KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, tremonthedgehog said:

I am greatly enjoying 0.2, but when do you think colonies will be added? My estimation would be end of summer next year based off how long it took them to release 0.2

My official guess is some time between this very second and the heat death of the universe.

Assuming it comes out of course.

Guessing (especially forum members guessing) is a totally useless exercise whose only possible result will be a crowd-sourced and very incorrect guess that people could start thinking has some basis in reality.

[The Aziz]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Id be fine with that

Summer next year?

[Periple]

16 hours ago, tremonthedgehog said:

I am greatly enjoying 0.2, but when do you think colonies will be added?

I like guessing! So I'll guess April-June (another 3-6 months).

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Summer next year?

Oh haha summer 24’ sounds more reasonable;)

[Scarecrow71]

So, this may be either an unpopular opinion OR it may be just my singularly-eyed view of the Kerbal world (korld?).  But there is something in KSP2 that just bothers me, and it's a problem I've faced since the very first days I picked up KSP1:  building vertically vs. building horizontally.  Let me explain.

In order to get out of a planet's atmosphere, you have to build vertically.  Long, thin, spindly...whatever term you wish to use, we have to build that.  Due to aerodynamics, we have to produce ships that reduce as much drag as possible so as to reach more optimal speeds, with better gravity turns, and then easier time to get into orbit.  This is true in early game stages such as initial lift-offs from Kerbin, but then is really noticeable during late game when you are attempting to get out of the soup that is Eve's atmosphere.  Even Duna's atmosphere can produce some drag, so building vertically is needed.

The problem comes with landing on a celestial body, and this is where I am really bothered with how KSP (both 1 and 2) handle things.  In order to land properly, and to insure you don't trip over yourself and not knock a lander over, you have to have a wide base.  Or, you have to have built horizontally.  This is especially noticeable when you don't have mapping techniques in play to show you where the flat pieces of terrain are, such as if you are landing in a crater on the Mun or on one of Eve's mountains.  Heck, even dropping into Laythe's ocean you should have a wide base so as to displace enough water to keep your craft bouyant and floatable.

Both of these building techniques are, technically, do-able in KSP.  The problem is that KSP (again, both 1 and 2) doesn't seem to encourage horizontal building.  All of the parts/pieces are designed to be stacked upon one another, and the game physics punish you for trying to build outwards.  Either fairings end up too janky or heavy, or you have to over-strut things.  Sometimes the CoM ends up being a problem and ships flip during ascent, or you can't ever seem to get enough thrust to even get off the ground.  Or you produce so much drag that you can't possibly fly.  Yes, I am aware that some of these may simply be a result of not using large enough engines or some such; don't harsh on me for that as I am aware that not everything that happens is a result of the game itself but is, at times, a result of incorrect builds.

Again, the game encourages vertical builds.  The parts aren't really designed to go outwards from the center, but rather upwards in a stack.  It's actually pretty darned limiting when it comes to building because you can't be as creative as you want to be because you simply cannot put part A onto part B in configuration C to create ship D.  Please don't ask me for specific examples; I simply am not going to go through every single part and list out how I want them to interact.  I am trying to make a general point/observation here.

Maybe it's me?  Maybe I'm not capable of seeing a larger picture here?  But I can't help but have this feeling that building horizontally is sorely lacking in the game, which limits our ability to really stretch our imaginations and build some wacky stuff.

[Kerbart]

58 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Maybe it's me?  Maybe I'm not capable of seeing a larger picture here?  But I can't help but have this feeling that building horizontally is sorely lacking in the game, which limits our ability to really stretch our imaginations and build some wacky stuff.

If I get this right, you mean perpendicular to the build orientation? Because you can flip the build orientation between vertical and horizontal in the VAB (or switch buildings in KSP1), but you have enough experience to not mean that (but I do mention it on the off chance you do).

I agree that we do miss parts that allow “building out” —hinges, etc, although even those in KSP1 didn’t work quite satisfactory because they were geared towards (robotic) motion and not really stiff enough to fold out to a static position allowing for large forces.

 

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

In order to get out of a planet's atmosphere, you have to build vertically. 

In order to land properly, and to insure you don't trip over yourself and not knock a lander over, you have to have a wide base.  Or, you have to have built horizontally.

To me, this is an appropriate trade-off / design challenge. One set of incentives pulls you in one direction, and others pull you in the opposite direction, and going too far either way has risks and penalties, so the player has to find a balance rather than going all-out with one solution.

It sounds like you're not happy with the options for expanding outwards, but all tanks support radial attachment, and if you want to use staging in such a design, there are radial decouplers. Since there are design trade-offs regarding width, the player has to carefully consider how wide is too wide. I find that a good way to handle that is to exploit the already-necessary scale difference between upper and lower stages. For example, here's my Exploration Mode Mun/Minmus lander:

Spoiler

The radial tanks provide more than enough fuel to land and return without overly stretching the height. And it's still narrow enough that the (single-stage) launcher can get it to orbit without difficulties (with an undockable refill tank that makes up most of the fairing's height):

Spoiler

A caution to anyone thinking of trying that design: leave the landing legs out to avoid bugs with phantom forces on switching craft.

[The Aziz]

I mean, the lander might me small, but.. that lifter looks like an overkill considering the task at hand, which is Mun landing. That's where the problem is. If you want to go flat, you need to go wide with your rocket.

[hatterson]

29 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I mean, the lander might me small, but.. that lifter looks like an overkill considering the task at hand, which is Mun landing. That's where the problem is. If you want to go flat, you need to go wide with your rocket.

Sure, but also that's just how physics works. I don't think KSP should be a slave to realism or anything (at least stock), but there's a reason why every rocket humans have ever built is thin and tall, and it would be weird to have a physics based rocket launch game not disincentivize you from flying something that is 50m wide and 10m tall.

There's maybe other things that KSP 2 could do to make landing a little easier like legs that unfold wider or fixing landing leg suspension stuff, but I'm not sure how it can realistically not punish building wide and maintain it's core of being a physics based rocket game.

FWIW, once we have orbital construction, or at least constructions on vacuum (like Mun surface or whatever), then you can build as wide as you want. Obviously that's not an option now, but long term it will be.

Edited January 2 by hatterson

[Periple]

I completed the story missions and I have some thoughts.

First, the idea of having missions that push you to explore is good. I bet a lot of people who never went interplanetary in KSP1 are doing so now.

However I thought the missions themselves were somewhat lacking: a breadcrumb trail fed to you one at a time. Very linear and the same every time. There also wasn’t any sense of discovery because the waypoint was just given to you.

I would have enjoyed it more if I could discover the monuments myself and if there was some mystery to solve there, instead of just Keri telling me what it was. Like Outer Wilds maybe, but simpler.

I also felt that the mission rewards were too big compared to science. I didn’t have to pay much attention to science at all because the missions quickly blasted through the first two tiers and well into the third, I even unlocked the fourth. I think they need to be nerfed so half or more than half your points come from experiments.

Otherwise it was pretty smooth going. I didn’t encounter any blockers. I had to quit and restart a few times e.g because orbit lines disappeared. I got into a very low orbit around Tylo which started to decay, also the difference between sea level and ground there is too high, like 20 km. 

Other than that just minor things — dV reading zero when it shouldn’t, experiments getting interrupted when flying over a new biome although they shouldn’t, that sort of thing. Very smooth frame rates too. 

Overall a good experience and I’ll keep playing the campaign to do a few of the secondary missions and unlock more of the tech tree. Can’t wait for colonies!

[tremonthedgehog]

On 1/8/2024 at 11:10 AM, Periple said:

experiments getting interrupted when flying over a new biome although they shouldn’t,

Based on my experience, only biome-specific experiments will get interrupted when flying over a new biome. This seems intentional as it means that you can't do the same experiment at very high altitudes, but instead, you have to be flying over the same biome long enough for the experiment to complete. I would assume the developers reasoning behind this is that they wanted to make collecting science more gameplay-centric, and forcing you to stay over one biome to collect science would be one way to do that.t

[Periple]

17 hours ago, tremonthedgehog said:

Based on my experience, only biome-specific experiments will get interrupted when flying over a new biome.

Unfortunately not, for example the radiation science experiment will get interrupted. It’s been logged as a bug.

[tremonthedgehog]

3 hours ago, Periple said:

Unfortunately not, for example the radiation science experiment will get interrupted. It’s been logged as a bug.

have not gotten there yet, my bad

[Scarecrow71]

Question:  Am I the only one who doesn't use the nuclear engines?  They can't (or shouldn't) be used to get into orbit from Kerbin, they and their fuel are far too heavy (especially early-game), and they seem to be vastly underpowered for any kind of efficient interplanetary trip (especially when you consider that you have to use a dedicated lander to get to and from the surface of whatever celestial body you are aiming for).

Am I the only one?  Anybody else here not use them?  Am I simply confused on how and when to use them?  Or are methalox tanks/engines just better in this regard?

[The Aziz]

Wait, have you actually checked the mass? 

I'll just quote myself from another thread.

A medium length 2.5m size tank with a single engine weighs 5.81 tons, 3 of which is the engine. Similarly sized methalox tank with a poodle (the most efficient engine for the size) weighs nearly 20 tons, 18 of which is the fully loaded tank. A stack of hydrogen tanks of the same mass, while larger, gave me 2.5 times more D-v.

So, I'm not sure about the heaviness here. And so, even if you have to consider separate lander (why wouldn't you?) The total mass of the ship will be smaller - and so, smaller lifter is required - and if you mount a command pod on the nuclear ship alone, you'd be able to ditch the lander and have plenty of dv for return trip.

[whatsEJstandfor]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Question:  Am I the only one who doesn't use the nuclear engines?  They can't (or shouldn't) be used to get into orbit from Kerbin, they and their fuel are far too heavy (especially early-game), and they seem to be vastly underpowered for any kind of efficient interplanetary trip (especially when you consider that you have to use a dedicated lander to get to and from the surface of whatever celestial body you are aiming for).

Am I the only one?  Anybody else here not use them?  Am I simply confused on how and when to use them?  Or are methalox tanks/engines just better in this regard?

Funnily, I was using the hydrogen engines a lot prior to 0.2.0.0, but, once I had unlocked them in the tech tree, I ended up not using them at all for a while. For whatever reason, I felt like methalox was sufficient for everything I was doing. But then I tried them out again in a transfer stage, replacing a methalox tank and engine, and my dV for the stage shot way up. What they lack in thrust, especially in atmosphere, they make up for in being so efficient and in their fuel being so light.

Try replacing one of your interplanetary stages with a SWERV and just see if you like it.

[steveman0]

I have used nuclear ships exclusively for inter-body travel since I unlocked them. The efficiency is too good to pass up. That said, I have relied on over-built interplanetary ships due to lack of better planning tools for transfers. I could see a compact single-purpose rocket using the deep-space methalox engines working well and being far less unwieldy at launch.

Edited January 19 by steveman0
Typo

[The Aziz]

I've made my Duna and Eve ships relying on methalox, and that's unlikely to change, but Moho, Dres, Jool and Eeloo? They receive hydrogen treatment. And too bad the resource update isn't there yet because with lightness of hydrogen, refueling stations would be all over the system now.

[Scarecrow71]

See, I have the medium hydrogen tanks unlocked...but I only have the small SWERV's.  So I end up having to use multiple SWERV engines on a single hydrogen tank.  And as I don't have a large enough engine plate unlocked, I have to mount the SWERV's radially.  Maybe I'm building wrong, but I still feel like we are forced to build vertically, which punishes the builder when all that's available are small engines.

Again, this might just be me.  But I seem to not be able to build something with nuclear engines that's efficient enough to make it worth my while.  Which really bums me out, because I am fully incapable of getting to Duna, which means I've put KSP2 away for now.  Funnily enough, I have less of the tech tree unlocked in KSP1 than I do in KSP2 right now, and I can get to Duna easily in KSP1 but can't seem to build a craft in KSP2 that can even get to LKO with the parts necessary to get to Duna.

[The Aziz]

Here's me, dealing with excessive length

On another ship I put two engines on the side tanks for better TWR.

[Kimera Industries]

It seems to me that for smallish ships methalox works fine, but then, they don't stay small as soon as you want to go farther than the Mun, don't they?

[The Aziz]

Depends on your needs really. My Duna transfer vehicle may have been a 2.5m wide rocket on its own, but the lander *and* return vehicle, 2in1, was a simple Mk1 pod with a fuel tank and a Terrier at the bottom. So it wasn't really that big after all. 

[rogerawong]

On 1/16/2024 at 11:42 AM, steveman0 said:

I have used nuclear ships exclusively for inter-body travel since I unlocked them. The efficiency is too good to pass up. That said, I have relied on over-built interplanetary ships due to lack of better planning tools for transfers. I could see a compact single-purpose rocket using the deep-space methalox engines working well and being far less unwieldy at launch.

It's not just useful for inter-body travel.

I  was stuck in the rocket equation paradox trying to build a single-stage Tylo lander with 5.5k dV, decent TWR and sufficient SAS. I want to re-use and re-fuel in orbit and bring it back down to other Science areas.  300 tons.

I hadn't thought of using hydrogen, so I decided to build one with one SWERV and a few tanks. Boom. 6k dV, 2.7 TWR, 26 tons. 

Edited January 24 by rogerawong
I mis-remembered the vehicle stats.

[The Aziz]

I was caught by surprise when I used my Tylo lander with 1.5 or so TWR. Coming down from ~15km from orbital speeds... Let's say it was buttclenching. Suicide burns from orbit should get a different name.

[Periple]

Single-stage Tylo landers were super difficult in KSP1. I did manage a fully reusable lander but it used an orbital booster that took about 1000 m/s off fast, then undocked and burned back to orbit; what was left on the lander was enough to get it down and back up for redocking and refueling. They're kind of trivial now with the SWERV and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that!