Who’s excited for KSP 3?

[VlonaldKerman]

With the resounding success of KSP 2, which I can only conclude is full steam ahead given that there has been no communication to the contrary, and the roadmap is still on the Steam page for the game, what does the community want to see in KSP 3?

For me, the most important thing will be a functional game with a fundamentally sound engine. But to each their own!

[kerbiloid]

Less than twenty years passed between the Elite: Frontier and its Encounters to the Elite: Dangerous, so no problem to wait twenty years more.

Of course, some Elite players have reincarnated between them, and lost their original achievments and records, but is it first time?

Edited July 2 by kerbiloid

[Gargamel]

31 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Less than twenty years passed between the Elite: Frontier and its Encounters to the Elite: Dangerous, so no problem to wait twenty years more.

Of course, some Elite players have reincarnated between them, and lost their original achievments and records, but is it first time?

Sometimes, @kerbiloid, your statements are so off the wall, they actually make sense to me.  

[Skorj]

If PD is ever sold, maybe I could get excited for KSP3.  Would depend on the buyer of course, another AAA studio would be pointless.  I'm open to a lot of directions KSP3 could go, adjacent to KSP1 gameplay.  It doesn't need to be KSP1 all over again, but it sure would be nice to start with that as a base!  As has been discussed at length, all the tricky bits of the code are optional to the core experience: multiplayer, 3-body physics, and fancy terrain generation could all be sidelined if needed for a solid base game. 

Lots of ways to go from there once you had a rocket sim to build on, lots of ways to add an actual game to the sim.

[Vexillar]

6 hours ago, Skorj said:

Lots of ways to go from there once you had a rocket sim to build on, lots of ways to add an actual game to the sim.

Hey - it could be called Sim Rockets... or something.

[Dakitess]

I don't believe in any KSP 3.0 unfortunately, none that would be worth the name of the official game. And I definitely don't want to play any kind of ersatz, better play KSP1.

Like, I don't believe in a Open Source Space Program for instance. No doubt that it would made with all the best wishes and motivation, but I doubt it would reach the quality of a KSP Successor.

[Mikki]

On 7/2/2024 at 6:25 PM, Gargamel said:

Sometimes, @kerbiloid, your statements are so off the wall, they actually make sense to me.  

Some people are heavily overqualified for this life, he certainly is one. 

[Infinite Aerospace]

Don't want to sound pessimistic but I don't think we'll ever see another game with the name 'Kerbal' in it. It's good we've still got the original because that's in all likelihood as good as we're going to get unless someone purchases the IP and just continues the work on KSP2.

[Sirad]

Why im not excited for KSP3:

Hence, KSP is a game that needs not only Fundamental Knowledge in Mathematics, but EXPLICITE perfect knowledge how to adapt physics into Software, any Project in the Future is doomed unless you can attract enough coders that have also a (SCL) degree in mathematics. Typically those wont work for salarys offered in projects like this. In my Country those start here young at 125.000 €/Year, and quickly raise up... they wont work for less because they are a sparcer ressource here, than the truth out of our beloved publishers PR Management.

There may be a freshed up KSP1 within the limitations of the Unity Engine. I heard People here fantasizing about a KSP with proper physics mechanik. oh well someone solved the multi  Body Problem here in the Forum ? Thats a nobel price. Just publish it...

 

[gluckez]

the one thing I'm looking forward to in ksp3 is NOT BUYING IT until it's finished. pretty sure T2 would pull this scam again. or maybe even better, I'm just not buying any of their games again and I hope they go bankrupt

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Sirad said:

KSP is a game that needs not only Fundamental Knowledge in Mathematics, but EXPLICITE perfect knowledge how to adapt physics into Software, any Project in the Future is doomed unless you can attract enough coders that have also a (SCL) degree in mathematics. Typically those wont work for salarys offered in projects like this. In my Country those start here young at 125.000 €/Year, and quickly raise up

If the world was based on the KSP level of physics knowledge, we would ram Aldebaran long ago.

[Sirad]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

If the world was based on the KSP level of physics knowledge, we would ram Aldebaran long ago.

By krakened NAN, accident, intentionally or inverted orbital decay ?

 

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, Sirad said:

By krakened NAN, accident, intentionally or inverted orbital decay ?

 

At least for the real (floating point) numbers precision.

[Observe]

Define KSP3 and I'll tell you if I'm excited about the idea of it. If the vision for a hypothetical KSP3 is anything like KSP2, then no. I want a real solar system (RSS) and no cartoony Kerbals. Give me a proper space (and aircraft) simulator game and I'd jump on it.  In other words, it couldn't be called KSP anything. It would have to be a whole new game altogether.  

Edited July 4 by Observe

[Sirad]

21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

At least for the real (floating point) numbers precision.

Real number processing exists.

[theJesuit]

Like homeworld 2 changed the story, but not the idea, ksp3 perhaps could start with the colonies idea and move backwards to put the rocket engineering into the game...

Perhaps you are leading the survivors of the first jnterstellar mission.  You start with little, and have to redo the techtree to build back up to interstellar to be able to go home.  Design and extend your base (the new ksc) to that end and build other bases around the new solar system.  You can see Kerbol in the distance and the goal is to go interstellar.

Edited July 4 by theJesuit

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Sirad said:

Real number processing exists.

And the Lagrange points don't. And the precision error (real vs double) is non-zero. And to approach to the real orbital mechanics you have to install Principia. And Kopernicus doesn't calculate true planetary orbits.

Let alone the engineless spacecrafts of the early KSP-1, consisting of air scoops only, able to reach the orbit without a droplet of fuel.

[Gargamel]

20 hours ago, Observe said:

Define KSP3 and I'll tell you if I'm excited about the idea of it. If the vision for a hypothetical KSP3 is anything like KSP2, then no. I want a real solar system (RSS) and no cartoony Kerbals. Give me a proper space (and aircraft) simulator game and I'd jump on it.  In other words, it couldn't be called KSP anything. It would have to be a whole new game altogether.  

Already exists, maybe not all the planets, but it’s a start.     It’s actually where ksp is derived from, you can still find HarvestR’s post on the forums there about ksp   
 

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

 

[Scarecrow71]

21 hours ago, Observe said:

Define KSP3 and I'll tell you if I'm excited about the idea of it. If the vision for a hypothetical KSP3 is anything like KSP2, then no. I want a real solar system (RSS) and no cartoony Kerbals. Give me a proper space (and aircraft) simulator game and I'd jump on it.  In other words, it couldn't be called KSP anything. It would have to be a whole new game altogether.  

So, basically, Juno?

[Fizzlebop Smith]

On 7/4/2024 at 10:40 AM, Observe said:

Define KSP3 and I'll tell you if I'm excited about the idea of it. If the vision for a hypothetical KSP3 is anything like KSP2, then no. I want a real solar system (RSS) and no cartoony Kerbals. Give me a proper space (and aircraft) simulator game and I'd jump on it.  In other words, it couldn't be called KSP anything. It would have to be a whole new game altogether.  

Gotta agree with Scarecrow and think that falls outside the kerbal brand.

[Infinite Aerospace]

5 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Gotta agree with Scarecrow and think that falls outside the kerbal brand.

That's the main reason I don't get all the hyper-realism stuff...with weird green frog things. I'm not gonna criticise the art direction of KSP2, I might level a complaint at how glossy everything looked, but other than that, it works.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

If there is ever a KSP3.. I hope it more closely aligns with the features of the first & a similiar degree of cheese.

They went WAY overboard on chinsy humour. The variety (KSP1) of dialogues contributed by the community .. make sense. 

I can believe these courageous frogs conquered the stars despite the clear deficient mental capacity in all but the most brilliant of kerbal-kind.

The humour of the sequel had me constantly breaking immersion to thing.. really? Some of the missions and dialogues were great.

But it was over the top. Everything about it tried to be over the top.

Scale back and start Small. One launch location, planet, moon & sun.

Then nail the love out of it... tune the physics & Gameplay loop till the wheels fall off and the community praises you for all the attention to feedback.

Then add a celestial body or three & tune that excrements.

Incorporate some feature expansion for supplemental gameplay & exploration 

Add  new system and.. oh, and at least a couple of the people involved need to attempt an organic playthough.

 

Edited July 5 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Lisias]

30 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

If there is ever a KSP3.. I hope it more closely aligns with the features of the first & a similiar degree of cheese

Right now, I will be happy to be alive when (or if) KSP3 is launched...

[Fizzlebop Smith]

39 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Right now, I will be happy to be alive when (or if) KSP3 is launched...

Me too.. but i dont remember the 70s. (Not a drug reference)

Edited July 5 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Skorj]

9 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Gotta agree with Scarecrow and think that falls outside the kerbal brand.

 

9 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

That's the main reason I don't get all the hyper-realism stuff...with weird green frog things. I'm not gonna criticise the art direction of KSP2, I might level a complaint at how glossy everything looked, but other than that, it works.

Yeah, KSP is and should be a gentle introduction to orbital mechanics.  Not taking itself too seriously, not an engineering sim, but not just a joke either.  The humor in the first was more subtle, often found in part descriptions, not "in your face".

Patched conics is IMO fundamental to the brand.  You can have stable orbits around planets with moons without station keeping.  Orbits can be "on rails."  It's a simpler approach, that is still plenty complex for most players.  And of course it was a good enough approximation for the Apollo missions.  Giving up two unstable Lagrange point is a fine trade (especially as there's no station keeping, so you couldn't keep a satellite there for long anyhow).

That being said, I think RSS / RO / Real Scale would be a great DLC, for players who have mastered the base game and want a harder challenge.  Much like life support: KSP1 is too hard already for most players, but that added challenge is fine for an optional extra.