KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[PDCWolf]

14 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Yessss.. finally the first example of part weathering... YEEES!!!

 

I was giving the video a chance (leaving my comments to "too cartoony" and nothing else), but this is... just bad. It doesn't look "dynamic", it looks funnily stiff with some glitches coming and going. The worst part for the "glitchy" effect itself is probably 0:43 and ahead. Before that what looks really wrong is the entire thing being completely static.

It's AIR my dudes, it twirls and contorts around the shape, forms vortices further back. If you're using an ablator then there are particles ablating and flying away from the shield.

If it gets turbulent it can form even more crazy shapes.

 

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Also, there's no way the Kerbol system is co-existing with another system whose densities and physics are more in line with real life.

Impossible as in "you can't have inclined planetary axis is KSP1" impossible (ie a game limitation) or impossible as in "this wouldn't exist in reality" because this is a game about little green men in space after all...

Personally I don't see why we can't have a real scale solar system analog in the game.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Kerbart

[Periple]

3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Impossible as in "you can't have inclined planetary axis is KSP1" impossible (ie a game limitation) or impossible as in "this wouldn't exist in reality" because this is a game about little green men in space after all...

Personally I don't see why we can't have a real scale solar system analog in the game.

It would be technically possible no doubt, but I think it would feel really jarring to suddenly have a Jool-sized Earth in the same universe that has a Jool-sized gas giant and a Kerbin-sized Kerbin, because it would mean that the laws of physics are local. I would be shocked if they did decide to do something like this!

[Kerbart]

38 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

It's AIR my dudes, it twirls and contorts around the shape, forms vortices further back. If you're using an ablator then there are particles ablating and flying away from the shield.

If it gets turbulent it can form even more crazy shapes.

The fur system in KSP1 needed an upgrade but at least it has that dynamic feel. I agree that this looks great in still pictures. And then it looks exactly the same in-game. Which is very disappointing. I hate to bring up the "after five years of development this is what we got" trope, but seriously, this is the best they came up with so far?

All we can hope for is that this is just a basic placeholder and that better looking reentry effects are in the works.

[Emanuel01]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

No, but your Kerbals won't forget how to build them between departing and arriving.

But they’ll have to build them with the resources available on destination. This means researching new ways of doing things.
We know how to build a car here on earth, but if we go to the moon we’ll surely need a ton of new research into how to extract metals from moon regolith and turn those into useful components. It has nothing to do with forgetting, it’s adapting. 
My point is that this can be made into interesting gameplay elements and avoiding the trap of exploring the new solar systems in “God mode”

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Impossible as in "you can't have inclined planetary axis is KSP1" impossible (ie a game limitation) or impossible as in "this wouldn't exist in reality" because this is a game about little green men in space after all...

Personally I don't see why we can't have a real scale solar system analog in the game.

Because it's inconsistent. Realism isn't the point, consistency in realism is.

[Kerbart]

53 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because it's inconsistent. Realism isn't the point, consistency in realism is.

Have you checked... the universe? Even just that infinitesimal small part of it, our galaxy? Red dwarfs hardly larger than Jupiter, with multiple planets orbiting it closer than Mercury orbits our sun? But also stars with sizes that'd extend to the orbit of Neptune? Lopsided systems with gas giants in close orbits and the rocky ones farther away? Neutron stars that are the size of Minmus but have the mass of five times our Sun?

This one is a lot bigger than the one we just left is hardly a disqualifier for realism. If anything, consistency would be. Interstellar will be a lot more attractive if you get to see something else, instead of a clone of the Kerbol system.

[Periple]

14 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Have you checked... the universe? Even just that infinitesimal small part of it, our galaxy? Red dwarfs hardly larger than Jupiter, with multiple planets orbiting it closer than Mercury orbits our sun? But also stars with sizes that'd extend to the orbit of Neptune? Lopsided systems with gas giants in close orbits and the rocky ones farther away? Neutron stars that are the size of Minmus but have the mass of five times our Sun?

This one is a lot bigger than the one we just left is hardly a disqualifier for realism. If anything, consistency would be. Interstellar will be a lot more attractive if you get to see something else, instead of a clone of the Kerbol system.

You won't find a rocky planet the size of Jupiter. It would collapse into something much smaller under its own gravity. If such a thing were possible, the surface gravity would be around 146g. 

(Reference)

[Bej Kerman]

32 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Have you checked... the universe? Even just that infinitesimal small part of it, our galaxy? Red dwarfs hardly larger than Jupiter, with multiple planets orbiting it closer than Mercury orbits our sun? But also stars with sizes that'd extend to the orbit of Neptune? Lopsided systems with gas giants in close orbits and the rocky ones farther away? Neutron stars that are the size of Minmus but have the mass of five times our Sun?

This one is a lot bigger than the one we just left is hardly a disqualifier for realism. If anything, consistency would be. Interstellar will be a lot more attractive if you get to see something else, instead of a clone of the Kerbol system.

What Periple said, and to add an example of my own, you won't find a planet with the density of Earth in the same universe as a planet with the density of Kerbin. You're telling me these things obviously occur at the same time in our own universe?  None of your examples have any relevance to the problem of having Earth and Kerbin in the same universe. It's a ridiculous inconsistency. You're sorely mistaken if you think Kerbin can happen IRL.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Kerbart]

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What Periple said, and to add an example of my own, you won't find a planet with the density of Earth in the same universe as a planet with the density of Kerbin. You're telling me these things obviously occur at the same time in our own universe?  None of your examples have any relevance to the problem of having Earth and Kerbin in the same universe. It's a ridiculous inconsistency. You're sorely mistaken if you think Kerbin can happen IRL.

Why would it have the density of Kerbin? The only reason Kerbin has an absurd density is to give it the same surface gravity as Earth despite its miniscule size. The whole point of a real-sized solar system would be to not have planets made out of unealistic materials or suns that could never sustain fusion. Talk about reality!

You're working from the assumption that everything has to be the same as the Kerbol system. Me and others don't—that's the whole point of other systems.

In KSP1 you're forced to replace the Kerbol system with a modded version if you want something Earth-sized. For the record, personally I don't care. I see great opportunities for KSP2 for someone to introduce a modded system that has solar-system like properties without replacing what we already have but you're telling me they can't because that would break the rules you have about the Kerbal "universe?"

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Why would it have the density of Kerbin? The only reason Kerbin has an absurd density is to give it the same surface gravity as Earth despite its miniscule size. The whole point of a real-sized solar system would be to not have planets made out of unealistic materials or suns that could never sustain fusion. Talk about reality!

You're working from the assumption that everything has to be the same as the Kerbol system. Me and others don't—that's the whole point of other systems.

In KSP1 you're forced to replace the Kerbol system with a modded version if you want something Earth-sized. For the record, personally I don't care. I see great opportunities for KSP2 for someone to introduce a modded system that has solar-system like properties without replacing what we already have but you're telling me they can't because that would break the rules you have about the Kerbal "universe?"

So you're telling me Kerbin with its absurd density could exist in the same universe as Earth?

[The Aziz]

Introducing RSS brings nothing to gameplay other than higher DV requirements. And frankly, spending 10+ minutes just to get to orbit is very boring.

This is not a step up in difficulty, it's a step down in gameplay value.

[Periple]

26 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

In KSP1 you're forced to replace the Kerbol system with a modded version if you want something Earth-sized. For the record, personally I don't care. I see great opportunities for KSP2 for someone to introduce a modded system that has solar-system like properties without replacing what we already have but you're telling me they can't because that would break the rules you have about the Kerbal "universe?"

At least I was talking about stock KSP2. Personally I would prefer a mod that scaled up everything but if somebody wanted to make a mod that dropped a real-scale solar system into the stock game somewhere I wouldn’t object even if I wouldn’t want to play it myself!

[GluttonyReaper]

30 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Why would it have the density of Kerbin? The only reason Kerbin has an absurd density is to give it the same surface gravity as Earth despite its miniscule size. The whole point of a real-sized solar system would be to not have planets made out of unealistic materials or suns that could never sustain fusion. Talk about reality!

You're working from the assumption that everything has to be the same as the Kerbol system. Me and others don't—that's the whole point of other systems.

In KSP1 you're forced to replace the Kerbol system with a modded version if you want something Earth-sized. For the record, personally I don't care. I see great opportunities for KSP2 for someone to introduce a modded system that has solar-system like properties without replacing what we already have but you're telling me they can't because that would break the rules you have about the Kerbal "universe?"

The point is more than having a full-sized solar system draws attention to how weird and small the Kerbol system is - having them be that small is a concession made for gameplay rather than a deliberate lore choice. You don't really notice how tiny the Kerbol planets are because there's nothing to compare them to (unless you know enough about the game to know they're scaled down obviously) and they feel pretty big still. The planets as they are now are clearly supposed to be roughly analogous to real-life planets with some slightly cartoony elements, having those same real-life planets but at full-size would create some... interesting tonal issues for the base game.

As for modding though, I'd be very disappointed if it wasn't possible and relatively easy to add the real-life system as a separate system. That's exactly the kind of thing that mods are for, and would probably be something I might try out for a challenge every so often.

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Introducing RSS brings nothing to gameplay other than higher DV requirements. And frankly, spending 10+ minutes just to get to orbit is very boring.

This is not a step up in difficulty, it's a step down in gameplay value.

I wish I'd brought this up now

People forget that the Kerbal system being 1/10th size is offset by rockets being ridiculously inefficient compared to real rockets. It's debatable whether KSP was balanced for 1/10th size planets or 1/4th size planets, but either way RSS in stock is conceptually boring anyway.

[MechBFP]

53 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Introducing RSS brings nothing to gameplay other than higher DV requirements. And frankly, spending 10+ minutes just to get to orbit is very boring.

This is not a step up in difficulty, it's a step down in gameplay value.

If we had enough data on planets to be able to accurately recreate the real solar system in such a way that it would allow the player to experience other plants as they are in real life, then I could see the value. As it stands right now creating the “real” solar system would be more fiction than fact, so in the end it really does boil down to higher dV requirements and longer transit times and not a lot more. 

[regex]

The new re-entry effects videos are honestly "bland" and look super-stylized. Where are the particles streaming off the heat shield? I hope they really are "work in progress" and not the final product.

E: Although I should say that the sound design, as always, is amazing. I just wish the graphics matched the crackling and varying "whooshes" in the sound.

Edited November 23, 2023 by regex

[The Aziz]

That's the thing, isn't it?

You're allowed to grab pitchforks if it releases in such state. Until then, note, observe, comment.

Though I'd like to point out that even if it looks subpar on release, it is probably due to still not finished optimization process. Until that's dealt with, there will be sacrifices in fidelity here and there. If it stays like that when 1.0 drops.. yeah I'd be with you.

Edited November 23, 2023 by The Aziz

[KUAR]

As a person who generally errs on the more positive and optimistic side for KSP2, sadly I've been a little underwhelmed at the imagination that the new science mode appears (at first glance) to exhibit. Then, positively shocked at the clunkiness of the work in progress reentry heating animation! I expect it will be made a little more slick before release but right now it looks like the graphics design apprentice did it as homework. 

Sorry, I know there's probably a committed developer on the other end of it, and I'm sure there's complexities I've missed...but that's how it looks to me.

[regex]

I'll grab a pitchfork whenever I damn well please, I don't need to be "allowed".

I really hope to be "wowed" by the science update. I know I'm probably not going to be overly impressed by the mechanics based based on what I can see from the released screenshots so hopefully we'll see improvements in graphics, performance, and (good lord, please) driving on a surface.

[TwoCalories]

I see a lot of people saying that the re-entry FX aren't looking very great. I don't know, but I think they look a lot better than KSP1's.

And about the arguments over adding a... real solar system? Wait, do people want to replace the Kerbolar System with RSS or something?

Edited November 23, 2023 by TwoCalories

[Sans]

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I was giving the video a chance (leaving my comments to "too cartoony" and nothing else), but this is... just bad. It doesn't look "dynamic", it looks funnily stiff with some glitches coming and going. The worst part for the "glitchy" effect itself is probably 0:43 and ahead. Before that what looks really wrong is the entire thing being completely static.

It's AIR my dudes, it twirls and contorts around the shape, forms vortices further back. If you're using an ablator then there are particles ablating and flying away from the shield.

If it gets turbulent it can form even more crazy shapes.

 

I so much agree. I've said it on the discord. The reentry effect is so cartoonish, air should flow around, not just ignite and stay there

[Pthigrivi]

I don’t know I think the effects look great. I don’t know why folks want KSP to be photo-real. 
 

As to science obviously the changes from KSP1 aren’t radical, but there’s a lot of nuance possible and opportunities that could be taken up that KSP1 missed. The science system itself never incentivized some basic skills like precision landing or real time scanning. These discoverables seem to imply the former and Im hoping the latter gets added over time. 

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I don’t know I think the effects look great. I don’t know why folks want KSP to be photo-real.

Not photo realistic, but they kinda look static. If I recall correctly, first reveal of reentry heating had a lot more "flame wiggling".

[The Aziz]

19 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

I don't know, but I think they look a lot better than KSP1's.

Yeah but.. they don't look exactly like something made with 10 years of improvements in VFX technology.