CM: No plans in the future to lock SAS or maneuver nodes behind progression

[Periple]

Just now, Vl3d said:

You asked "medics what for" and I gave you some examples why I think medics should be in the game. I think my "take these thoughts and put them in your head" skills are lacking. Somewhere down the line "I'll take these words and replace them with my thoughts".

Okay, thanks! 

[regex]

Good god damn riddance, that was probably one of the dumbest progression ideas ever put into KSP1, maybe even the dumbest.

[MechBFP]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Radiation has been basically confirmed to be in the game.

Gravity rings are confirmed.

Habitation parts have not yet been directly confirmed, but I assume a lot of space station parts are for kerbals living quarters.

Remember all those things that you said were basically confirmed before the EA release?

Let’s learn from history, shall we?

[AtomicTech]

10 hours ago, Vl3d said:

<Q> will the SAS functions and maneuver nodes be unlocked progressively like in carreer KSP1?

<A> not in For Science! and no plans in the future to lock SAS or maneuver nodes behind progression

https://discord.com/channels/1039959585949237268/1039965578754007060/1169414289686286346

...

So this means all probes have access to all SAS functions from the start? That makes it harder to differentiate them. Also doesn't that mean we're not getting Kerbal Pilots experience progression? Also not having all SAS function from the start was a good way to make the player learn to control the NavBall.

I'm just happy to have all of my SAS modes! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

1 hour ago, regex said:

Good god damn riddance, that was probably one of the dumbest progression ideas ever put into KSP1, maybe even the dumbest.

It has its place so I wouldn't consider it a riddance but I am glad to have them sticking around permanently!

27 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Remember all those things that you said were basically confirmed before the EA release?

Let’s learn from history, shall we?

Sure, times change; maybe not the best argument to make though.

[Vl3d]

43 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Remember all those things that you said were basically confirmed before the EA release?

Let’s learn from history, shall we?

MMO 7000 players on Kerbin confirmed!

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I mean to say how do you differentiate between different probe models and between pilots with varying experience levels?

Presumably something that isn't nearly as lazy and contrived as what KSP 1 did.

[Pthigrivi]

I know Im in the minority but I still don't think kerbal classes need to exist at all. It's a solution looking for a problem, and almost all of the problems folks conjure up to justify it fall way outside of core gameplay. 

[Periple]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

I know Im in the minority but I still don't think kerbal classes need to exist at all. It's a solution looking for a problem, and almost all of the problems folks conjure up to justify it fall way outside of core gameplay. 

I think they (and experience and traits) are a nice bit of flavor. They’re not essential by any means!

[DoomsdayDuck555]

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Radiation poisoning, zero gravity bone density damage, not enough habitation space..

That is life support.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The reason those are so light is because they're accelerated using lasers. Solar sails and radiation pressure is not planned to be a thing in KSP before 1.0.

I don't care if skill experience is in the game, but it would be absurd if classes like Pilot, Scientist, Engineer, Medic are omitted.

Medics?  I think the case for Pilots and Scientists coming with For Science! practically writes itself.  Engineers with Resources would make sense.  And I could argue for Colonists, to run colonies when we get those.  I’m curious about this Medics idea, though?

[Vl3d]

8 hours ago, DoomsdayDuck555 said:

That is life support.

Not in a classical sense. IMO managing heat will function also as a part failure system and radiation will take the place of a basic life support system - but instead of managing snacks & resources on a craft, you manage the amount of max radiation kerbals are exposed to (similar to heat - too much and bad things happen).

I'm not sure about the artificial gravity and the habitation space mechanics - if and how.

[DoomsdayDuck555]

13 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Not in a classical sense. IMO managing heat will function also as a part failure system and radiation will take the place of a basic life support system - but instead of managing snacks & resources on a craft, you manage the amount of max radiation kerbals are exposed to (similar to heat - too much and bad things happen).

I'm not sure about the artificial gravity and the habitation space mechanics - if and how.

Those are usually components of a larger LS system. I would argue that those are classic LS elements, with the exception of zero g bone density loss. If you disagree, that’s fine, this is just my opinion 

[Mickel]

My take on this FWIW: the player should have to be able to fly a pod to orbit and back before being able to lock to pro/retrograde.  But then the player shouldn't need to do it with every pilot.  They debrief, they talk among themselves.  They build a better simulator.  A player should have to be able to dock to prove they can do it - just like Gemini did.  A player should be able to land on Mun.  Perhaps don't make the process as long-winded as KSP1.  But the player shouldn't get all the aids at the initial stages.  The Soviet and American space programs didn't.  They had to go work it out for themselves.

[Vl3d]

3 hours ago, Mickel said:

My take on this FWIW: the player should have to be able to fly a pod to orbit and back before being able to lock to pro/retrograde.  But then the player shouldn't need to do it with every pilot.  They debrief, they talk among themselves.  They build a better simulator.  A player should have to be able to dock to prove they can do it - just like Gemini did.  A player should be able to land on Mun.  Perhaps don't make the process as long-winded as KSP1.  But the player shouldn't get all the aids at the initial stages.  The Soviet and American space programs didn't.  They had to go work it out for themselves.

I guess that's what the tutorials are for.

[mattihase]

On 11/2/2023 at 1:55 PM, Periple said:

Random tangent about probe cores... I think it'd be cool if interstellar-tier tech included probe cores with full autonomy, negligible mass, and really low EC requirements, with a few other teeny-tiny parts to match.

I disagree. I think interstellar probes should be inherently limited in function in some way (perhaps to harden them against cosmic rays outside of the heliopause) to encourage going places interstellar with your kerbals.

Edited November 5, 2023 by mattihase

[mattihase]

Interstellar cores should have to be massive, mostly shielding, and only capable of following simple commands like hold/point at orientation when further from the nearest colony. All but the smallest science payloads should also be impossible to transmit over interstellar distances without a colony with a big radiotelescope array.

This makes sense both as a realism thing (if we're sticking to present/near future tech) and as further a gameplay incentive to design crewed and colony building missions.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, mattihase said:

Interstellar cores should have to be massive, mostly shielding, and only capable of following simple commands like hold/point at orientation when further from the nearest colony.

Why, would all the software engineers have gone extinct by then?

[Strawberry]

On 11/2/2023 at 8:55 AM, Periple said:

Random tangent about probe cores... I think it'd be cool if interstellar-tier tech included probe cores with full autonomy, negligible mass, and really low EC requirements, with a few other teeny-tiny parts to match. This would make it possible to design super, super tiny probes for your first interstellar missions. This is even at least passingly realistic!

Commnet is too cool of a feature to render redundant. Not to mention, small cores for interstellar missions are pointless because your vehicles themselves cant be tiny if you want to get there in a decent amount of time. Personally what Id like to see is a large sized ~ 20 EC AI core that can control any vehicle connected to its commnet to encourage the use of a commnet mothership for interstellar missions (Ie leave the mothership in orbit while you separate a lander from it), that's unlocked like right before you go to deb deb. Later on you get a medium sized one, still large enough to where it makes you reluctant to design a lander with it, but small enough to where you can use it for a lander if you want to. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Strawberry

[regex]

On 11/5/2023 at 8:38 AM, Bej Kerman said:

Why, would all the software engineers have gone extinct by then?

Right? NASA was building multiple-redundant computer systems able to "self-heal" and perform intricate maneuvers to ensure science instruments stayed on target back in the nineties, without needing communication from Earth. The Soviets built a shuttle that was completely automated in the eighties. No one in the Apollo flight needed to be available to "hold heading" for hours on end and the same goes for the Voyager probes.

[magnemoe]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:55 PM, Periple said:

It was definitely that in KSP1 but it doesn't have to be that way. If done well it can add a nice dash of flavor without becoming a required activity!

Random tangent about probe cores... I think it'd be cool if interstellar-tier tech included probe cores with full autonomy, negligible mass, and really low EC requirements, with a few other teeny-tiny parts to match. This would make it possible to design super, super tiny probes for your first interstellar missions. This is even at least passingly realistic!

https://www.space.com/36783-interstellar-spaceflight-breakthrough-starshot-panspermia.html

This would be hard today and I feel kerbal technology here is more primitive.  And an probe with an real AI like an self driving car would add weight and power draw.  And that is something who is relevant for rovers on Mars, moon has so short delay its less needed, It would be needed for interplanetary missions. 

Now sending out an starship it would make sense to drop of an probe before starting to brake for an preview. 

[mattihase]

On 11/5/2023 at 4:38 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Why, would all the software engineers have gone extinct by then?

Hey, we programmed the probe software right! It's the user's fault the thing caught fire the moment they tried to make it bank to the left.

On 11/7/2023 at 4:02 PM, magnemoe said:

 And an probe with an real AI like an self driving car would add weight and power draw.  And that is something who is relevant for rovers on Mars, moon has so short delay its less needed, It would be needed for interplanetary missions.

Actually that does remind me, Perseverance is based on Self Driving Car tech.

I do definitely think, at least in an interplanetary setting, KSP's probe cores are fairly accurate equivalents to what we could probably do with modern tech today.

For interstellar (and with radiation being a planned thing) I just think we'd need something that feels more robust is all.