3/24 Discord AMA - Nate Simpson - SUBMIT QUESTIONS HERE

[CashedOut]

Hi Nate, 2 questions:

• In the future, will we see more customization options for parts like in the original - ie different mounting options for engines (shroud | truss | bare)?
• Can you share any details about plans to smooth/stabilize orbits, especially around non-atmospheric bodies?

Edited March 21, 2023 by CashedOut

[burn n crash]

Two questions:

How will you ensure that a station orbiting around Rask or Rusk will stay in an orbit, and not get flung out of the system or into the planet's surface?

Has the science system changed significantly since KSP 1?

[Strawberry]

Its great that youre doing this! Just two three questions from me

1. What is your favorite soup that the intercept office has served?

2. I remember in the past (in that podcast you did with that student iirc), you mentioned radiation was planned and it would have various effects on kerbals. Is radiation still planned to be implemented in one form or another or has the team lost interest in implementing that?  If its still planned how late in the roadmap do you currently plan on implementing it, or if you lost interest what were the reasons for doing so?

3. Will we see the introduction of radiators at the same time we get reentry heating or will that be later?

Edited March 18, 2023 by Strawberry

[alphaprior]

Will be possible to alter the surface on the planets? Like dig a pit or flatten an area for a colony?

Currently there are elements on the UI that look very jaggy, will you fix this soon?

[Cytauri]

A few questions here. First, are there going to be more FX other than re-entry and vapor cones such as wheel tracks, footprints, re-entry wearing, sparks, smoke, and other things? Also, will there be an option to color parachutes, change agency colors, and color Kerbal suits, along with more Kerbal suits? Will there be interiors in every part craft and colony part so you can see Kerbals walking around and piloting? Will plumes react to the ground and change shape so they don't no-clip through the ground? Will there be a more advanced damage system? Thank you, just wanted to put this out there. I really like the new patch! 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Cytauri

[Dennis98]

Hi Nate,

thanks for doing this AMA.

1. Are there features that you are planning to add to the game that are not listed on the roadmap on the Steam page? Is there one that you are looking forward to in particular? (Maybe robotics, please )

2. Are there any KSP 1 mods that you are taking inspiration from? For example TAC life support?

3. On the roadmap there seems to be a long time between the addition of colonies and the addition of ressource gathering. I was under the impression that one of the main purposes of the colonies was that they could automatically gather ressources. What are colonies going to do when they are first released?

4. Are all of the new planets that you have shown thus far part of the Debdeb system? Or are some of them part of the unnamed third system?

Thanks!

Edited March 20, 2023 by Dennis98

[Director_Valle]

Hello Nate, thanks for all your efforts and those of the team.

Will there be a tool/interface to fine tune a maneuver node?.

[Alexoff]

Hey Nate! Are you and your team satisfied with the technical state of the game?

[TheTheo]

I'm not sure if this has been asked already and maybe this is just a daft thing to ask as I'm ignorant  to the finance world of the gaming industry,  But why the $50 price tag? i understand you all need to eat and everybody needs to pay their bills but the company is not small by any means. From what i've been reading the cost of the game is one of the biggest turn offs for people looking to get into KSP 2, myself included. I literally can't afford to buy the game at this point in time which is such an absolute shame. I loved KSP and battled through the clunky console version of the game for hundreds of hours. Anyway this is getting a bit long, I was just wondering about the justification of the $50 price tag as an "Early Access" game and if this price is set to increase once 1.0 is released and no longer in early access?

[kicka55]

I love KSP with thousands of hours in it and I hope I will also learn to love KSP2 in the future. I'm sitting at min specs right now and it's rough. 100% GPU usage just looking at the KSC menu screen at 24 fps. What is your benchmark when it comes to performance?  What particular fps targets should a spec reach (GPU and CPU) to make the list for minimal or recommended? Do you have particular scenes or craft? How many parts? Would be nice to know, thanks!

[whatsEJstandfor]

I know this is probably not answerable for parent-studio reasons but the things I've been so most curious about during development are:
1. how the scope changed after Intercept was created,
2. whether the scope changing was the reason for having to push the release date back so many times
3. when Nate posted the release date update in March 2022, if "early 2023" was really when 1.0 was planned to launch, and, if so,
4. if pressure from above forced them into doing an EA release instead of delaying again to start generating revenue

To put that into one question, what were the big factors that led to deciding that the game needed to be delayed in early 2020, then late 2020, and then early 2022, and finally in late 2022 when EA was announced?

[j12sfgd23]

Really enjoying the game so far, but as an aerospace engineer the vacuum engine plume spread has really been confusing me, and I was wondering if this is an aesthetic decision. IRL, rocket engines that are under expanded have a parabolic-esque flow geometry like:

(This was a test of a partial nozzle, the reason it is underexpanded ASL, and actually bends back before forming a shock diamond)

But in KSP2, it seems to expand more outwards, almost hyperbolically:

I saw that, in a previous post someone mentioned that this hyperbolic-esq plume may have been inspired by a post made here, but I honestly dont know if that is correct: 

 After looking into a few papers, I believe the hyperbolic plume may be wrong, atleast partially. From what I understand about rocket engines, it should really only expand in that "hyperbolic" way when the visible flow is in direct contact with something, IE a surface or stage. For a more in-depth explanation of the physics, ive been explaining everything I personally know here: 

EDIT: Discussing this in these posts actually brought another possibility to light:

All of this being said, there is a way for both the parabola AND the hyperbola to exist simultaneously:

Here, the engine plume DOES still expand in a bell shape, but due to the low pressure & temp it is barely visible. Further inwards, the high pressure region in the middle of the plume (which sometimes does have a hyperbolic shape) is dense and hot enough to be seen easily, and so is that what's being modelled instead? If so, is there any plan to expand on the current engine plume model to include this low pressure low light emission region?

END OF EDIT

 

I know you have been doing alot of great research into this so I will trust your response here, as I am definitely no expert on rocket plume visualization. If I am wrong  about the engine having a bell though, I do have a follow up question: (If the bell is correct, please ignore everything below)

In one of your previous posts, you mentioned that there is a difference between transitional and vacuum flow:

Assuming the hyperbolic assumption is correct, would the flow not look more like this, with an initial expansion first:

For the transitional plume to have the bell shape that it does, it must have a higher pressure than its surroundings, which would hold even more true when it reaches vacuum. Therefore, if the hyperbolic plume is correct, would it not *also* have a rapid expansion at the exit? 

 

 

 

P.S. loving the game and all of the amazing work so far, you and your teams passion has really shone through, and the fundamental core of the physics engine is one of the most impressive ive ever seen. Keep up the good work!!

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by j12sfgd23
added a second question, and linked some in-depth discussion I have been having to explain the physics of rocket engines

[i dont know how to forum]

Many of the more advanced technologies coming later in Early Access fall into the "Way Too Useful" category, as mentioned in the Engines Archetypes dev diary. We've just barely started to see the tip of this with the addition of the SWERV, which currently renders the NERV near-obsolete. What are your goals with regards to balance for these new technologies? Is the intent for late-game parts to essentially replace early parts, or for lower-tech solutions to still be viable and necessary in the late-game? This also applies the other way: how do you intend to incentivize the use of certain "Way Too Useful" technologies to their full potential? For example, torch drives should allow us to reach other planets in a fraction of the time, but there is currently very little advantage to getting somewhere quickly rather than simply time warping through a multi-year journey.

I'm also curious about how you handle balance with regards to approachability, depth, and realism. There have been many requests over the years for more complex and more realistic mechanics in the base game, including life support, radiation, more realistic aerodynamics, part failures, interstellar material, relativistic effects, communication delay, and more. Some of these could make great additions, while others could be needlessly punishing. Realism in mechanics can lead to more fun and emergent gameplay, but it can also discourage both new and experienced players who become overwhelmed by the complexity There's no consensus on which of these features would actually benefit the game, or how they should be implemented; ask 10 players which is which and you'll get 11 different answers. What are your goals for gameplay balance here, and how do you decide what additions will or won't benefit the game?

[Profugo Barbatus]

Hi Nate, two simple questions for you. Without making any promises, can we expect to see new Parts introduced between Roadmap releases? While the major roadmap releases are pretty likely to see new parts relevant to their particular functionality, it'd be really nice to see new parts popping up that are less revolutionary and more utilitarian between major milestones. Building and taking advantage of new stuff is one of the reasons to keep coming back to KSP2, particularly in Early Access days. Stuff like a new Station Core type, or fuel tank/cargo tank set/piece etc.

The second question is specifically aimed at you and your experiences with the game, what is the Jankiest mission you've ran personally? Not Buggy, that's a whole separate ball park, but a mission where your design choices turned out to be sub-optimal at best, and lead to some weird, borderline stupid actions to compensate. Stuff like realizing your suicide burn was more suicide than planned for, and the Rapid Unplanned Disassembly that somehow didn't end the mission, but made the return trip fun in the Dwarf Fortress sense of the word.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

@Dakota will you record the questions and answers then publish here?

[Wheehaw Kerman]

 Will you be bringing the Kerbal personal parachutes back?  

[Big_Sad]

Are there any plans for a Career Mode? Or maybe another kind of system to sort of "replace" it?

[justspace103]

How complicated will the resource gathering and colony advance system be? I imagine that resource collection will limit how big of a base you could build and if its capable of producing new crafts

[Denomentt]

Hi Nate!

I've been wondering if the Orion drive will provide constant thrust or impulses of acceleration.

One more question. Will gas giants like Jool have a surface like they do now, or are you planning to add something else beneath the clouds?

Keep up the good work!

[Unwary Chunk]

Hi Nate! Just two questions:

1) Since interstellar travel and orbital construction is coming in the future is there work being currently done on optimizing large crafts with many parts?

2) How far in the development is the new terrain system and when can we expect to see it (i.e. close to tech tree progression & science, or after interstellar)?

 

[RabidSmurf]

Is there any particular reason we can't see more planets and moons in Kerbol, such as saturn, neptune, uranus analogs and their moons? Things like the high speed winds on Neptune could be a unique and interesting challenge, or the cryogenic moon of titan with liquid methane oceans could be an interesting destination or colony location. I personally would prefer to see an expansion of Kerbol over entirely new systems that will (in theory?) be easy to explore once you have the technology to reach them unless the game mechanics/economics are designed very intelligently to have an ever increasing (but not overly tedious) difficulty.

The new nuclear engines would be particularly well suited for some outer planets in Kerbol, and I don't think anyone would be too mad if Eeelo was moved out to where Pluto is like "outer planets mod" from KSP1. 

Is this something the team has considered?

Edited March 19, 2023 by RabidSmurf

[Dakota]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

@Dakota will you record the questions and answers then publish here?

Yep. AMA answers will be published as text here and on Discord afterwards.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

How will Resource Management work when Rovers cannot go uphill?  I've got a Rover, landed on Eve.  It's got RovMax TR4 wheels on it, and a full charge.  Can't even manage small hills.

Can you explain whether there is a solution (presently) for this or whether there is a way to increase power to the drivetrain of Rover wheels planned for a future update?

[joratto]

Asteroid/comet mining planned for the extended roadmap?

[Klapaucius]

My question is about water:  In KSP1 pretty much everything floated and jets worked underwater. None of that made sense, but it became part of the game.   Considering that Kerbin, Laythe and Eve all have oceans, surface and underwater exploration is an important part of the KSP universe.

 

What is the ultimate plan for how water works in KSP2?  Will parts sink?  Will there be ore containers again that act as ballast?  Will we see marine-specific propulsion or specific boat parts?  Will marine propellers become standard parts?  Will hydrofoils be possible again?  That's a lot of questions, but any updates on the plans for water in general would be appreciated.

 

As someone who built hydrofoils, submarines, underwater rovers and submersible airplanes, I'm looking forward to new possibilities in KSP2.

 

Thank you.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Klapaucius