Scientific experiments

[tstein]

I have made a search on the first layers of the forum and did not find any answer, so  bear with me If I am repeating something discussed months ago.

 

While I know  science will be in a future update, did we heard anything about the increasing the number of experiments or change on how they will be performed? I ask because When I watch documentaries about real life probes they seem to have   much more things to measure than in KSP.  The addition of more experiments  also would   bring up  justifiable reasons to make multiple missions to  a certain place (as  to bring up all experiments might and should be too hard to do in one go. I would  also love to have experiments that need to be thoughtfully placed in your craft, not  just randomly slapped at any corner.

 

Take the rosetta mission  by example, the probe landed in an awkward angle and could nto drill the  comet because of it,   the need to place the experiments in reasonable positions I think adds another layer of thinking and  interesting planing

[The Aziz]

We know nothing aside from that it should be more meaningful than collecting science currency for unlocking parts. The assumption is that it would be based on discoveries and research, rather than rightclicking a bunch of experiments every time a biome changes.

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

We know nothing aside from that it should be more meaningful than collecting science currency for unlocking parts. The assumption is that it would be based on discoveries and research, rather than rightclicking a bunch of experiments every time a biome changes.

We should know soon enough though. Science is the first major update and I suspect it will be the quickest one out of the bunch to do. I say 2 to 4 months, 6 max, after EA launch we'll get the Science Update. 

[DrCHIVES]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

We should know soon enough though. Science is the first major update and I suspect it will be the quickest one out of the bunch to do. I say 2 to 4 months, 6 max, after EA launch we'll get the Science Update. 

I agree as well.  The original Squad team built KSP1 from nothing to version 1.0 in 3 years.  In this game. We've already been shown colonies, interstellar vehicles, and other planets in engine...  They exist and are there given some apparent need for polishing by way of this early access.  I don't expect any stage of early access to last more than a couple months.  My guess is we will be full release, or close to it, this time next year

[magnemoe]

7 minutes ago, DrCHIVES said:

I agree as well.  The original Squad team built KSP1 from nothing to version 1.0 in 3 years.  In this game. We've already been shown colonies, interstellar vehicles, and other planets in engine...  They exist and are there given some apparent need for polishing by way of this early access.  I don't expect any stage of early access to last more than a couple months.  My guess is we will be full release, or close to it, this time next year

Features, polish and balancing. Multiplayer of some sort does work as the devs has played it. 
Now for science abnormalities  will be an huge part of it, finding stuff like large crystals or meteorites in craters, this need to be created and places, or have an way to place them randomly. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by magnemoe

[Vl3d]

Long story short, Kerbalism Science and experiments should be either recorded passive sensors or stand-alone mini-games. And science should give actionable and useful information for future missions. And we need a planetarium type visualization for celestial bodies with history and details.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Vl3d

[tstein]

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

Long story short, Kerbalism Science and experiments should be either recorded passive sensors or stand-alone mini-games.

I don't like the concept. I wish we had to think how to  put as many experiments as possible in feasible locations for them to work.    The boring part of science in ksp was that you just plugged buttons in the ship and their position and condition   did not matter.  For example thermometers should NOT be close to an engine,  a drill should not be on the top of the ship. the magnetometer should  be kept away from antennas,   we could have dozens of different ground and rock  handling instruments,  chemical analysis etc...    I want the  puzzle of  building the ship to become deeper.  I want   the correct collection of scientific samples to be meaningful thing to consider in the game.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 hours ago, tstein said:

I have made a search on the first layers of the forum

There are several posts about what we'd like to see.  Nothing official.  I'll try to find the speculation series if you're interested.

Here's one: 

Here's another: 

 

 

Both have links to other posts folks have made about things they think are good ideas and ways to make Science in KSP2 interesting and fun.

Again - no information or responses from the team with specifics - other than occasional mention in the early videos where they say it will be different.

Edited January 16, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Strawberry]

Honestly I hope anomalies arent a super big part of it as flying to ten different places to get science runs into one of the biggest issues of the previous system, tedium. While I think there should continue to be some experiments you can easily slap onto every vehicle, more that would require you to design parts of your spacecraft around them would be amazing (so more things like the grand slam passive seisometer). For example, a radar scanner experiment that consumes loads of power, meaning you need to slap on big electricity generators to use it, or an atmosphere sampler that requires you to harvest large amounts of intake air. I think this would make science collection much more meaningful and make sending separate missions for science fun.

[Snafu225]

Considering those two already existing threads I don't know how extensive we should discuss stuff here, though I'd like to add that a) what @Strawberrysaid sounds good, but also the system in the mod kerbalism made for some fun and interesting challenges. Yes the experiments themselves were rather easy to slap on and not too big but each has some quirks to it. The experiments weren't one and done situations anymore but rather you'd need to have the craft in a certain situation or at certain speeds/heights/whatever for a prolonged time. This way you actually had to build crafts that could sustain whatever situation was asked for. 

https://kerbalism.readthedocs.io/en/latest/science.html

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Honestly I hope anomalies arent a super big part of it as flying to ten different places to get science runs into one of the biggest issues of the previous system, tedium. While I think there should continue to be some experiments you can easily slap onto every vehicle, more that would require you to design parts of your spacecraft around them would be amazing (so more things like the grand slam passive seisometer). For example, a radar scanner experiment that consumes loads of power, meaning you need to slap on big electricity generators to use it, or an atmosphere sampler that requires you to harvest large amounts of intake air. I think this would make science collection much more meaningful and make sending separate missions for science fun.

One thing Nate said was that you 'won't run out of (whatever takes the place of money)'.  Like vis Colonies - if you want to build one then forget about it... it will still survive, it won't be as efficient.

I suspect the Anomalies will be part of an optional story - and they may provide science... but from the statement above, I seriously doubt any science from arches or monoliths or other stuff would be a 'required to advance' thing.

I've visited a grand total of ONE arch.  It was a PITA: landed in a 'nearby' crater on fumes, dropped off a rover.  Drove slowly there.  RCS'd to the top.  Planted a flag.  Had to send a rescue mission for my Kerbal.  Landed in a completely different crater.  Upon return, the rover was floating in space and could not be moved, the Kerbal had to walk / RCS to the ship and then lift to orbit, whereupon I discovered I only had enough fuel to circularize... not return.

(I'm bad at Kerbal)

So - given there are a LOT more people like me playing the game than like the Grand Tour guys... I doubt having to visit every stinking anomaly will be part of the game.

[tstein]

8 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

(I'm bad at Kerbal)

 

I disagree.. I think you are very good at KERBAL.  If that is a good thing... that is another story.

[TLTay]

2 hours ago, DrCHIVES said:

The original Squad team built KSP1 from nothing to version 1.0 in 3 years.  

I'm sorry, but I distinctly remember it being about a decade of development until updates stopped due to KSP2.

Hopefully KSP2 will mot take as long, but so far it's not looking much faster to "complete."

Edited January 16, 2023 by TLTay

[Pthigrivi]

40 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Honestly I hope anomalies arent a super big part of it as flying to ten different places to get science runs into one of the biggest issues of the previous system, tedium. While I think there should continue to be some experiments you can easily slap onto every vehicle, more that would require you to design parts of your spacecraft around them would be amazing (so more things like the grand slam passive seisometer). For example, a radar scanner experiment that consumes loads of power, meaning you need to slap on big electricity generators to use it, or an atmosphere sampler that requires you to harvest large amounts of intake air. I think this would make science collection much more meaningful and make sending separate missions for science fun.

To me the biomes are the bigger offender because they're often not visually distinct enough to make them worth a separate trip. If bodies had 3-4 biomes + 2-3 anomalies even hard completionists wouldn't find it difficult mine-out a particular body. 

[Cpt72Bug]

8 hours ago, tstein said:

While I know  science will be in a future update, did we heard anything about the increasing the number of experiments or change on how they will be performed? I ask because When I watch documentaries about real life probes they seem to have   much more things to measure than in KSP.  The addition of more experiments  also would   bring up  justifiable reasons to make multiple missions to  a certain place (as  to bring up all experiments might and should be too hard to do in one go. I would  also love to have experiments that need to be thoughtfully placed in your craft, not  just randomly slapped at any corner.

I've debated a lot on what I'd like to see for science in KSP2, and as of now we don't really have much to speculate / go off of in terms of what direction they will go. However, I've met a few people who have a common interest on improving on whatever foundational framework they offer us. So there will likely be mod's available to improve the diversity and collective amount of science experiments. 

(For people that are interested) Depending on where they're at at launch of the science expansion (planned sometime after initial launch), we plan on trying to add a plethora of Biology "Sci-Fi" experiments namely, because that's the collective field some of us are in. Our experiments will consist of modern methods in literature which branch into the realm of sci-fi for results. Think, Molecular Biology CRISPR PCR Western Blots, as well as Entomology (Colony Rearing, determining suitability for colonization). 

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, Cpt72Bug said:

(For people that are interested) Depending on where they're at at launch of the science expansion (planned sometime after initial launch), we plan on trying to add a plethora of Biology "Sci-Fi" experiments namely, because that's the collective field some of us are in. Our experiments will consist of modern methods in literature which branch into the realm of sci-fi for results. Think, Molecular Biology CRISPR PCR Western Blots, as well as Entomology (Colony Rearing, determining suitability for colonization). 

There are a ton of interesting experiments that have been done IRL, but the only question that matters is how does that relate to where and how long they take. If this is informative to actual gameplay, great! If not, take the basic principles and abstract them into something that has to do with building, delivering, and powering labs in interesting places. That simple mechanic is what we're after. 

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Long story short, Kerbalism Science and experiments should be either recorded passive sensors or stand-alone mini-games. And science should give actionable and useful information for future missions. And we need a planetarium type visualization for celestial bodies with history and details.

I would promote mostly passive sensors with much reduced application scope and some sample return mechanics. Folks are already annoyed by needing to right click. Can you imagine if they had to right click and mini-game hundreds of times? Im a no on that. We're trying to reduce grind, not make it worse. I also think all data vis should be right there in map mode-resources, biomes, anomaly mapping, everything. There's no need for a planetarium.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[DrCHIVES]

11 hours ago, TLTay said:

I'm sorry, but I distinctly remember it being about a decade of development until updates stopped due to KSP2.

Hopefully KSP2 will mot take as long, but so far it's not looking much faster to "complete."

Yes, they continued to provide free updates, but the game reached version 1.0 in 2015 and was first released into early access in mid 2011.  And that was directly from their website.  It didnt reach Steam EA untill 2013.  2015 is when they released it for consoles and removed the early access tag.  I would like to belive the devs will also continue to provide updates beyond version 1.0 for ksp2.  Correct me if I'm wrong as well, but aside from part and celestial body texture revamps, ui and QOL updates, we never really received anything truly new for ksp1 after 2015 did we?  I mean, no new planets, no significant changes or additions in gameplay features like career mode overhauls, no new parts, aside from the two (paid) DLCs...  for all real intents and purposes, the base game's scope was reached in 2015.  My point is simply that they left early access on ksp1 after only 3 years with a starting point of not even having a Mun...  I believe the early access for ksp2 will be much faster.  But this is just my opinion...

Edited January 17, 2023 by DrCHIVES

[tstein]

16 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

To me the biomes are the bigger offender because they're often not visually distinct enough to make them worth a separate trip. If bodies had 3-4 biomes + 2-3 anomalies even hard completionists wouldn't find it difficult mine-out a particular body. 

I don't see any problem in having lots of biomes, in fact I like it. But they should be mapped, we shoudl not have to guess where one starts and other ends.

[The Aziz]

5 hours ago, DrCHIVES said:

aside from part and celestial body texture revamps, ui and QOL updates, we never really received anything truly new for ksp1 after 2015 did we?  I mean, no new planets, no significant changes or additions in gameplay features like career mode overhauls, no new parts, aside from the two (paid) DLCs...

Commnet, kerbnet, asteroids, EVA parachutes, dV readings, EVA construction and inventory, couple dozens of new parts...

[Gargamel]

A number of posts have been removed for being off topic.    If you have a question about the game not relating to science, most likely it’s been answered or surmised in another thread.   A search might help.   If you can’t find an answer then, go ahead and start a new thread.    And please, don’t unnecessarily ping the devs or CM’s.   

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, tstein said:

I don't see any problem in having lots of biomes, in fact I like it. But they should be mapped, we shoudl not have to guess where one starts and other ends.

Definitely agreed on mapping. I know kerbnet was set up to get around some of KSP1's technical limitations but we really need to see them in map mode. My issue with having so many biomes is it creates an incentive to go back and do the same mission over and over. Like the experience of landing in Minmus's greater flats isn't really any different from landing in the great flats or lesser flats. Like if you just boiled them down to "Flats", "Midlands", "Highlands", and "Poles" you'd have much less repetition and players progress wouldn't bog down in KSOI so much. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[tstein]

8 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Definitely agreed on mapping. I know kerbnet was set up to get around some of KSP1's technical limitations but we really need to see them in map mode. My issue with having so many biomes is it creates an incentive to go back and do the same mission over and over. Like the experience of landing in Minmus's greater flats isn't really any different from landing in the great flats or lesser flats. Like if you just boiled them down to "Flats", "Midlands", "Highlands", and "Poles" you'd have much less repetition and players progress wouldn't bog down in KSOI so much. 

After a few hundred hours of gme yes. But I recall on the first times I tried to land anywhere  it was mostly luck to land where I wanted. I can nowadays land exactly where I want with some 10 meters deviation. Back when I started  the small flats where a hard target for me We need to keep in mind that the game experience is  different for new comers and veterans, so some middle ground might be advisable

[mcwaffles2003]

It's been conformed that telescopes will be used to find new planets/solar systems

 

[Snafu225]

51 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Definitely agreed on mapping. I know kerbnet was set up to get around some of KSP1's technical limitations but we really need to see them in map mode. My issue with having so many biomes is it creates an incentive to go back and do the same mission over and over. Like the experience of landing in Minmus's greater flats isn't really any different from landing in the great flats or lesser flats. Like if you just boiled them down to "Flats", "Midlands", "Highlands", and "Poles" you'd have much less repetition and players progress wouldn't bog down in KSOI so much. 

I agree but with ScanSat in the mix the experience flips on it's head for me. Now I have two choices.

1. Gamble and guess what the biome "insert name" looks like and/or go exploring with a rover towards stuff that looks like "insert name again" and possibly waste my time or be lucky.

2. Put up a ScanSat and have it scan until the lander mission is planned/underway and choose profitable landing sites with many biomes in short distance to another, as well as be able to choose flat terrain etc.

Keep in mind for the latter that I also really enjoy building as compact and "realistic" looking sattelites as possible and mentioned gameplay loop gives me a reason to build and use them, but also keep them up.

[tstein]

33 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:

I agree but with ScanSat in the mix the experience flips on it's head for me. Now I have two choices.

1. Gamble and guess what the biome "insert name" looks like and/or go exploring with a rover towards stuff that looks like "insert name again" and possibly waste my time or be lucky.

2. Put up a ScanSat and have it scan until the lander mission is planned/underway and choose profitable landing sites with many biomes in short distance to another, as well as be able to choose flat terrain etc.

Keep in mind for the latter that I also really enjoy building as compact and "realistic" looking sattelites as possible and mentioned gameplay loop gives me a reason to build and use them, but also keep them up.

That POV I think is really important. Science if possible would work better if it gave us a reason to make multiple DIFFERENT launches for a body. A biome mapper satellite is a good example.