual early game is needed,  incorporating sounding rockets, prop aircraft, and less contracts telling you do do more than we have in 80 years of space exploration within 2 hours of starting your fledgeling space program. The contract people need to chill.

[K^2]

44 minutes ago, Kernel Kraken said:

As soon as you hit the boundary between your pale blue dot and the inky black, it's just "GO LAND ON THE MOON". 

And it's not just that. I mean, yeah, it's a huge challenge ramp for just the main objectives, but then the contracts are like, "Collect temperature readings at these points around the Mun," and apparently, while doing a manned landing is entirely within your tech capabilities, rover wheels aren't! So you have to come up with a lander that doesn't just have enough fuel to land on the Mun, but can do a series of precisely controlled hops!

I don't mind the challenge so much, but I kind of wish the tech actually matched the expectations. Or vice versa. Just so long as they are in sync.

[TLTay]

I'm looking forward to a more logical tech progression as well as more reason to look around the launchpad planet. Lack of graphics and reason to look around is why I never bothered much with planes or rovers.

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Kernel Kraken said:

This is a huge problem I have with KSP and one of the reasons I never get past the 4th tier of the tech tree. As soon as you hit the boundary between your pale blue dot and the inky black, it's just "GO LAND ON THE MOON". Challenges ramp up way too fast and seeing stuff like that is pretty intimidating if you're new or if you just suck (like me). I think a more gradual early game is needed,  incorporating sounding rockets, prop aircraft, and less contracts telling you do do more than we have in 80 years of space exploration within 2 hours of starting your fledgeling space program. The contract people need to chill.

The career mode in general is... lacking. I'm really glad they're completely ditching it and redesigning an "adventure mode" from scratch. I don't know if sounding rockets or prop aircraft are the solution, but the early learning curve certainly needs smoothing.

My biggest early difficulty hurdles were RV and docking. The docking tutorial in particular was just plain bad and wrong – it featured a stationary target craft that you had to dock with, whereas it's way easier to have both craft controllable so that the target craft orients its docking port towards the approaching craft. I was also doing a lot of other stuff extremely inefficiently for a really long time because nobody pointed me at better ways – for example, Minmus trips were really expensive and complicated because I was correcting inclination rather than burning for the An/Dn and encountering there. Never even mind interplanetary transfers. The "how to reach orbit" tutorial also got me doing some hilariously inefficient burns, basically going up and sideways and sometimes even down to circularise. 

Even with the relatively recent improvements like dV readouts, the game is still too opaque with information too. Landings for example are simply more enjoyable with KER's suicide burn indicator, I really don't see any reason that shouldn't be stock – if you like, associated with more advanced command pods or probe cores, but nevertheless. 

Good thing that Intercept have said that smoothing out this early learning curve is a primary objective, and they want to do it with better tutorials. Sounds about right to me. If the tutorials are bundled with missions that support them, it could work really well.