Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 3 - Next Gen Astronauts

[Sesshaku]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

If 1.25m engines and motors are considered small, than what would be considered large? 3x large? Imagine how large the structural and fuel tanks would be.

This is when we get an idea of the scale it would take to actually travel to other solar systems.

[Jack Mcslay]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

If 1.25m engines and motors are considered small, than what would be considered large? 3x large? Imagine how large the structural and fuel tanks would be.

Apparently

0.625m = X Small
1.25m = Small
1.8m = Medium
2.5m = Large
3.7m = X Large
5.0m = XX Large

And a new XXX Large size apparently, I would guess 7m

[shdwlrd]

57 minutes ago, Jack Mcslay said:

Apparently

0.625m = X Small
1.25m = Small
1.8m = Medium
2.5m = Large
3.7m = X Large
5.0m = XX Large

And a new XXX Large size apparently, I would guess 7m

It would make sense, but they have shown parts that are larger than 7m already. The interstellar ship used for the Jool shipyard is showing structural parts that are 10m in diameter and the fuel tanks are 40 to 100 meters in diameter. The fusion drive shown I'm guessing is 30-50 meters in diameter. 

My guess would be;

X Small = < 1m

Small = 1m-2m

Medium = 2m-4m

Large = 4m-10m

X Large = 10m-15m or 10m-20m

2X Large = 15m-20m or 20m-40m

3X Large = 20m and greater or 40m & greater.

 

[AtomicTech]

56 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

It would make sense, but they have shown parts that are larger than 7m already. The interstellar ship used for the Jool shipyard is showing structural parts that are 10m in diameter and the fuel tanks are 40 to 100 meters in diameter. The fusion drive shown I'm guessing is 30-50 meters in diameter. 

My guess would be;

X Small = < 1m

Small = 1m-2m

Medium = 2m-4m

Large = 4m-10m

X Large = 10m-15m or 10m-20m

2X Large = 15m-20m or 20m-40m

3X Large = 20m and greater or 40m & greater.

 

Aww yeahhh

[Jack Mcslay]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

It would make sense, but they have shown parts that are larger than 7m already. The interstellar ship used for the Jool shipyard is showing structural parts that are 10m in diameter and the fuel tanks are 40 to 100 meters in diameter. The fusion drive shown I'm guessing is 30-50 meters in diameter. 

My guess would be;

X Small = < 1m

Small = 1m-2m

Medium = 2m-4m

Large = 4m-10m

X Large = 10m-15m or 10m-20m

2X Large = 15m-20m or 20m-40m

3X Large = 20m and greater or 40m & greater.

 

I suspect those will only be accessible via shipyards stablished on other celestial bodies, not the VAB

Edited May 17, 2021 by Jack Mcslay

[leopardenthusiast]

2 hours ago, Jack Mcslay said:

Apparently

0.625m = X Small
1.25m = Small
1.8m = Medium
2.5m = Large
3.7m = X Large
5.0m = XX Large

And a new XXX Large size apparently, I would guess 7m

If you look at the Utility tab when it's briefly visible, you can see the 2.5m reaction wheel and convert-o-tron under Medium.  It seems to me that, at least for now, 1.875m parts are not in KSP2.

[TLTay]

On 5/15/2021 at 10:38 AM, DJDoesKSP said:

Looking a little too deep into the new feature video

"The Sticky Notes"

Thes sticky notes show up (from what I could tell) 3 times in the feature video (order below), they all have the same pattern, as if they're all connected, hence my profile pic, 

 4:31

 5:57

 6:35

If it has something to do with the colors, its spells out "Bob" (Blue, Orange, Blue), which would be a fun easter egg. I dont know what else it would mean though, so, thats it for this. (Im also pretty sure this is nothing)

 

 

This arrangement is in different colors in different areas, it does appear to be intentionally placed like this for the video. It's possible that both the blue arrangements are from the same wall if Nate and Rafael are sharing the same area.

I read as follows:

1

2

2

1

Wishful thinking wants to see it as 12/21. Hopefully that is the release date target.

It could also be :

4   2

Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Or it could just be some post-it notes.

[Jack Mcslay]

10 hours ago, leopardenthusiast said:

If you look at the Utility tab when it's briefly visible, you can see the 2.5m reaction wheel and convert-o-tron under Medium.  It seems to me that, at least for now, 1.875m parts are not in KSP2.

How do you know the convert-o-tron is still a 2.5m part and there isn't a 1.8m reaction wheel?

[magnemoe]

On 5/14/2021 at 6:20 PM, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Procedural Wings!

Raising an question about how to put engines, landing gear and drop tanks to the wings.  Yes you could probably end the wings add engines at the tip  and add an second wing outside like on the SR-71. This also allows for weirder stuff like gull wings 

[magnemoe]

On 5/15/2021 at 1:56 AM, DJDoesKSP said:

This might (a heavy "might") be a reference to the Arecibo Message, which was a message sent out for aliens to decode (if there are any aliens), just not as complicated, it could be the same thing with this, Kerbals trying to point out what their star system looks like, where they are in said star system, and what their current space travel technology looks like (but this is me looking WAY to deep into it)

Its an very obvious Arecibo Message reference, the Kerbal solar system is the primary one.  Guess the thing below is an rocket burning in space above Kerbin. 
the 12 top dots is a bit weird, it might be 12 stars or just for calibrating. 
Don't think 12 star systems are unreasonable, however some of them will be Dress and Eeloo star systems  

[magnemoe]

On 5/15/2021 at 6:45 PM, Master39 said:

There are some cases in which accessibility can be an obstacle for the creative vision of a game, fast paced combat games or puzzle games comes to mind, but that's not the case for KSP. 

Unless you want to bruteforce a century of orbital mechanics studies on your own, there's a lot of informations you need to know to play KSP starting from how the orbital mechanics works all the way up to how the game actually works and KSP doesn't help you at all with it.

People want to play against the actual difficulties planned and designed into the gameplay, not against the UI design and the constant need to pause the game and go to YT or the forum to find often outdated guides and that's clearly what KSP2 is trying to tackle. 

KSP steep learning curve is not given by some careful design made by some clever artist, it more or less grew in to place after several years of multiple hands learning the job of game design while messing directly with the live game. You can say that KSP learning curve has nothing to do with the game itself and resides mostly on Youtube and your ability to find relevant and updated guides in your language.

 

Another thing, sometimes we, as veterans (I started playing when you needed to point and burn prograde when the Mun was 5 degrees over the horizon to reach it), don't see some glaring problems with the game and the new player experience until we have someone new we know that is starting to play.

Example: I'm helping a friend right now, he doesn't have much problems with orbital mechanics and as soon as he picked up the manoeuvre tool he was able to make a Mun free return trajectory on his own, too bad I had to drive him away from Career and onto Science mode to have that tool, because the design of the original completely disregarded the possibility that someone new picked up career as their first Kerbal experience and thus made the absence of vital tools to learn the basics of the game a part of the progression gameplay.

It's like giving the training wheels as a gift to a kid that just finished learning how to ride a bike without them.

What I got from the video is that they're planning to address such problems.

 

If Monopoly was sent without an instruction manual and written in a secret language you have to google on your own to understand it wouldn't be a good thing for the game if most people "never go far past the first board loop" or says that "the learning curve is steep".

This, now I managed to reach orbits in some tries, managed to put an probe around the mun, then I wanted to recreate it on Minmus but I only understood pro and retro grade so was sure I would crash into the ground then I wand on in impact trajectory, I burned to avoid and ended up in orbit. 
Downloaded some mods, probe mission to Eve who ended up crashing into Gilly who is an achievement. 
Manned mission to Jool who ended up in an polar orbit. 
Anybody remember these parts. 

[PlutoISaPlanet]

18 hours ago, TLTay said:

This arrangement is in different colors in different areas, it does appear to be intentionally placed like this for the video. It's possible that both the blue arrangements are from the same wall if Nate and Rafael are sharing the same area.

I read as follows:

1

2

2

1

Wishful thinking wants to see it as 12/21. Hopefully that is the release date target.

It could also be :

4   2

Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Or it could just be some post-it notes.

Early 2022, 2021 is impossible.

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

That moment when he said "mass effects"   

What procedural wings mean to me:

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by DAFATRONALDO2007 IN SPACE
idk

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 5/14/2021 at 6:29 PM, Serenity said:

Looking forward to enjoy all the improvements a sequel from talented Devs can offer. I do feel though there is some disrespect to the original game.

Yes it has many rough parts but in this video its described almost as an impossible game to enjoy and create crafts to traverse the Kerbal universe.

Anyways.

I got a different sense from you hearing the same words.  The Dev that mentioned having fun initially, but never getting to the Mun, and the other that had a friend walk him through every step... I heard them acknowledge player experience that might have caused all but the most dedicated to walk away from the first one. 

KSP 2 will hopefully be everything the most hardcore KSP player is looking for in a '2' - but also be something that makes a casual want to stick with just a bit longer than they might have with the original. 

 

I'm one of those guys who can get to both moons....

...but who finds getting to the other planets daunting.  Perhaps 2 will help me get a better idea of what is going on and let me explore further 

[Lewie]

Guys! Methalox confirmed! C’mon!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Its an very obvious Arecibo Message reference, the Kerbal solar system is the primary one.  Guess the thing below is an rocket burning in space above Kerbin. 
the 12 top dots is a bit weird, it might be 12 stars or just for calibrating. 
Don't think 12 star systems are unreasonable, however some of them will be Dress and Eeloo star systems  

I'm convinced that the dots are just there to make sure that each line is printed correctly with the next. 

12 independent and interesting systems if remotely as detailed as the first one might prove a bridge too far... 

Unless FutureTech = StarTrek 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Why isn't anyone talking about the dynamic lighting?  

The scene, starting at 1:50 is gorgeous!  You can see into the cockpit; the glass lets the star illuminate the interior of the craft and the Kerbal inside.  Reflections look fantastic as well.

[The Aziz]

6 hours ago, Lewie said:

Guys! Methalox confirmed! C’mon!

It was since they revealed fuel factories, few months ago

[Guest]

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I got a different sense from you hearing the same words.  The Dev that mentioned having fun initially, but never getting to the Mun, and the other that had a friend walk him through every step... I heard them acknowledge player experience that might have caused all but the most dedicated to walk away from the first one. 

I had some incredibly frustrating early-game experiences that almost caused me to give up. In particular I couldn't get my head around docking; the official tutorial just felt stupidly hard, besides which it didn't even teach docking the way I do it in-game almost all of the time: it had one stationary craft and required me to dock with that. This is much harder than the way I do it in-game almost all of the time -- orient both craft toward each other so you can approach from any direction. 

The game also does a terrible job at communicating basic stuff like the gravity turn, reasonably efficient landings on airless bodies, the Oberth effect and related stuff, and transfer windows. I was doing all of that terribly badly and had to make a huge spaceship to send a tiny little probe to Eve, for example, the first time I made it. To learn to do it right I had to piece together information from all kinds of sources.

This was like I was given a chessboard with the pieces set up, but not told the moves, and whenever I made an illegal move, a kid came and knocked the board over. It wouldn't be a fun or effective way to learn chess. If KSP2 communicates the rules better so that the first umpteen hours aren't spent trying to guess what they are with frustrating trial-and-error or googling something only to find yourself looking at an actual technical scientific paper or textbook with masses of integrals and graphs, that's all good as far as I'm concerned. 

I have a suspicion that there's a whiff of "In my day we didn't even have manoeuvre nodes, deal with it whippersnapper" about this. We're a self-selected bunch here, the few, the elite, the glorious who got through that initial frustration and went on to construct anything from robo-frogs to long-range spaceplanes, giant stations to ridiculously intricate gravity assist missions, and there's no shame in taking a tiny bit of pride in that. I still think our main enjoyment comes from what we're able to do after, and there would be more of us if the early game wasn't so frustrating.

As an aside, I just promised my nephew I'll spend a few hours with him walking him through the early game. He's sharp as tacks and loves rockets and space stuff, but he is still a few years from learning integrals so he does need a bit of assistance getting over that hump. Once there I'm really keen to see what he's going to build because he is super inventive and an absolute wizard with Legos. If he had some nice, solid tutorials I'm pretty sure he could figure the rest out on his own.

[mattinoz]

How will people discover Scott Manley if the game has tutorials?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I've a friend I hope to introduce to the game who loves flight Sims... And has virtually no other interest in gaming. 

 

So I hope the SPH and procedural wings are as good as they look - and that the atmospheric flight model feels right to him 

If so, he's hooked - guaranteed 

[TLTay]

I spent quite a while trying to snip and sharpen a good picture of the papers behind Nate, but no use. There aren't enough pixels for me to make much out. I think there is a project timeline, storyboard or something similar on the far left, and what appears to be a chart relating to either engine/part selection or something in the middle. I tried to make out the date on the corner of a computer screen, but there wasn't enough to go on. I even fiddled with color curves on the "glitch effect" at the opening of the "something else?" section, but got no meaningful result. I am forced to conclude that I need a hobby, and am no closer to knowing the release date than I was before. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by TLTay
missed letter

[Sesshaku]

On 5/19/2021 at 11:38 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I've a friend I hope to introduce to the game who loves flight Sims... And has virtually no other interest in gaming. 

 

So I hope the SPH and procedural wings are as good as they look - and that the atmospheric flight model feels right to him 

If so, he's hooked - guaranteed 

And let's also hope they make good IVA controls, or make sure mod support for those is there.

[TLTay]

Same exact drawing and postit arrangement on this video as was in the February 2020 video:

Feb 2020: Pause at 22 seconds

May 2021: Pause at 6:07.

Interdasting. Maybe if they are using older video, they are further along than we think? 

[herbal space program]

On 5/18/2021 at 10:47 PM, Brikoleur said:

I had some incredibly frustrating early-game experiences that almost caused me to give up. In particular I couldn't get my head around docking; the official tutorial just felt stupidly hard, besides which it didn't even teach docking the way I do it in-game almost all of the time: it had one stationary craft and required me to dock with that. This is much harder than the way I do it in-game almost all of the time -- orient both craft toward each other so you can approach from any direction. ...

... I have a suspicion that there's a whiff of "In my day we didn't even have manoeuvre nodes, deal with it whippersnapper" about this. We're a self-selected bunch here, the few, the elite, the glorious who got through that initial frustration and went on to construct anything from robo-frogs to long-range spaceplanes, giant stations to ridiculously intricate gravity assist missions, and there's no shame in taking a tiny bit of pride in that. I still think our main enjoyment comes from what we're able to do after, and there would be more of us if the early game wasn't so frustrating.

I think they have a fine line to walk between the above-quoted statements.  On the one hand, it's totally true that what's kept me playing the game for far longer than any other computer game I've ever owned was without a doubt it's sheer difficulty combined with the totally open-ended nature of its challenges and the associated problem-solving strategies.  The lack of readily accessible tutorials in-game did add to the air of mystery and made the each achievement seem like something truly special. Being part of the community of early players who braved all that difficulty to do these really cool things felt like it actually meant something.  I would hate to see them pitch all of that over the side by nerfing all the physics/flight aspects in the interest of making it more accessible to people for whom it's maybe just not the right game. 

On the other hand, when I first started playing the game, docking larger ships was not only a tough challenge in mastering the basics of orbital mechanics (cool!), it was in fact nearly impossible because the SAS code was too buggy for the ships ever to stop wiggling (not so cool!). Large rockets would also spontaneously disassemble themselves on the pad unless they were festooned with so many unsightly struts that they looked like they'd been put together by a drunk with with a jumbo staple gun. And of course countless physics bugs made the notion of playing a hard career game with no quicksave a non-starter. It still is actually in my book, because even now things sometimes shake themselves to pieces/explode for no good reason.  I definitely don't/won't miss any of that, nor will I miss the sometimes-impossible VAB placement interface or the clunky, slapped-together look of the current tiled wing implementation.  I also think that not holding the player's hand shouldn't extend to not actually explaining at all how to use a bunch of parts, or how to work with critical concepts such as ISP, dV, orbital mechanics, drag, CoM/CoL placement, etc. I think it's definitely possible to do those things better without giving away so much that the challenges become trivial, and of course if the tutorials are all optional you can still choose to figure everything out on your own if you want. Time will tell!