Calvinball? More like Spherical Hydrogen Tank-Ball!

[CatWithAJetpack]

2 hours ago, Stephensan said:

It could just be a research thing, where you can easily create a couple of extra lines (not code I'm talking about tech tree lines) t that can go "deep" into the tech tree and "slowly" adds more rigidity to parts. It would require more materials to make it less wobbly or more rigid and you can just click a "scaler" that makes the entire rocket cost more or less, fewer materials.. Things can be categorized like "fuel tanks" "structural" "Pods" "Colonies" "XYZ ABC" etc.

Due to not having "time" and watching your rockets build slowly (i wish) just making it cost more materials and some additional research points doesn't seem like such a bad idea/plan, keeping the "kerbal" way while also adding the want/need to push further for more stable and "larger builds".

So starting off rockets can still be quite wobbly, but the people that dare go larger CAN but have a higher chance of wobbliness without upgrading anything. It makes sense from a logical stand point that while you progress further in the tech tree, the stronger your rockets are.. It creates a fine balance of "expensive but will never fall apart" and "should i cheap out on this build" etc. For me it creates a lot of ideas of what you can "do".

and then it can just be simply turned off with a setting to ONLY have the strongest stability when it's disabled.. And starting wobblyness will depend on the overall difficulty of the save with a slider, and a "on and off" button

I doubt that there needs to be a forced level for each thing, and COULD be optional for the insane players that want REALLY wobbly rockets.

(think about the content)

"I played ksp 2 on the hardest difficulty with zero stability upgrades"

No idea how much extra work that can/could add to adding new "tech tree" points where structural stability is getting stronger and stronger depending on what tech level you are at.. but that's just an idea I'm throwing out in the wind.

This COULD probably also help create alot of modders aswell wanting to add income and the sorts into the game making it even more of a "positive feedback loop".

 

This is a great idea; I hope we see it in the game. I feel like this would satisfy nearly everyone while also adding an interesting gameplay choice.

Edited June 16, 2023 by CatWithAJetpack
Forgot to quote

[Stephensan]

5 minutes ago, CatWithAJetpack said:

This is a great idea; I hope we see it in the game. I feel like this would satisfy nearly everyone while also adding an interesting gameplay choice.

XD 

it was a rough sketch up but it sounds for me like a REALLY good rough idea of making everyone happy and without "wasted code" for the few people that use or don't use its trickled everywhere..

 

i would play it right now if it was like that. not even kidding

[gussi111]

56 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Wha, why is everyone acting like there word on wobble has radically changed all of a sudden??? Literally like the fourth dev post "We've also begun some investigations into improving the current wobbly rocket situation, and we should have more to discuss on that subject soon. ", like that line has been repeated like five times now, also the first ama "If a rocket is skinny and made of many stacked parts, it should wobble. Larger scales, no.".  I could name more but I dont feel like dredging through more forums text. Like nothing we've heard here is a sudden shift thats out of nowhere.

I think only one person said that, everyone else is giving their opinion on how to improve it.

[Strawberry]

14 minutes ago, gussi111 said:

I think only one person said that, everyone else is giving their opinion on how to improve it.

A few of the comments got snipped

[Astr0Guy5]

That challenge caught me so off guard. Love it!

[The Aziz]

Ah, I forgot it was Friday and I should expect a post, found it by accident.

That's what happens when one has other things to do than worrying every week about a game. That wooden puzzle Tremortusk set was nice to build.

What to comment on, nice animations I guess, though disappearing sample container.. there should be a place for it on the backpack there, few more polygons on the model shouldn't hurt.

[stephensmat]

So thrilled to get even a mention about the Science Update.

Whoever's talking about 'Live Player Counts', I'm expecting a big jump when that one comes out. It's definitely what I'm waiting for to spend more time in KSP2.

If the Dev's are listening, I'm a big fan, and really looking forward to sinking a big part of my life in the new game, but I'm still playing KSP1 for now, because it provides structure. Building rockets is fun, but without Science or Missions, it's somewhat directionless; at least for me. The flame is more than alive in this fan, I promise. I just prefer to 'build to purpose'.

Edited June 16, 2023 by stephensmat

[herbal space program]

5 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

We would like to move away from autostrut, or any other band-aid solution that involves hidden settings that automatically apply additional joints to make a vehicle more rigid. Whatever solution we arrive at, we’d like it to be predictable and transparent to all users. If over the course of Early Access we find that some form of autostrut is still necessary to allow the creation of ambitious vehicles, we’ll revisit this requirement

I'd love to have a system that lets me place additional reinforcing attachment points (for a nominal mass penalty) on high-stress part interfaces, without them adding to part count or all having to look like the butt-ugly struts we have now. Those should be reserved for situations where you need to attach two distant parts.

[shdwlrd]

34 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

What to comment on, nice animations I guess, though disappearing sample container.. there should be a place for it on the backpack there, few more polygons on the model shouldn't hurt.

Noticed that too. Was going to mention something but I remembered game physics. You know. One character that can 400kg of weight and not even notice. Or a character that pulls a gun the size of him out of their pocket or pack.

[LittleBitMore]

I love this update, I like the breakdown of the requirements necessary for the wobbly rockets solution. I'm loving those animations for sample pickup!

I'm excited the Science update is getting more focus as of recent, and I'm excited to see what KSP2's science system will be like! I have no clue what I would consider an 'ideal' science system, so it's an interesting development challenge to tackle.

[RileyHef]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

What to comment on, nice animations I guess, though disappearing sample container.. there should be a place for it on the backpack there, few more polygons on the model shouldn't hurt.

I'm gonna strongly disagree on this one. I love the hidden container popping out at the press of a button. It's a creative way to include the part without either having it permanently included on backpacks or magically appearing like many video game items.

Details like this animation show heart, thoughtfulness, and care was put into small moments like this even when lazier/easier methods would have been fine. I just think it's nice!

[Jaypeg]

6 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

There’s also a recent trend of players recreating the Challenge banner art drawn by Matthew Poppe. For the record, I think Matt has really been enjoying this. Look at this one from Jaypeg:

I GOT IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Davidian1024]

6 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

We would like to move away from autostrut

Really glad to hear this.  Though, I've never really had that much of a problem with wobbly rockets.  I learned about the autostrut setting in KSP1 long after I had gotten used to building  things with struts.  And it really doesn't seem like KSP2 is all that much different than KSP1 with autostruts left off.

[razark]

[snip]

Sure, why not?  A couple days for a handful more fixes seems a worthwhile trade-off.

Woe unto me if my life were such that it was meaningfully affected by a two day delay in a video game that I'll put a few hours into in the first place.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Cytauri]

This is kind of good news, but moving the day even 2 days more than the original confirmed date is cracking the already thin ice you guys are walking on. It is just a thought and I still like the work you guys are doing, just tell us the final release date when you know that is the date you will be releasing the update. I still have some faith in this game, so keep on keepin' on!

[Strawberry]

1 minute ago, Cytauri said:

It is just a thought and I still like the work you guys are doing, just tell us the final release date when you know that is the date you will be releasing the update.

Personally I prefer having a date that I know will likely be delayed versus not having a date at all. 

[Heretic391]

 

8 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

Wings should not require struts to stay rigid

100% agreed here. I assume that applies to wings placed onto wings

 

I do suspect wobbly things would definitely be revised when we start building interstellablockquote widget

Edited June 17, 2023 by Heretic391

[Cytauri]

26 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Personally I prefer having a date that I know will likely be delayed versus not having a date at all. 

I do agree, but, this has happened multiple times already with the actual game and the patches.

[asmi]

7 hours ago, Alexoff said:

But on the other hand, autostruts solve a huge number of problems.

They don't solve any problems, they just mask them. But at some point they still rear their ugly heads.

[Rocketology]

5 hours ago, The Space Peacock said:

Another great and transparent upnate Nate, but i do have some notes and concerns i'd like to share with the teams about this one:

 

First, on 'wobbly' rockets. While i am really glad to see the teams view seems to mostly line up with what the majority of the community wants, i did want to point out this;

To be quite frank: wobbly rockets should not be a thing, under virtually any  circumstance. This sentiment of wobbly rockets being a core part of the KSP experience is in essence a glorification of a bug that got accepted by the community over time, born out of nostalgia. I want to remind the team that KSP2 can, and should, be its own distinct work. There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep features that made the original so beloved, but you really shouldn't be afraid to do away with features that just dont fit into the vision for KSP2. If you keep wobbly rockets now, you risk having to have to  come back on that decission once builds start to exponentially increase in size, which will  eventually happen as big features like colonies and interstellar get added.

I came here to type up something from the same point of view, thank you for doing the typing for me! o7

KSP 1 was lightning-in-a-bottle and trying to force recreate this for nostalgia isn't the way to go IMO. The KSP community has evolved significantly since KSP was first introduced and KSP 2 should blaze it's own, new trail. I don't want wobbly rockets for the sake of just having wobbly rockets, if this happens, I'll likely stop playing. I'd rather see rockets come apart from poor design choices or flight profiles like high AoA and dynamic pressure creating sheering forces that RUD the rocket.

[StormxWolf]

I disagree with wobbly rockets being in KSP dna. It always was and ways will be extremely annoying to deal with. I only really feel like wobbly is acceptable if I am doing something wrong entirely. If I am trying to just make an ascent stage, it sucks to just feel the need to strut everything. Especially because you need to revert the entire flight. It just sucks. Ontop of all this is still the problem of part count lag. Let's not forget that struts are two parts each which adds up quickly. Reduce the amount of nonsense parts I need so I can make cooler rockets is far more important to me than some spaghetti mechanic.

[LittleBitMore]

after returning and reading the replies more closely, I noticed the update was being delayed by 2 days, and some people seem to have a bit of an issue with that. honestly I see no problem with the delay? here's what likely happened (based off of previous experience with game development teams), in rough order:

1. they created a set list of things they wanted to accomplish for the update
2. either they added some big things close to the release date, or one of the things on the list was proving difficult to resolve, and didn't seem like the list would complete in time
3. instead of shipping out an update without one of the things they planned for, they decided to slightly (it's 2 days, guys) delay the update

they didn't maliciously and intentionally deceive us, they probably just encountered a hurdle while trying to make the update high quality.

i'd like to reiterate that i have no inside knowledge and this is likely only what i can assume happened based off my own experiences and history with dev teams.

[HephaistosFnord]

One thought I've had for a long time:

If during assembly, two parts clip into each other that are not node-attached to each other, it would  be nice to have the editor automatically auto-strut those parts together at the centroid of where their collision meshes intersect. (This shouldn't be *too* difficult to compute, should it?). Some kind of icon that looks like a squareish purple 'node' icon could serve as the indicator that a weld is going to occur there.

[Nicrose]

9 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

We would like to move away from autostrut, or any other band-aid solution that involves hidden settings that automatically apply additional joints to make a vehicle more rigid. Whatever solution we arrive at, we’d like it to be predictable and transparent to all users. If over the course of Early Access we find that some form of autostrut is still necessary to allow the creation of ambitious vehicles, we’ll revisit this requirement

I'm glad to hear a final decision on this being made public, definitely keeping up the transparency! Thank you for that! The 2 day extension is a lot better than I expected tbh and I am very excited to check out these changes! I also wouldn't mind if rockets got wobbly at a certain height or a certain amount of the same size pieces in a row. I know that could be tricky to implement but thought I'd put in my two cents <3  Other than that I very much like the goals put in place for the expected gameplay experience and the new science parts sound really awesome!

[kdaviper]

1 hour ago, LittleBitMore said:

after returning and reading the replies more closely, I noticed the update was being delayed by 2 days, and some people seem to have a bit of an issue with that. honestly I see no problem with the delay? here's what likely happened (based off of previous experience with game development teams), in rough order:

1. they created a set list of things they wanted to accomplish for the update
2. either they added some big things close to the release date, or one of the things on the list was proving difficult to resolve, and didn't seem like the list would complete in time
3. instead of shipping out an update without one of the things they planned for, they decided to slightly (it's 2 days, guys) delay the update

they didn't maliciously and intentionally deceive us, they probably just encountered a hurdle while trying to make the update high quality.

i'd like to reiterate that i have no inside knowledge and this is likely only what i can assume happened based off my own experiences and history with dev teams.

And iirc June 20 was the target date, not anything set in stone.