Top 10 Requests

[Royalswissarmyknife]

30 minutes ago, Kaerbanogue said:

3. Robotics (the game is already clunky enough and, imho, robotic parts were used as palliatives for parts like propeller engines, cranes, better landing gears etc... and i think i'd be better if they add those as proper parts)

Better landing gear's and propeller engines should be actual parts I agree with that.

But have you actually used robotics for anything else other then that? They can be extremely useful for making your payloads more compact for launch and many other useful things.

Spoiler

For example I have used robotics to make wings that retract for launch and then deploy on orbit.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife

[Kaerbanogue]

50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

How are they clunky? I mean, how would they negatively affect gameplay for you? Just don't use them if you don't like them, for everyone else they're incredibly useful (plus real spacecraft rely a lot on robotics)

How are they clunky? I mean, how would they negatively affect gameplay for you?

Robotics allow you to do anything you want in KSP, check Gordon Workshop's "Game in KSP 100% STOCK" if you want a proof of that, i'm sure if KSP were more popular we would already have stock computers... The integration of robotics was possible because KSP was already stable at the time (4 years after 1.0). But KSP 2 is in the state you know,  and it takes already enough time to get patches on a game this barebones... 

Just don't use them if you don't like them, for everyone else they're incredibly useful

I use robotics in KSP 1 because they are in the game and they are the only way to make propellers etc but it's my opinion that it would be better if we had stock parts in place of assembling robotics. I'd rather have a canadarm part than a wobbly pistons and rotors assembly, a stock propeller engine than a rotor with blades that move away from the rotor at high rpm because of joint flexibility...  My point is that for a single problem there should be a single part because a part that has be designed to be used for something will perform better than robotic assemblies.

real spacecraft rely a lot on robotics

I thoughts spacecraft were made of bolts and wires I didn't know they had access to Breaking Ground parts too 

 

PS: i'm saying this for the forseeable future of KSP2. When the game will be stable and everything of course it'd be cool to have robotics ! And of course it's just my opinion. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Kaerbanogue

[Periple]

2 hours ago, Kaerbanogue said:

1. Robotics (the game is already clunky enough and, imho, robotic parts were used as palliatives for parts like propeller engines, cranes, better landing gears etc... and i think i'd be better if they add those as proper parts)

I strongly disagree about this! Robotics made it possible to do all kinds of creative contraptions. One simple thing I used it a lot for was to put engines on servos for VTOL craft, for example! I also used hinges to package craft for launch, pistons for capture mechanisms, all the parts for rover suspension setups, and so on! 

I do agree that propellers don’t belong in robotics but the rest really isn’t replaceable by a few specialized parts!

[modus]

1. Alarm clock
2. Life support
3. Colonies
4. ISRU

For 2, 3 and 4, I always really liked Roverdudes mods (MKS, LS, Wolf, ...). For me, it would be awesome if something like that was in the game (gameplay and parts).

5. Asteroids and comets
6. Telescopes
7. Transfer Window Planner
8. Better TWR readings
9. EVA construction and repair
10. Can't really think of a good one, so gonna go with: better...a lot of things (fairings, rovers, SAS, ...)

[LoSBoL]

On 11/10/2023 at 9:48 PM, HebaruSan said:

The VAB has a lot of popups and manages them poorly. Make sure the newest one opens in front, try to avoid overlapping them, make them take up less space, make them auto-hide when you're done with them, etc.
(Maybe another task for the same UX consultant.)

Yes please! How could I forget, this one is getting on my nerves as well.

Edited November 12, 2023 by LoSBoL

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

In the spirit of the question I'll stick to things that don't require a big rewrite of the game and try to focus on things that could be feasibly implemented. In no particular order:

1. Life support in some form. I don't mind how specifically, as long as it's not trivial and end up as a small increase in craft weight or failing life support has no real consequence. For example have kerbals need snacks, air and comfort. Air filtration takes power, snacks have a weight and comfort is an issue for longer stays in space. Kerbals don't need to die if anything runs out but at least fall dormant and need rescue. This would give more reasons to build bigger stations and long distance craft can't just be a mk1 lander can and power systems can't just work whenever and however.

2. More interesting electrical systems. Not asking for anything too complicated but batteries should be heavy and power requirements should be a real thing. I'd like there to be limits to how many EC/second different systems can output and for bigger systems you'd need generators which need cooling and so on. The current system (pun totally intended) is just so easy and trivial that it may as well not even exist.

3. Kerbal roles. Again there needs to be some consequences. Engineer just does not pilot a ship. Pilot just does not run complicated experiments. Scientist just does not know how to EVA construct. Make me have a reason to bring that experienced kerbal to a mission. Make me care about them.

4. Interactive science. Ok no minigames obviously but make me either fail or succeed based on how I conduct the experiment. The ground impact experiment is a good example. Or have something like JWST where it needs to point away from the sun so it doesn't heat up and have a target to point at. Make me think which orbit to put it on and figure out where it needs to be to work. How to cool it and how to power it. And so on. Make failure a possibility. 

5. Probe cores and IT systems that have a meaning. You can fly a sounding rocket with a stayputnik core but it sure can't run a science probe or process a huge comms relay station. Some systems need better processing power, some systems need a friggin' quantum computer that needs to be powered and kept cold while running a complicated experiment which produces a lot of heat and needs a good scientist on board who needs life support.

6. Rocket cost. Not wanting contracts to come back but there needs to be a reason to optimize launch vehicles and some cost to it. I should have a reason to use a 5 ton launcher for 5 ton payload instead of just slapping it on the biggest rocket I have available.

7. Fuel systems. There's already different types of fuels in place but it's again almost trivial and can be expanded. Make it a part of progression and the above mentioned cost system. Make me have a reason to plan if I should use solid fuels or kerosene or methane or hydrogen or some exotic fuel.

8. Procedureral tanks for goodness sake. Really.

9. Revamped UI. Customisable with all the data available from mechjeb. We're done with the trashcans and instead we're going interstellar, the UI needs to reflect that. 

10.  Achievements and milestones. I don't usually go for achievements but sometimes they can spark fun gameplay if they're thought out well and you can even give small in-game rewards for them, say for example a legendary pilot joins up if you survive a crash at 100 m/s. Or get some science points if you land on the Mun with just solid fuel rockets. I don't know, just would be fun if there was some in-game reason to do silly stuff.

[Bej Kerman]

12 hours ago, Kaerbanogue said:

I use robotics in KSP 1 because they are in the game and they are the only way to make propellers etc but it's my opinion that it would be better if we had stock parts in place of assembling robotics. I'd rather have a canadarm part than a wobbly pistons and rotors assembly, a stock propeller engine than a rotor with blades that move away from the rotor at high rpm because of joint flexibility...  My point is that for a single problem there should be a single part because a part that has be designed to be used for something will perform better than robotic assemblies.

Using prefab parts as a strike against robotics is like using prebuilt LEGO sets as a strike against having a giant tub of bricks to do with as you please.

12 hours ago, Kaerbanogue said:

PS: i'm saying this for the forseeable future of KSP2. When the game will be stable and everything of course it'd be cool to have robotics ! And of course it's just my opinion. 

Fair enough, though the game's not going to be in this state forever.

[Kalessin1]

I think Dakota should make some official list of requests from players, maybe some voting. As I can see life support would be on 1st place, than robotic parts, alarm clock and transfer window, SCANsat feature, QL etc.

[moeggz]

1. Remove wobble replace with Kitbash like solution that still models stress between joints and punishes badly created crafts while allowing large structures and ships assembled with lots of docking ports in orbit to still be fly able. (may be lower on list if 1.5 wobble doesn’t cost too much on performance and is as rigid as it looks)

2. QOL changes and bug fixes I’m sure are in the works, parts manager being accessible for a single part by right clicking, make delta-v accurate and plannable for different atmospheres, TWR being more visible both in VAB and on staging during flight. A color picker with hex values (that you can type into on the ui) and able to click to match a different part. Transfer window calculator with alarm clock. Bring back the parachutes on Kerbals. Movable and customizable UI, an option to move most or all of the ui to a separate monitor would be a dream. Please let us type for maneuver nodes as well, instead of just dragging. Docking camera as a default camera angle. Hotas support, I love planes but hate flying with a keyboard. All of these I feel like are either actively being worked on or are planned, just giving my support that I would rate these as high priority.

3. Life support. @Pthigrivi had a great post detailing an interesting but not overly complicated life support. I really do feel like it’s needed to separate the gameplay and user stories of manned missions and probes. It also helps balance out “max timewarp to fill all of my resources” by having a negative affect on any active manned missions. Make a gameplay reason to take care of manned kerbals on deep space missions, and a reason to send rescue missions.

4. Robotics and electric propellers. More procedural parts, particularly fuel tanks. Modifiable engines would be nice, but I don’t think that’s as common an opinion.

5. Proper boat and submersible parts and propulsion, and a gameplay reason (science biome) to explore the oceans in the Kerbol system. 

6. Much further down the line, the gameplay benefit of visualizing delivery routes to colonies may seem small for the effort it will take, but I for one would love actual craft flying the delivery routes. Like starfield not making space continuous to save a lot of developer effort for seemingly little gain led to negative feedback, this change helps so much in immersion I still think it’s worth doing even if it doesn’t much change gameplay.

7.  Comnet/scanning improvements. Make the UI in map view more clear with the comnet and how far different relays and antenna can transfer data. Preferably even some information on the part description (this antenna can reach Kerbin from the mun/Duna/Jool etc. ) I do hope scanning for resources makes a return, hopefully even with a telescope system to discover the further planets and especially the other star systems.

8. Some basic script writing for some automation. Not full on mech jeb but the programming in Juno was nice.

9. Functional IVA views and movement, with EVA construction.

10. Capybaras. Or lower on my priority, but a “test” option alongside “fly” when launching craft would make hard modes without quick loading actually possible. Very hard to do when, even in KSP1, you’re not actually sure how the ship will load into the game. Test mode gives no science or resources, but also doesn’t cost anything. But I’d also take capybaras.

Thanks for asking for feedback, it’s really appreciated. I hope some of common ones can go into consideration.

Edit: forgot about recovering spent stages! That would probably swap out 10 for me and a test view goes to 11. I’m happy with a time rewind, or a higher range of physics for stages with a probe core but I would really like to be able to recover lower stages and boosters.

Edited November 13, 2023 by moeggz

[Vortygont]

Spoiler

On 11/10/2023 at 2:54 PM, The Aziz said:

5. Fairings that are actually solid. No more clipping through payloads, please. And some additional structural integrity would be nice if, say, I want to build an interstage fairing and hold the munar module in it. Right now the only place where the fairing is connected is on the base. The open top should also work as structural element. KSP1 sort of allowed for mounting points in the middle, it wasn't the perfect solution but it was something.

6. While I'm at it, surface attachments for the tube parts. Please, I'd like to put solar panels there but I can't.

 

I'm looking forward to it a lot, sick of the engines going through the interstages and the fairings not interacting with the rocket in any way at weak separation

[GigFiz]

Oh, hey. I'll jump in on this. 

1. Maneuver node creation to be like Precise Maneuver mod from ksp1. The ability to make and tune maneuvers with numbers is so much better than than dealing with the fiddly handle things that are never precise, and hard to grab if you switch to a different angle, or focus view, and are super easy to screw up, but incredibly annoying to fix if you do mess something up or accidentally change something and want to go back to exactly how it was before. I could go on about all the ways that it's better, but really, I just want them to get permissions from the mod creator (if they need to do that, idk), and copy it pretty much identically (and just change the aesthetics to match ksp2)

2. Some kind of in game Transfer Window Planner (preferably like the ksp1 mod with that name), ideally with the option to use pork chop plots if you want/know how. Planning multiple interplanetary expeditions at once by guesstimating (and then fiddling with the damn maneuver planner), is maddening. I'm sure there would be mods and web tools to do it, like in KSP1, but as important/useful as it is for post mun/minimus level stuff, it would be much, much better to have it built into the game.

3. Last one based on a mod, I promise. I'm not the only one who's asked for better delta-v/TWR info. but yeah, a level of information on par with Kerbal Engineer would go a long way for mission planning: TWR and Delta-v by stage and by planetary body is really hard to do without for large, many stage, multipart, multi orbital body missions (missions with detachable landers, landing on Mun and Minimus in one mission, etc. Or, for example, a mission I once sent to Jool, that then detached off separate probes for each moon and a then main body turned into a massive comm relay. I would not want to deal with the hassle of trying that right now). 

4. Condensed part management, especially fuel tanks and similar structural elements. There only needs to be one item in the part picker for each fuel type/size combo/structural fuselage size, and then a submenu when you click on the one you want that lets you select length. Not everything needs to be like that, but anything where there are multiple nearly identical parts with only one changing variable should really be done that way. I really liked good part mods in KSP1, and am a fan of lots of part options in general, but it gets exhausting searching for each one when you are making something large and/or complicated, and anything that can streamline and speed up the process of finding the part you want is good thing.

5. Option to sort parts by actual size, rather than arbitrary "size name".  Small, medium and large are all well and good, but once you get past about 5, it's gonna start to get silly, and probably annoying (is Gigantic bigger than massive, or the other way around? You get the idea). I'm fine with s/m/l being the default, but having the option to switch to actual numbers .625/1.25/2.5/3.75/5/etc would be extremely desirable. A "radial" category would not be amiss either. YMMV, for sure, but I think the further in progression you go, the more desirable that will be.

6. No idea how many people this appeals to (at least a few I would think), but flavor parts for interplanetary/interstellar travel, even if they don't have an in game mechanic attached for them. Food production/hydroponics/green house/something, gym, lounge/rec space, etc. A personal flavor thing I always did for long missions or deep space stations, was require the inclusions of sufficient space, and something for long term food. There wasn't much from stock, but there were some great parts that I liked to use from the FFTech and NFTech mods by @Nertea. I don't know, y'all at IG may have heard of him.

7. Another vote for robotics, at least at some point. I never really went into breaking ground, but I messed around with Infernal Robotics enough (which, iirc, had quite a few more parts than BG did). It had some jank, sure, and I didn't do anything super high level, but I liked rigging up stuff like big unfolding sensor arrays, or even little things like rotating antennas on bases, so something like BG, scaled up to infernal robotics level, would be amazing.

8. Not sure the best way to phrase it but: the ability to make actual structural loops. Essentially, in KSP1, parts wouldn't connect all the way around in a looping structure, so if you ran structural parts in a circle, or whatever configuration, the last piece that ties it together would only ever connect to one side, so you had always had to work around it/clip stuff/etc, to keep it from floppy spacepart syndrome, or spontaneous unplanned disassembly, and sometimes the stuff you did to make it work would result in that anyway. A lot of cool design possibilities open up/get much more feasible if there was a way to actually make that last connection

9.  Support for the ability to mod in additional star systems. Nuff said.

That's the main stuff I can think of right now, so how about more absurd, pie in the sky/probably not even reasonable/feasible for the last, I suppose. 

9. Non stellar, extrasolar objects. Being able to visit them would be phenomenal, but even just being able to observe them (though I guess this would require some sort of observatory mechanic, which seems unreasonable to ask for, tbh). Black holes, quasars, nebulae, rogue planets, etc, etc. And hey, while we are accelerating rapidly away from reality, how about the capacity to make low level megastructures, lol. Not like dyson sphere level, but a bunch of crazies making an orbital ring in multiplayer would be super cool.

[MarcAbaddon]

1. Precise maneuver like interface with circularization and turning orbit up and down
2. SCANSAT functionality. It's great from gameplay as it both supports what you do normally and offers gameplay challenging by needing to be in a more or less precise polar orbit with some power consumption for the scanners
3. More engaging science system
4. Alarm clock system with integrated transfer window planner
5. Have AI controlled civilian flights and bases as the game progresses. Not a fully agency, just some independent rockets. Can make for exciting rescue missions. And it would be cool to find annother rocket in Duna orbit (on repeat missions, so you should still get the feeling of being the first one to get there)
6. Some very simple autopilot functionality, only for flights you already did yourself in the past
7.  A gameplay mechanism that encourages but not force you to use as simple a rocket as possible, just as funds did in KSP 1
8. Not flippy, stable rovers
9. Rover auto-driving
10. Comets

Edited November 13, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[TROPtastic]

I won't mention the colour picker because that's been sufficiently requested by many, so here's my gameplay list in rough order of "easiest to hardest to implement" (I'm not a developer so take this with a grain of salt):

1. Different tuning of SAS to make aircraft fly more smoothly and with less oscillation.

2. Better + more stable driving physics to make rovers as viable as they are in real life.

3. Propellers (for atmosphere and liquid use) added with the breadth and polish of current engine parts (to allow naval vehicles and aircraft from small Ingenuity drones to large transport planes and helicopters).

4. Being able to mod the UI to change its appearance completely, going as far as KSP1 appearance (can help make certain elements more legible).

5. KSP1 DLC content added to KSP2 for gameplay parity, especially Robotics (can be paid DLC if perceived as having significantly more value/completeness than KSP1 Robotics).

6. The ability to discover lore features/points of interest without having to look up a YouTube video or stumble upon them (telescopes and radars?).

7. More detailed aerodynamics and hydrodynamics to make hovercraft, ground effect aircraft, and submarines possible. 

8. Weather effects on Kerbin and other planets that can be avoided or flown through (to make flying more challenging and interesting).

9. Procedural destruction for procedural parts, rather than an entire (massive) part going poof all at once when it collides with something.

10. A rocket scripting language to make automated stage landings possible (pushing stock/DLC KSP2 above stock/DLC KSP1).

People have already posted great feedback, so much of this is already on your radar. Thanks for requesting our input and ideas.

 

[Snips]

Just my 2 cents, in no particular order:

- TransferWindowPlaner
- ManeuverNodeEditor
- Science-AddOns like ScanSAT - planet and system discovery with telescopes
- a system for doing extra-galactical-science-missions, like COBE, Gaia or Swift
- Rescale, if more procedural parts are not possible
- b9 part switch, for example I like to choose a special tank fitting to my vehicle and then assign a fuel type
- robotic parts - propellers, rotors, hinges
- clean up the whole UI - icon size im map mode, SOI size, readability, etc.
- better time warp control - "stop" should mean "stop" and not "fade out"
- revert to the KSP1 BurnTimeIndicator, it was way better for doing precisely maneuvers

There are many other good ideas in this thread, but those are my top 10.

 

 

[Bej Kerman]

50 minutes ago, Snips said:

revert to the KSP1 BurnTimeIndicator, it was way better for doing precisely maneuvers

No it wasn't.

[Snips]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

No it wasn't.

OK, to specify it, for me it was way better.

[Bej Kerman]

12 minutes ago, Snips said:

OK, to specify it, for me it was way better.

Oh, okay. Now I'm curious, what did KSP 1's node editor do better for you?

[Snips]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, okay. Now I'm curious, what did KSP 1's node editor do better for you?

I'm not talking about the node editor, I'm talking about the readout. I'd like to see a precisely readout about the deltaV left with a position after the decimal point, not the time left. And I think the read-out window is too big. The layout feels better in KSP1, as it huddle to the navball.

The node editor is another valid point, but in thanks to @schlosrat we have a mod for this.

[Voculus]

HOTAS Support x10.

[MarcAbaddon]

I already did my 10, but I remembered one other item I would have at the top... the new trajectory preview is neat in principle with accounting for burn time, but I think it needs an update to better handle orientation.

For example, if I am in a low orbit with something like an ion-power craft with slow burning, if I want to 10 minute prograde burn I do not  want to burn 10 minutes into the direction that is prograde at the start of the burn (you can actually deorbit like that), I want to burn 10 minutes while keeping the craft pointed prograde. As a corollary I think we really need some basic rotation support in timewarp.

Long-term I would really like the game to be handle Expanse like constant-burn trajectory for fast transits, and then we need a maneuver planner who supports that.

[Turbo Ben]

47 minutes ago, Voculus said:

HOTAS Support x10.

I'll add another 10 to that.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

Since you said excluding roadmap... I only have one.

Make sure no system or gameplay mechanic is "dumbed down" compared to KSP1. I really want this to be a worthy sequel and not a lateral step, that allows you to do everything you could do in KSP1 and then some.

[Periple]

3 hours ago, Turbo Ben said:

I'll add another 10 to that.

It's a matter of when, not if. KSP2 is announced for consoles, which means controller support. If you have controller support, HOTAS is basically just a configuration for it.

[Scarecrow71]

57 minutes ago, Periple said:

It's a matter of when, not if. KSP2 is announced for consoles, which means controller support. If you have controller support, HOTAS is basically just a configuration for it.

And updates for 1.11 and 1.12 for KSP1 were announced for consoles 2 years ago...and they haven't done them.  And probably won't.  So, grains of salt and all.

[Periple]

Just now, Scarecrow71 said:

And updates for 1.11 and 1.12 for KSP1 were announced for consoles 2 years ago...and they haven't done them.  And probably won't.  So, grains of salt and all.

The console release will figure into the P/L projections for the game. The only situation where they’ll get canceled is if the entire game is.

 The KSP1 console port is a disaster and probably sold really badly so I’m not surprised that support was soft-canceled. I do wish they’d come out and say so though rather than keep it dangling!