Calvinball? More like Spherical Hydrogen Tank-Ball!

[Jarin]

11 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

Our team shares the community view that overly-wobbly rockets are a major issue in KSP2 (it is number 10 on our top-ten issues list)

So what's the problem with the solution that the mod types had on like... day 2? Just upping joint strength x10 or more.  (not actually meant as a 'gotcha' here, I'm actually curious if there's a reason that solution isn't ideal)

[MarcAbaddon]

I think the 2 day delay is totally reasonable, with only weeks between patches you can't really plan for much buffer time. 

On wobbly rockets I actually agree something with dev perspective - wobbliness is a better and more visual failure mode than sudden structural failure, even if the latter is more realistic. And there are too long and thin designs that should fail. This being said, I agree it is too much wobbliness at the moment, but I think one item that is forgotten here is that it's the interaction with the SAS straining to keep the point of control in line that really tends to amplify the wobble. Maybe that's something to look at, especially as SAS has many other issues for me as well, especially with planes but in some cases also with pretty standard orbital burns. And I think auto-strut is actually a decent solution, just think of it as an internal reinforcement. Should maybe have a small mass penalty.

The not-so-great part of this update is science for me. There's been a feeling for a long time that we are going to get a KSP 1 rehash, and this update doesn't change my impression here. Sure, there's a new "collection and transmission system" but zero details - for all we know, it is only talking about the technical implications. The distinctive science part sounds cosmetic to me, when what we would need is some gameplay variety. One of the more interesting science experiments in KSP 1 was when you put a seismometer on the ground and had to create impacts by crashing vessels into the planet. In summary, I would appreciate a bit more information here, like:

• What do the devs think were the flaws with the KSP 1 science system and how to improve on it
• How the new transmission system will work (in principle)
• One example for an interesting science part
• One example of a mission you can do for extra science

I don't think this would spoil much, since it is still just an outline with 2 examples. But it would give us some actual impression on how science will actually play out.

By the way, personally I would not like transmission returning 100% of science even if realistic. It makes getting planets from bodies like Eve too easy.

[The Aziz]

Well, it's worth saying I guess - if a player builds something out of this world that, by simple logic, isn't well engineered and structurally stable, wobble it to hell. But if I can't build a simple Saturn V replica with a lander in the middle because it wobbles at any slight movement in all places, including size adapters and not-size-fitting decouplers holding the lander between 3rd stage and the command module (because inline fairings don't provide ANY structural integrity), it's discouraging.

[Lyneira]

Thank you for the update, I look forward to seeing more issues fixed in the coming update and to seeing what you've come up with for Science!

14 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

For the record, this is our official view on what a successful implementation would look like, and against which we continue to measure the effectiveness of ongoing mitigation work:

• For inline parts that are connected serially, in most applications there should be little to no flexing. This is especially true when neighboring inline parts are the same core size
• For radially-attached boosters or cantilevered subassemblies with single-point radial connections, some flexibility is expected. There are some applications for which manually-applied struts should be required
• Wings should not require struts to stay rigid
• Docking two vessels in orbit should result in a strong, non-wobbly connection that doesn’t fold on itself as soon as the player tries to move the resulting vehicle
• Wobbly rockets are sometimes fun and funny. A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing World of Goo with rocket parts. Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form. Whether that means limiting wobbliness to certain types or sizes of parts, or relegating certain behaviors to player settings, is the subject of ongoing internal discussion. We of course are following community conversations with keen interest, and this is an area where Early Access participants can have a significant impact on the 1.0 version of KSP2
• Joint physics impact CPU performance, and as we progress through the Colony and Interstellar roadmap milestones the part counts will increase dramatically. Any solutions we arrive at for the above requirements must accommodate this reality
• 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

Also appreciate seeing the team's view on a successful implementation of part connection physics. I agree with these views, in particular with keeping autostrut out of KSP2. Most of my KSP1 experience was from before the days of autostrut, and even after it was added I didn't particularly like messing with this somewhat hidden setting to magically make connections between parts (root part, or heaviest part in particular) that felt a bit like cheating. I would prefer that stability results from simply using structurally sound parts for the task.

However, there is one area I want to touch on and it has to do with the branching, tree-like nature of KSP vessels. It's not possible to truly connect two parts on the end of different branches in a rigid stack-attached way, because loops are not allowed. For example, when attempting to make rings, or rectangles out of fuel tanks or truss sections there will always be a point where the branches of the tree meet, but won't actually connect up properly. You could say, well just strut them together, but struts only really handle forces well in one direction. And as these two parts are physically next to each other, it should be possible to tell the game to connect them together with a proper stack-like connection.

Another example is with docking ports, when merging two very large and massive vessels together consisting of multiple rocket stacks and habitation modules. No matter how rigid docking ports are made, it would be silly to expect a single docking port in the central axis to be able to resist the immense bending forces that could be caused by either vessel. The most natural way to deal with these immense forces would be to connect 3 or more docking ports between the two vessels spaced out widely around the central axis to increase the lever arm. But that's not possible, as KSP2 would only truly connect one of the docking ports.

Allowing multi-docking port connections between vessels, and to connect together parts on different branches of the vessel tree with proper stack-like connections, will give players important tools to create the stability they need for more ambitious projects without diminishing the challenge and still allowing for some measure of wobble for designs that are not particularly well made.

Edit: One more huge benefit to allowing multi-docking port connections is that it allows players to guarantee the angle of the connection and ensure the two vessels line up perfectly for whatever they have in mind next!

Edited June 17, 2023 by Lyneira

[The Aziz]

Single connections means also that I won't be able to build colonies with overpasses because the other end won't connect.

[theJesuit]

Seems a great solution to expect rigid rockets with side booster being flexi.  My KSP1 games have never used actual struts since autostrut  was added.  Also, getting rid of the need for multiple docking connections to create stability is awesome too!

Thanks for the update...  no worries about a couple of days delay.  The weekend for playthrough works better anyways.

[Lowi_Sace]

11 hours ago, The Space Peacock said:

The way KSP1 required you to bring back most experients, sometimes even multiple times, for full science gain was not only annoying but also not very realistic. For the sake of gameplay,  most science experiments in KSP2 should be a 'do it once and you're done' kinda thing, where transmitting the experiment gives you all science immediately. The exception to this would be surface samples and/or colected rock fragments, which would have to be returned to either Kerbin or a Colony/Space Station with processing facilities. This would greatly encourage the usage of science probes, and add some much needed functionality to space stations (and not in the 'put your science here and we'll double it' way). If you really want to add science experiments that cant be completed instantly, having some experiments that require time to complete would be a much better hands-off way to do it. Collecting data on a planets upper atmosphere for low orbit for example could be an experiment that requires ~a month of in-game time or so to complete, and would require you to do nothing more than place the science experiment in low orbit, start it, and come back later once you get the notification that it's finished. 

agree with you. The transmission stuff should indeed be chanhed like you said to a more realistic setup. I think having landers constantly over a timespan transmitting science would also be nice. Like small sprobes that are landed and keep experiments going. An other cool thing would be that the planets in the tracking station are not detailed and by sending orbital satalites the surface could be mapped precisely and the planets will get sharper in tracking station. Alsl i formation will than be added like thickness and hight admospere

[Opus]

15 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

Wobbly rockets are sometimes fun and funny. A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing World of Goo with rocket parts. Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form. Whether that means limiting wobbliness to certain types or sizes of parts, or relegating certain behaviors to player settings, is the subject of ongoing internal discussion. We of course are following community conversations with keen interest, and this is an area where Early Access participants can have a significant impact on the 1.0 version of KSP2

I'm sorry while wobbly rockets might have been good for a chuckle and charming, early on in KSP1. I have to disagree that the charm is lasting to present day. Wobbly rockets were mostly solved in KSP 1 as should have been the case. I think certain developers view that wobbly rockets are still charming is irrational. retaining it for "certain parts or sizes." sounds like a recipe for Kracken attacks to me. Am I wrong?  Does the community really share this bizarre charm for "wobbly rockets?" In my opinion if this is not solved by the developers or offer auto struts then modders will just do it for them and everyone will use the anti wobble mod or whatever. 

[mySynka]

It’s so great to see docking port joints being rigid instead of how they are in KSP. I can’t count how many times I’ve assembled a big space station only for the Kraken to just completely destroy it or make it completely useless by using the docking port joints to its advantage. Even adding loads of struts that I had to launch on a cargo ship didn’t help that much. I’m gonna wait a bit more for performance and system requirements to be accessible for my PC and I think I’ll switch to KSP 2. I can’t help but feel impatient to check out the patch notes though.

[Alexoff]

9 hours ago, asmi said:

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

I would clarify - autostruts were proposed by the developers as a means of fixing serious problems in the game created by the developers themselves. In conditions of poor performance in KSP2 with an increase in the number of parts, autostruts are some kind of solution to the problem. Developers can of course make realistic physics of the interaction of iron cylinders, which of course do not behave like a bunch of sausages

[AlphaMensae]

14 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

Great comment. This is my favorite kind of feedback, thorough and well-argued.

You do realize that KSP and the community have evolved greatly since those early "fun and funny" days, right?  There is the whole Realism Overhaul suite, and kerbalized real-type part mods like Bluedog Design Bureau, Tantares and Artemis Construction Kit that allow one to faithfully recreate actual historical rockets and missions as well as alternate history timelines. Wobbly rockets are NOT a part of that, not are they desired.

[Periple]

1 hour ago, AlphaMensae said:

You do realize that KSP and the community have evolved greatly since those early "fun and funny" days, right?  There is the whole Realism Overhaul suite, and kerbalized real-type part mods like Bluedog Design Bureau, Tantares and Artemis Construction Kit that allow one to faithfully recreate actual historical rockets and missions as well as alternate history timelines. Wobbly rockets are NOT a part of that, not are they desired.

The realism-oriented KSP community does not speak for the KSP community at large!

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

18 hours ago, ShadowDev said:

I hate this idea. its a half assed way to do something and removes tons of creativity aka juno.

Removes a ton of creativity... what? We're talking about a sensible remedy to having stacks of the *same* cylindrical tank. How will that stifle creativity and what's it got to do with Juno? 

4 hours ago, Opus said:

I'm sorry while wobbly rockets might have been good for a chuckle and charming, early on in KSP1. I have to disagree that the charm is lasting to present day. Wobbly rockets were mostly solved in KSP 1 as should have been the case. I think certain developers view that wobbly rockets are still charming is irrational. retaining it for "certain parts or sizes." sounds like a recipe for Kracken attacks to me. Am I wrong?  Does the community really share this bizarre charm for "wobbly rockets?" In my opinion if this is not solved by the developers or offer auto struts then modders will just do it for them and everyone will use the anti wobble mod or whatever. 

100% agree with this and disagree with Nate. Rockets generally don't just *snap*, so it's more an annoyance rather than 'lol' IMO.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Kerbin Launch Coalition

[Meecrob]

13 minutes ago, Periple said:

The realism-oriented KSP community does not speak for the KSP community at large!

No, but there are probably more serious players than players who want wackyness.

[Alexoff]

38 minutes ago, Periple said:

The realism-oriented KSP community does not speak for the KSP community at large!

For some reason, top bloggers are in no hurry to please us with videos about how they built another curved and oblique rocket that exploded on the launch pad to the laughter of the audience. For KSP1 and many other indie games, a significant part of the videos on YouTube is devoted to fun experiments with bugs. For some reason this does not happen with KSP2. Perhaps someone went too far with bugs.

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

19 hours ago, Stephensan said:

problem is i would love to have it due to part counts.

that can easily cut a build into 1/3 the size in parts for fuel tanks or structural etc. we can get huge builds with smaller part counts overall.

I don't get it to be honest, samey, what does that even mean with stacked cylindrical tanks as the context. I mean, how exciting can a uniform stack of tanks get? Plus the added benefit of going procedural is that it would significantly lower the part count, a part count that is essentially getting you nothing in return.

[eagleswing12]

Honestly, why not get rid of the wobble all together? I totally get the idea, but it disappears so early into the game that it doesn’t seem to matter. I know JNO does this, and it allows for way more rendering to be done in a simple time. Just a thought, though.

[Superfluous J]

21 hours ago, regex said:

I certainly hope interacting with this system is purely optional. While systems like this are fun sometimes, they're tedious at others, and I'd prefer to drive my own space program rather than have you guys dictate the direction it goes in order to get better replayability and challenge potential.

Thanks for the update.

And I hope they don't handicap a perfectly good and fun progression system for fear of guiding players too much.

Sometimes I wonder if the generic contracts system in KSP1 that everybody hates came from just such a (misguided, in my opinion) desire.

21 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Well, I thought we were being announced more

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

So does a tourniquet, but that doesn't mean it's not better to not slice a huge gash in your leg.

[whatsEJstandfor]

15 hours ago, Cytauri said:

just tell us the final release date when you know that is the date you will be releasing the update.

Extremely hard disagree. This sort of caution with withholding information until it was rock solid  was exactly what most of us here were getting frustrated with, and I'm so glad that IG's PR team has decided that the risk of being wrong sometimes is worth the transparency. Please don't try to convince them to go backwards.

[Alexoff]

57 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

So does a tourniquet, but that doesn't mean it's not better to not slice a huge gash in your leg.

You can also go into the file PhysicsSettings.json and replace  JOINT_RIGIDITY from 1500.0 to 1500000.0.  Perhaps someday Nate will find out about this and make a fix in the patch.

[regex]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

And I hope they don't handicap a perfectly good and fun progression system for fear of guiding players too much.

Sometimes I wonder if the generic contracts system in KSP1 that everybody hates came from just such a (misguided, in my opinion) desire.

Puhleeeze... The reasons the contract system was garbage were numerous but just off the top of my head: completely random missions that pretended to pay attention to what you wanted to do but still had to offer other stuff from time to time in order to allow you to switch gears, no way to change the weighting without grinding a bunch of crap out, no way to cycle out bad missions except to roll them in a very inefficient way, hidden achievements because of course we don't want to give you any hints on how to do things on your own... The system wasn't bad because they didn't want to "guide players too much", the system was bad because it basically amounted to random, tedious gameplay which didn't match player-set goals due to lack of choice and horrible controls.

KSP, at its heart, is a sandbox where the player should be able to set their own goals. Giving players guiding missions is fine, rewarding them for doing guiding missions is fine, but those guiding missions should be skippable (so if I'm ready to go to Moho now I can see if there's anything interesting the game might suggest I do there, and ignore everything else) and optional (so if I want to run an entirely player-goal-driven game I can). The sandbox gameplay is a huge reason KSP had such replayability; if it amounted to simply running the same missions in order on a new game it wouldn't have nearly the staying power. To that end any mission system should ultimately hand the player the controls, let them set goals, see the rewards, and make choices accordingly. E: And stay well out of the way if the player has a better idea on how to do things.

Edited June 17, 2023 by regex

[Periple]

3 hours ago, Meecrob said:

No, but there are probably more serious players than players who want wackyness.

What makes you think so?

[Gotmachine]

On 6/16/2023 at 8:00 PM, Nate Simpson said:

As a person who has dive-bombed more than one physics meeting with an exasperated "can’t we just make the joints stiffer" comment, let me assure you that in true KSP fashion, this is not a problem with a simple remedy.

When there is no solution, you're working on the wrong problem. KSP 1 joint physics are the result of a bug, or rather, an unphysical behavior in the PhysX solver. Wobbly joints are fundamentally unphysical, so no amount of tweaking will result in something that both satisfy the "lol spaghetti so kerbal" alleged identity that absolutely every KSP 1 player has found at best irritating and a possible structural engineering gameplay element.

[Observe]

19 hours ago, Opus said:

Does the community really share this bizarre charm for "wobbly rockets?"

No. At least not this member. I admit I was pretty disappointed with the cavalier comment that Nate made in this regard.

Quote

Wobbly rockets are sometimes fun and funny. A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing World of Goo with rocket parts. Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form.

Please don't preserve wobbly rockets out of how "fun and funny" you might think they are. Turning a bug into a feature probably doesn't work for this game.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Observe

[Yakez]

Quote

teams have continued to work on features 

Quote

Whatever solution we arrive at, we’d like it to be predictable and transparent to all users.

Quote

Initial release date: February 24, 2023

Quote

114 days

Whatever years in development + 114 days is not enough to fix basic issue with the game like wobble.  It is not fun. It is fun 1st time around. After that it is either 0 or 1. Fun just like reading forum blog posts in the age of social media. It was fun in 1999.

Well at least transparency is obvious. This train is moving nowhere.

Quote

 World of Goo

Word of Goo my valves... Major chunk of KSP audience (40.5%) is 18-25 years old, I highly doubt that they were all early adopters of iPad1 and played that game like 13 years ago...