Kerbal Space Program 2 (Version 0.3.0 and Version 1.0.0) Hype Train!

[Yskonyn]

I wish to congratulate the Devs with the release of For Sc ience! 

I've been playing the game with a friend where we both used Discord to stream our screens so we could keep an eye of what the other was doing and give tips, discuss problems, etc.

It has been an absolute blast! Much, much improved game for us. 
Performance is nice, except for some stuttering when firing stages. And overall is just much more fun to play now.

Keep up the good work , guys! And Merry Christmas to the whole team and community!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

I think this is a good point to repost this video:

 

[Datau03]

10 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I think this is a good point to repost this video:

 

I am currently remaking this and planning to upload it very soon, I hope you all will like it

[Wheehaw Kerman]

59 minutes ago, Datau03 said:

I am currently remaking this and planning to upload it very soon, I hope you all will like it

This was yours?  If so, I can’t say how much I love this video and how many times I’ve watched it over the years.  It hit me like a roundhouse kick in the guts the first time I watched it - completely blew me away.  The choice of music, of shots, everything.  Brilliant job and I look forward to the new version with HUGE anticipation.

[InfoJunkie]

Fantastic update! Congrats and thank you devs! The hard work paid off! I'm having a blast! I love the mission briefings as well, great touch!

[Datau03]

7 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

This was yours?  If so, I can’t say how much I love this video and how many times I’ve watched it over the years.  It hit me like a roundhouse kick in the guts the first time I watched it - completely blew me away.  The choice of music, of shots, everything.  Brilliant job and I look forward to the new version with HUGE anticipation.

Hahaha, god I don't want to claim credit I don't deserve. I did not make the original version and had nothing to do with it, so yeah that absolute masterpiece completely belongs to the real Sean Essau (not me) I am just a random dude remaking the exact same thing in KSP2- shot for shot, which is still quite a lot of work actually. Really hope the community is gonna like a "simple" exact recreation 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Datau03

[Chilkoot]

Guys - it's happening:

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time KSP 2 has hit "very positive" in recent reviews.  It also just eked above the 50% all-time mark for the first time since... March, maybe?

Good to see some positive reception, finally!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

4 hours ago, Chilkoot said:

Guys - it's happening:

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time KSP 2 has hit "very positive" in recent reviews.  It also just eked above the 50% all-time mark for the first time since... March, maybe?

Good to see some positive reception, finally!

Was there ever any credible doubt?

[tstein]

I  left the game after 3 days of release and returned with this update to check it.

 

I am happy with  some serious improvements (although there are still some  things that I consider plainly worse in KSP2 interface compared to KSP2). Now the game  has playable performance in  low and medium settings at least . The rockets are not made of rubber  anymore and that is  great improvement.

The science  update adds some real gameplay and  the game is somewhat enjoyable, but I am  a bit bummed by the fact that we have so few scientific experiments. I liked the old concept of  having a ton of instruments you had to try to squeeze and sometimes you had to make multiple missions to accomplish it. I hope they iterate a bit more on this. The double simplification of less instruments and single click to collect all  made  it less interesting than the original IMHO.

 

I also still feel a bit the lack of  fuel priority  options (or are they  hidden now and I cannot find them) sicne it makes impossible to make the designed I loved to make.

 

Overall the game is improving a lot, I hope they can continue this pace.

 

 

[Dakitess]

On 12/21/2023 at 11:35 AM, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Was there ever any credible doubt?

Yes ?

[Bej Kerman]

22 hours ago, tstein said:

I liked the old concept of  having a ton of instruments you had to try to squeeze and sometimes you had to make multiple missions to accomplish it

22 hours ago, tstein said:

The double simplification of less instruments and single click to collect all  made  it less interesting than the original IMHO.

All they did was cut faffing about with multiple instruments. It's "less interesting than the original" because it's easier to see now how fundamentally insipid Science/Career mode is. It was shallow to begin with. Decluttering the science collection changed nothing but revealing the illusion that something more complex was happening. Ask yourself, are you actually gravitated to having fifty redundant instruments on your vessel that claim to do different things but all collect the same daft unlock currency, or did you just like the illusion your vessel was collecting different kinds of data?

[tstein]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

All they did was cut faffing about with multiple instruments. It's "less interesting than the original" because it's easier to see now how fundamentally insipid Science/Career mode is. It was shallow to begin with. Decluttering the science collection changed nothing but revealing the illusion that something more complex was happening. Ask yourself, are you actually gravitated to having fifty redundant instruments on your vessel that claim to do different things but all collect the same daft unlock currency, or did you just like the illusion your vessel was collecting different kinds of data?

But we could have several instruments that you cannot fit all on the same ship. For example if a drill required too much space and mass to be sent alognside a atmosphereic  analysis tool  unless you used clever construction, that woudl be interesting.  I woudl have added    DOZENS instriments (but that use space, nto like the termometer in KSP1) that woudl push  you to use your brain. How to protect thsoe instruments in  reentry?  Make that  if they are nto well palced they  lose their data.   Also  make that you cannot push the instruments to inside the ship trough clipping.

 

I did had the illusiont hat I was collectign different data, because the data had meaning semantic wise.  barometer feels like somethign   that makes sense to know  if there is or there is nto atmosphere in a aplent.  temperature is somethign completely different and make sense in much more environaments. Soil samples   are also very obviously different.

Edited December 22, 2023 by tstein

[Bej Kerman]

20 minutes ago, tstein said:

But we could have several instruments that you cannot fit all on the same ship For example if a drill required too much space and mass to be sent alognside a atmosphereic  analysis tool  unless you used clever construction, that woudl be

What good is the atmospheric analysis tool if the other tools on your vessel do the same thing?

21 minutes ago, tstein said:

I woudl have added    DOZENS instriments (but that use space, nto like the termometer in KSP1) that woudl push  you to use your brain.

For what it's worth, I think adding DOZENS of parts that act identically to each other is a bad idea and completely fails to grasp at the fundamental problems with science.

23 minutes ago, tstein said:

How to protect thsoe instruments in  reentry?  Make that  if they are nto well palced they  lose their data. 

The game randomly saying "you can't bring this science home" is not fun gameplay.

23 minutes ago, tstein said:

Also  make that you cannot push the instruments to inside the ship trough clipping.

No. Not even girders?

13 minutes ago, tstein said:

I did had the illusion that I was collecting different data, because the data had meaning semantic wise.  Barometer feels like something that makes sense to know  if there is or there is not atmosphere in a aplenty.  temperature is something completely different and make sense in much more environments. Soil samples are also very obviously different.

So you concur that it's merely an illusion and not actual gameplay worth?

Just so we don't go in circles, no, I do not agree that the devs wasting their time on 50 different science parts is good just because a couple players will pretend they behave differently.

[Scarecrow71]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

So you concur that it's merely an illusion and not actual gameplay worth?

I think that it lies in actuality somewhere in the middle of these.

On the one hand, you have a mechanic that allows you to gather points of some kind (KSP calls them Science points, but other games call them other things, like resource points or some-such), and then use those points to upgrade your technology.  Not a whole lot different than the Karma system in Shadowrun, or Experience in, well, every RPG out there.  You gather these points by dropping some gadget on a craft, go somewhere, click a button, and voila!  Science points.  Different gadgets are supposed to do different things; thermometers are supposed to collect the temperature, pressure gauges collect pressure readings, and so on.  So you have actual gameplay here.

However, on the other hand, I think the implementation creates the illusion that this is happening without it actually happening.  Instead of collecting an actual temperature reading that can be stored and used for weather pattern determination to assist in landing (as an example), you simply get points for clicking the gadget.  It's completely hand-waved that the reading was actually done with this one gadget, which is then strung out across all gadgets effectively doing the same thing - drop gadget on craft, go to location, click gadget, profit.  The actual gameplay has been obscured because the implementation of the vision someone had has been dumbed down.  Whether that's by design or a necessary evil is unknown.

Is there a solution here?  Probably.  I've got several different ideas on how this could be done differently, but I doubt any of them are better than what we have.  Or that they could be implemented.  Take my above example about weather pattern determination.  Sure, it sounds great to run experiments like temperature and pressure and launching weather balloons to capture wind speeds and such, and then use that data to predict weather patterns so you can say "it will be better to land here instead of there because the wind won't push us around like a rag doll".  But can it actually be done?  Can that system (again, as an example) be coded and implemented in a way that is fun, doable, and doesn't break the game?  Again, lots of ideas, none of which are better than the original.

Personally, I'm torn on the Science points gathering thing.  I'd rather see the tech tree unlocked by actually doing something.  Like, for example, in order to get Mun landing node, you have to have:

• 1 unmanned launch into LKO
• 1 unmanned launch into HKO
• 1 manned launch into LKO
• 1 manned launch into HKO
• 1 unmanned launch into the Mun's SOI
• 1 manned launch into the Mun's SOI

Until you do all of that, you can't get the technology to land on the Mun (again, this is an example).  You shouldn't be able to take the stuff in the first node and land on a celestial body because you haven't earned the experience to do so.

This is all my 2 cents, of course.  Your mileage may vary!

[tstein]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

What good is the atmospheric analysis tool if the other tools on your vessel do the same thing?

For what it's worth, I think adding DOZENS of parts that act identically to each other is a bad idea and completely fails to grasp at the fundamental problems with science.

The game randomly saying "you can't bring this science home" is not fun gameplay.

No. Not even girders?

So you concur that it's merely an illusion and not actual gameplay worth?

Just so we don't go in circles, no, I do not agree that the devs wasting their time on 50 different science parts is good just because a couple players will pretend they behave differently.

Again, under your logic why to have   more than 1 planet?  Why to have more than  1 Engine?  Sincirely that logic makes zero sense.

 

 

Under our logic, it is better to SCRAP Science  COMPELTELy, because  why to even have 1 instrument if you can have zero? Seriously.

 

No  I do nto agree it is an illusion. IF science gathering with different instruments is an illusion then there is zero reason for the game to exist. We should have 1 premade rocket that we select it and fly  everywhere.

 

Your  way of  thinking is the anathema of my way of seeing the game.  Supension of disbelief is  critical for a game  to   be good and the several instruments   did help on that!

3 minutes ago, tstein said:

 

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by tstein

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, tstein said:

Again, under your logic why to have   more than 1 planet?  Why to have more than  1 Engine?  Sincirely that logic makes zero sense.

You've blatantly misrepresented my point. I'm saying, instead of throwing more boring science parts at the problem, make the ones we already have fun to use and bring actual depth to the way the player unlocks things. Like maybe the things you unlock are relevant to the data you collected. Maybe collecting data from the inner solar system lets you design thermal protection systems. IMO it's better compared to being given dozens of redundant science collectors that all collect the same science and unlock the same parts.

12 minutes ago, tstein said:

2 hours ago, tstein said:

I did had the illusiont hat I was collectign different data

No  I do nto agree it is an illusion.

Okay?

12 minutes ago, tstein said:

Your  way of  thinking is the anathema of my way of seeing the game.

Yeah. I'd rather my gameplay loops be as wide as a puddle and as deep as an ocean, rather than as wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle. I would rather not be given dozens of parts with the intention I will play make-believe with them and pretend that they give different types of science.

[Superfluous J]

26 minutes ago, tstein said:

Again, under your logic why to have   more than 1 planet?  Why to have more than  1 Engine?  Sincirely that logic makes zero sense.

Not at all.

Without a moon, there's no transfers. That's a fundamental gameplay aspect that having only one planet would lose.

Without Minmus, you'd never need to leave the ecliptic plane (or know about it). Sure, it's a minor point but Mun and Minmus are the training wheels they can't be super different. Also without Minmus, you'd never have to worry about another world (Mun) getting in your way on the way somewhere.

Duna is fundamentally different from the other planets in that it has a thin atmosphere. You can't just propulsively land on it but you can't just use parachutes. This gives fundamentally different gameplay that you would not get if the only planet was Kerbin.

Ike presents a unique problem for players who have never encountered it. Pros can avoid Ike (Or use it) with little issue, but that first time you encountered Ike was like "Well NOW what do I do?"

Likewise Moho, Eve, Gilly, Duna, Jool, Tylo, and Laythe all have unique challenges that you must work your way through playing the game. Vall is too much like both Mun and Tylo (and Ike) to really count. One of Pol and Bop adds uniqueness but the other really doesn't. And Dres and Eeloo are really just easier Mohos.

Regarding engines, again no but I've babbled enough.

Regarding Science, though, I do agree that it's not THAT paper-thin. It's more construction-paper thin, because each science tool can get points from different restricted areas. But again they're all the same points and the interaction by the player both boring AND cumbersome (which is in itself a feat), unlike a steel-grip entry into Laythe's atmosphere from interplanetary.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Superfluous J

[Periple]

Also quantities matter, a lot, but more isn’t always better. At some point the marginal utility of adding another science part, planetary body, biome, or discoverable becomes negligible or even negative (they can be too many similar parts, bodies, biomes, or discoverables), but a lot of the time that point is a long way past one or two!

[tstein]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

Regarding Science, though, I do agree that it's not THAT paper-thin. It's more construction-paper thin, because each science tool can get points from different restricted areas. But again they're all the same points and the interaction by the player both boring AND cumbersome (which is in itself a feat), unlike a steel-grip entry into Laythe's atmosphere from interplanetary.

But that is what YOU   and a part of the players care in the game. The travel the reentry. That for me is BORING. I care only and ONLY for the ship assembly and tryign to   circunvent restrictions. The more  tools and  things I have to  try  the better. People need to realize  KSP players are not a monolithic type.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, tstein said:

But that is what YOU   and a part of the players care in the game. The travel the reentry. That for me is BORING.

So you wouldn't mind it if KSP literally was just one planet? Cause I can't help but think that's why your strawman of my argument was that.

2 minutes ago, tstein said:

I care only and ONLY for the ship assembly and tryign to   circunvent restrictions. The more  tools and  things I have to  try  the better. People need to realize  KSP players are not a monolithic type.

Okay, so if you want that part of the gameplay to be fun, then have you considered there is no point in adding dozens of science parts unless the game has proved just using one is fun? If having less than 10 science parts is not fun, then adding more isn't going to make things more fun.

[tstein]

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

So you wouldn't mind it if KSP literally was just one planet? Cause I can't help but think that's why your strawman of my argument was that.

Okay, so if you want that part of the gameplay to be fun, then have you considered there is no point in adding dozens of science parts unless the game has proved just using one is fun? If having less than 10 science parts is not fun, then adding more isn't going to make things more fun.

No I would not mind if it was only  one planet, but I am  not  a selfish person and I recognize that there are people that  have other targets in the game.  Would be very nice if most people were able to  look outside their own little boxes of interest and understand people have different focuses in this game. Having lots of parts maek the  game more fun,  becuase makes the engineerign challenge more complex since it is harder to  make a rocket or as few rockets as possible to  collect  all the science.   Sure woudl be nice if the shapes and masses of the experiemtns were significant to help  force some engineering decisions.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, tstein said:

No I would not mind if it was only  one planet

Then why do you present that as my  argument?

2 minutes ago, tstein said:

Would be very nice if most people were able to  look outside their own little boxes of interest and understand people have different focuses in this game.

I am already looking outside my own little (sand)box, by engaging in debates about a mode I have hated since it was first implemented in KSP 1. I really do want it to be fun but I think this is stifled by people ignoring the fundamental problems and coming up with ones that don't exist. "There is not enough science parts" is not a problem.

4 minutes ago, tstein said:

Having lots of parts maek the  game more fun,  becuase makes the engineerign challenge more complex since it is harder to  make a rocket or as few rockets as possible to  collect  all the science.

Useful parts make the game more fun. Redundant parts do not. Having 50 science parts for the sake of there being 50 science parts is not something anyone wants, much less if the developers can't make just one of those parts fun to navigate progression with.

11 minutes ago, tstein said:

Sure woudl be nice if the shapes and masses of the experiemtns were significant to help  force some engineering decisions.

There are more interesting ways of creating engineering challenges for the players.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

7 hours ago, Dakitess said:

Yes ?

Nope - just a lot of [redacted].

[Datau03]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

 Like maybe the things you unlock are relevant to the data you collected. Maybe collecting data from the inner solar system lets you design thermal protection systems.

I'm not sure if this might be too complicated for the game, but I'd absolutely love such a system with different science categories unlocking tech from different categories. For example having atmospheric science instruments unlock aerodynamic parts, just like the example you gave

Edited December 22, 2023 by Datau03

[wefightforpeace]

https://steamcommunity.com/id/bode95/screenshot/2268189945145980783/

It's a new day for Kerbal Space Program 2. The 0.2 Update brings KSP 2 near KSP 1 in feature parity.