Same, I hoped that there would be some purpose for all these flights, not just a sandbox, remote bases, their maintenance, research of new resources. And we got all the slide shows at 10 FPS and a severely cut-down game.
Not only does this apply to me, but I am attempting to develop a game that is tightly focused on exactly that element. I've begun to realize that a huge portion of the work is all in the user interface.
@@Misimpa True, but sadly the guy in charge felt that the single worst part of KSP1 (wobbly instability that forces you to reload quicksaves 5 times just because your rocket is too based) needed to be increased and made worse.
In KSP1, RSS had a hacky workaround to get axial tilt on Earth. The old engine assumed for convenience that no planets had axial tilt. It was a little indie game, a prototype that grew and grew. It was understandable. KSP2 had the chance to start with a new engine and make something exquisite with the benefit of hindsight. Better performance, better planet customization (which they teased endlessly), etc. Axial tilt. That’s what I wanted. Instead they integrated a few flashy shaders, tried to reproduce the original engine (got about half way) and then called it a day. KSP needs a solid physics sim at its heart, everything graphical is secondary.
We have seen that orbits in KSP2 had multiple bugs. You need developers who are pretty good in orbital mechanics and mathematics to get this right plus pretty good in UI to make it usable, intuitive plus pretty good in computer science to get a reasonable performance. I think it is not so easy and people that are good in all these things may already have good job. Ok I agree that adding axial tilt to celestial bodies may not be a huge effort compared to developing full new N-body physics.
Problem of KSP is that it was created by a new studio... If you start from scratch you will make same mistakes as previous people.. we saw it in KSP2... they simply had same errors as KSP 1 like problems with performance and problem with wooble rockets...
@@kitsune_thunderReal Solar System - It’a KSP mod that attempts to recreate our solar system, with correct to scale distances and planets and as OP states…sorta recreate the axial tilt of earth in the mod which the original game didn’t inherently support.
I would've been happy with anything frankly. As long as it was an open and transparent development. So that at the very least we know what to expect, even if its just a simple overhaul of ksp1. I think the thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that they severely overpromised and underdelivered, and then continued to be so secretive about everything. They Continued to lie to us about state of development and then chickened out at the last moment and ran with all our money with no explanation and complete radio silence. It was an extremely undignified end to where I can understand why people feel like this whole thing was a scam, looking at it now it certainly feels that way. Especially the way they just shut down at the end with no explanation whatsoever, like someone running off your money. Feels exactly like what it feels to be scammed.
I just can't believe that KSP 2 was doomed from the beginning. The dishonesty, deception, greed, and lack of transparency. I hope someone will buy KSP2 from take 2 and build a new studio dedicated to the game and build it on a new code made for KSP 2. Not reusing old code from KSP 1. What in the world were they thinking?!?!?!?
@@mikicerise6250 Not even that, they cheaped out at every step and ended up spending more in the long run. If they’d thrown enough money to hire experienced people from the get go and let them do their job we would have ended up with a better product.
To expand on exploration, I feel like what was missing in KSP1 (and what I hoped they would do for KSP2's new systems) is an actual need for sky observation. What's the point of sending a probe to Jool if you can just press m, switch to the Jool system and look at it in full HD from the map screen ? Sure it's still fun to design a ship that can actually do the trip, but there's no feeling of exploration. And personally, a bunch of 3d models scattered around the, otherwise mostly empty, surface of a planet is not motivating enough to make me explore the surface. Imagine starting with no detailed knowledge of what the planet look like and having a dedicated tech-tree branch for optics and sensors. You'd start only knowing what you're able to see from kerbin's surface and have to actually put observation satellites to see what's beyond, slowly getting more details the more advanced your sensors get, and the farther you send your probes. And ultimately, to get a real sense of what it actually looks like, you'd have to send kerbonautes instead of probes. You wouldn't even know what the far side of the Mun look like until you go there. I mean, we didn't really know what pluto's surface looked like until New Horizon got there in 2015...
Exactly. That has been my biggest gripe with KSP planet mods hence why me and some others want to make mods that give you legitimate exploration of the planet rather than a sandbox to drive a rover around in.
@@williambrown3699 I do highly recommend, only issue is that it has some weird issues with volumetric clouds, as sometimes you still see the full HD versions, but that is nothing game breaking
Yes, %1000 this. What you see in the tracking station for a given body should be a composite of all the pictures you've taken of it (like the ones NASA actually publishes). There should be a reason to send another spacecraft to the same body again.
N-Body physics is what kept me playing KSP1 for a while longer. I really enjoyed Principia mod and it would have been cool to have it on a new installation of the game. That and, of course, weather
In KSP 1 there is a brilliant, stock tool on the screen (bottom left, need to select the manoeuvre mode and change from number to the diagram/scale tab) that allows incredibly fine precision when adjusting manoeuvre nodes. It has a sliding scale that you use to adjust the "size" of each increment and a diagram eith all the 6 core "directions" and you can click once on a directio to increase it by one step of the scale you chose).
The dream of multiplayer was always complicated by the problem of time warp, making multiplayer campaigns a difficulty. However, multiplayer missions would have been awesome, and solved the issue of recoverable boosters, Apollo style landers, and other things. It would be so cool to do a mun mission with friends, give everyone a different role on the ship! I’m sure the devs were working on this, it’s too bad we will probably never see it now
Multiplayer was always bad one. It just doesn't work. In this game. Better would have been implementing an automation system where play it once, toggle some variables, and the system repeats that action. Land the burn back booster manually, game just accepts within reason, can always land booster hack at launch pad.
My main hope for the game was a better time system. The vast majority of the time everything is on rails anyway, so I would have liked to be able to jump time and even go backwards. Then having multiple people working on the same save file but at different times would be entirely possible, and they could time warp to their hearts content. You could even be doing things like crashing a booster in the sea, building a barge at an earlier time, then sailing it out to the spot the booster will come down at, then changing the last bit of booster flight to be a barge landing! All without changing the upper stage trajectory. Rather than a save being a state at a fixed moment in time, it could be the whole history, that players can add to in any order they like. It is much more multiplayer friendly, and also avoids having to manage multiple missions at the same time if windows overlap. You can play through your Duna mission, then your Eve one, and they can happen at the same time in game chronology.
Asynchronous multiplayer could be negotiated using a kerbal alarm clock style system. Launch your mission, run your maneuver, then set an alarm for the next maneuver you'll need to make. When every player is ready to warp forward, it goes to the next players maneuver, and play passes around different computers player by player, probably asynchronously. It's time for your alarm, boot up the game, run your maneuver and pass to the next kerbalnaut. It would be a slow process but you could have a real multiplayer space race campaign this way. Of course, this is something you could do already by just sharing a save file, if you can find a way to manage the different progression trees & craft...
@@joshuasims5421 That would be synchronous multiplayer. All players would be operating on the same clock: 'synchronised'. In particular, somebody waiting to run their duna mission might have to wait days while there are 30 mun missions that take place between launch and encounter. Worse than that, they might have a 10m/s node in the middle of those 30 mun missions, so everybody would have to wait for them to fire their game up for a whole 30s to perform a single small burn. I don't see that being fun. Kerbal inherently requires time manipulation. The inability to reorder time is a limitation from the development of KSP 1, and they could have gotten rid of it for KSP 2 if they actually understood the game. Kerbal missions are sort of unique in games design, in that it is extremely unlikely for them to run into each other by chance. Unless there is deliberate intent, intersections will be extremely rare. This gives us a lot of room to play with history with very little chance of a conflict. Even things like space stations can be set up with 'stationkeeping', making them automatically cancel any changes to their orbit from hard dockings. Then you can dock and release from a station in the past and it still be valid in the future. You only run into issues when two players try to upload histories that have the same docking port occupied for a while. Don't get me wrong, there would definitely be challenges with this sort of 'sum of stories' game design, and it certainly could not be competetive, but Kerbal is uniquely placed to make it work. Kerbal missions generally add to the history, rather than modify something already there. The only reason to not go back in time is because of how KSP 1 was built, and KSP 2 gave us an opportunity to fix that... And they didn't. The other reason I think this would be a fantastic idea is Green Harvest, and Matt Lowne's other cinematics. If the game is automatically recording a replayable physics history, you can play the game at full speed with full instrumentation, then re-render it with different graphics settings (and even choreographed cinematic cameras) into a cinematic. You could re-render your missions into far higher graphical quality than would be possible at real time, and from angles that would be impractical for play. I would love the idea of being able to share your mission and somebody else make a cinematic out of it. From a marketing standpoint alone this would have been huge, as youtube would have been flooded with high quality renderings of fairly mundane missions! My hope for KSP 2 was an out of order timeline construction. That could be multiplayer almost as easily as single player, while still sticking with the 'ever upward' feel of the game. If we also have the timeline as a resource, we are free to do other things with it, such as construct cinematics. It seemed such a clear way to go.
@@IvanRodriguez-tl2zr how? Take 2 marketed it as early access, a work in progress, but it's pretty clear they intended to cancel it for a while now, but kept selling it and taking peoples money. In fact, they still are.
I wanted Science, Some kind of career challenge/progression, Colonies and Exploration beyond KSP1, Good opportunities for modders. Nothing else and no Multiplayer.
"wanted it to have, would have, could have" all this past tense talk of KSP 2 is breaking my heart. after years of hoping... the Kraken yet lives, our heros are dead, no revert to launch available v.v "now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" - Dark Helmet
Honestly ANYTHING new compared to game 1, even if it were lacking in other ways would have been a huge help! My biggest wishlist: Huge QoL improvements from vehicle control and maneuver planning. Well integrated colony and resource system that gives me reasons to go SPECIFIC places and maybe put some infrastructure down. Interstellar is nice and all but its not a must for me. Although I'd love something like Outer Planet Mod, the kerbal system seems so small to me...
I loved n-body physics in Principia, and also found it confusing (also slow on my machine.) I think that a KSP successor could work well with a simplified 3-body system. Add in some transitional zones between SOI, rather than having a hard switch, and maybe some special SOIs modeling Lagrange points. I think this would allow for a lot of cool complexity while remaining approachable for most players. It would also solve the problem of orbital jank when crossing SOIs, if you transition from SOI to SOI gradually.
I wanted to build accurate ISV Venture Stars and use them as oversized skycranes so bad. Let's hope someone takes up the challenge to create a successor to KSP
@@Nethan2000 I understand where you are coming from but I really like it. It forces me to try an build efficient rockets and I can unlock only the parts I really need
They brought on modders to work on graphics…they should have hired the Principia team to do the physics engine. Principia would work so much better if it were implemented in the game engine rather than being spliced in.
Honestly I love the sphere of influence system. No messing about with perturbations in orbits; coming back from an Eeloo trip to discover your LKO station is now somewhere near Minmus.
@@joshuasims5421 They didn't implement that because it would make managing spacecraft a nightmare. The only way I could see it working is if it was an optional setting.
Take 2 silently killed a game in 2013 and has yet to publicly make any statement about doing so 11 years later. You need to stop. They don’t care. They’ll never do anything. They got your fiat currency already. Your relationship is over, as far as they’re concerned.
Well you know how it is with scams...you dont want believe it, so you hold out hope as long as possible that maybe something will come out of it eventually but of course deep down you know you're probably never going to see your money again.
I wanted what they were selling. I was sold on the trailers, the colonies, especially the interstellar. Even with the disappointment of the initial delays, and the release of the barebones and broken KSP2, I had confidence they would see it through because KSP1 was eventually brought to a completed state. I waited over five years. If you ask people what games I was excited for, this was always up near the top of the list. I can't believe one of the wealthiest publishing firms, with the most profitable game in the world under their belts in GTA with all the microtransactions, can't see this fucking project through. They bear the most responsibility as far as I'm concerned for setting the initial constraints of the development to using old KSP1 that lead them to waste so much time. They be forced to make this right, but I'm not holding my breath.
LOL, and it was the delay of GTA 6 causing the stock price to drop that got T2 to shut down everything too. Had nothing to do with the state of the game, just "where can we cut losses and not lose more money than we cut" from bean counters. An absolute farce from the beginning. If they hadn't been so obsessed with getting "the next Minecraft" for cheap, there could have been a GREAT game made.
The one thing I was looking forward to and have always wanted was orbital or off planet construction. If anyone knows a good orbital construction mod I would greatly appreciate it.
Maybe Konstruction is the mod you are looking for. Particularly the weldable construction port. The crane and forklift part of the mod have extremely limited ranges.
For me, in KSP2 the important things were: colonies with the transfer of resources, then optimization, and finally, interstellar flights. N-Body physics was not particularly important for me: if it was done, then ok, but if not, then it doesn’t matter. It makes the game very difficult and would scare off even many fans of the first part. I hardly play online games, so multiplayer is not important at all. I don’t really understand why it is needed in KSP2 and how it could be implemented. From what was not presented by the developers, I wanted more opportunities in unmanned flights (similar to block programming as in Stormworks) for completely atomomous missions
Ehat I wanted from multiplayer was an in-game and easy to use save file splicer over network. Just having the same ships in one save would be good for me
I was waiting with buying the game until it had a career mode. That's all I wanted, more or less feature parity, with some of the roughest edges smoothed out a bit. I figured a sequel would mean a new codebase, more funding and a team that have an idea of what they're making instead of coming up with everything on the fly, which would lead to a much smoother experience. Colonies were an awesome idea too that I was looking very much forward to trying out, since those kinds of giant multi-launch projects are just the coolest. But I suppose updating a project 10 guys made working for an advertising company just isn't possible for a major gaming industry publisher to get off the ground.
Imagine if you could select from a set of 4 different planetary systems to choose from when starting up a new save. And by adding someone's mod, that list could be expanded to 5. Separately; I think a similar conundrum comes from Starfield: yes you can have 1000 planets to visit, but if they are all boring copies with nothing to do, does anyone want to or do they serve any point? Adding some cool things to do on the different worlds you visit would be nice. Anything that's more than picture tourism or clicking 'run' on some experiment to make a science number go up.
> Imagine if you could select from a set of 4 different planetary systems to choose from when starting up a new save. There is code for something very similar in KSP2, but it was never used. Likely was a planned feature, though.
I wanted a more sophisticated gravity model that had real Lagrange points. They could've had planets and moons on rails. Possibly asteroids as well, though it might've been fun to try to push those around. But spaceships should respond to celestial bodies in a more significant way than "this one's gravity dominates here". The JWST relies on one of the Lagrange points to stay in orbit in the proper location. And modeling them requires taking the gravity of two significant bodies into account.
I assume you already tried Principia mod on KSP1. If not I highly recommend it because it does exactly what you are asking for. However keeping your JWST satellite orbiting the Lagrange point requires small corrections every 1 or 2 orbits around the Lagrange point. Therefore it is not so nice as a game where you probably also want to launch other spacecraft. Going back and forth between multiple spacecraft to constantly adjust all the orbits very quickly becomes annoying (main reason I went back to Patched Conics).
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 - Yeah, the JWST couldn't be done in KSP without some kind of automated station keeping. But, it's good to know there's a mod that implements a more sophisticated gravity model.
The future should be a stable platform, with all the basic features, such as avoiding surface displacement, ship shaking, correct physics with larange points, and the ease of navigating and letting the Mods do the rest of the work, such as creating planets and systems. There is a saying: "He who encompasses much squeezes little"
For the interplanetary part, i wanted a new building only for planning missions (with better tools, undo redo etc). After a mission is planned you can launch it when the time comes and follow your plan (manually or automatic). And if problems occure you can manage the future of the mission from that building before do every one step.
One of the things that captured my attention and really got me excited for KSP2 - COLLONYS! MKS was great and there were lots of good colonization mods for KSP but there was always a chance that when you jumped back to your colony something would move the tiniest bit and KSP physics would be "nope" and your whole colony would explode. This single feature kept me captivated and longing for KSP2.... the hope that things on the ground would stay ON the ground and not everything you build was a "vehicle" (yes, for the most part, in KSP1 a "building" you land was still a vehicle and the game treated it like one so nothing would EVERY stay put). Even if it didn't blow up, buildings would still end up sliding on the terrain, even if it was .0000000001m/s, no matter how many anchors mods tried to throw on there. Maybe KSP2 will get this figured out? I hope so!
I honestly never thought that colonies and interstellar travel were going to be an issue, since at least for interstellar travel, there are already mods for that in KSP1, and colonies could be made to work by having some sort of static assets system that generates non-physics objects like the KSC buildings… But the thing that always made me very skeptical was the multiplayer aspect of KSP2, not because I thought it was impossible to make, but because I never really saw how 99% of KSP players (which is already a small percentage of video game players) would really use multiplayer more than one or two times to mess around, so it really made me question the game’s direction… and lo and behold, it did have very questionable direction -_- PS, reading other comments in here, I can’t believe how many people are in denial of this not being scammy from Take-Two’s part… Sure, it wasn’t their initial intention, but now it sure has become their current decision!
I honestly never thought that colonies and interstellar travel were going to be an issue, since at least for interstellar travel, there are already mods for that in KSP1, and colonies could be made to work by having some sort of static assets system that generates non-physics objects like the KSC buildings… But the thing that always made me very skeptical was the multiplayer aspect of KSP2, not because I thought it was impossible to make, but because I never really saw how 99% of KSP players (which is already a small percentage of video game players) would really use multiplayer more than one or two times to mess around, so it really made me question the game’s direction… and lo and behold, it did have very questionable direction -_-
1. Pretty and performance on multiple platforms, 2. planetary seasons and Kerbol cycles, 3. exospheric drag, 4. sufficient n-body physics to permit Lagrange points, 5. a science system that reduces flight anomalies (e.g. discovering and mitigating the van Kallen Belts) not just tech tree with arbitrary science points. (5a. and colonies).
This is a really important counter to the suggestion that you can just slap mods on KSP1 and get everything on the KSP2 roadmap. You really can't, and I'm tired of that argument being used to say that KSP2 should never have even been attempted. 1. Try adding OPM and then doing a sorta-realistic mission to visit the moons of Urlum. Since it's going to take literally decades, include a gravity ring, a nuclear plant, a greenhouse. And because now your ship is huge, add a docking landing module, and because getting home is going to require tons of fuel too, add an automated ISRU module. Even in interplanetary space, that ship will cause the clock to always be yellow, with a very good chance after the first landing mission of triggering the garbage collector to pause the whole game for a full second out of every 5. KSP1 is hobbled by its engine and no amount of modding can fix that. 2. Then try building bases... Sure, it is possible to build bases in KSP1. With Planetary Modules they can even look pretty cool. And then there's a 50% chance every time you switch to the base (or worse, fly another ship into physics range of it) that the base freaks out, turns into a Kraken itself and shakes itself around the landscape until it explodes. Whee! Bases are possible! 3. People complained about how KSP2's first build would jank up orbit indicators and whatnot, but the dirty secret of KSP1 is that whenever the clock goes yellow (or worse, red) the accuracy of orbit calculations goes down. When the engine chugs, it is possible to go from being on an impact trajectory with Minmus to suddenly completely missing the SOI entirely! 5. Interstellar. Oh, man, I wish there was a good interstellar mod for KSP1. KSPIE is not it. FFT is not it. They're... fine, I guess, but get out to the far reaches of the KSPIE tech tree and count how many launches you have that can't even ignite an engine because there's zero in-game indication of what fuel you need or whether you're even carrying any of the right fuel. (I don't mean LH2 vs LiquidHydrogen, I mean stuff like VacuumEnergy or AntiMatter...)
More to explore (interstellar) sounded fun. New technical challenges were intriguing (colonies and interstellar). Orbital construction wasn't precisely on the roadmap but I thought it would add a fun new dimension to the game. Basically, I thought the overarching roadmap for KSP 2 was good... Except multiplayer. From the beginning I had always viewed multiplayer as a bit of a pipe dream.
I wanted my jet engines to stop reversing thrust at takeoff. They coded *ALL* jet engines as jet/rocket engines so when they detected low air flow they tried switching to nonexistent rocket engines components. Now here's the kick: because there are no rocket components on the first jet engines it uses an also nonexistent reverse thrust component. Never got working jet engines and was able to launch zero planes from the KSP2 circus lol
I don't think n-body physics would be well suited for casual players, at least if the whole game had them (having one place in the galaxy with them enabled, like Rask and Rusk, would have been pretty cool though). Orbits often wouldn't be stable and having to keep track of them would be a pain with multiple crafts, and I'm not really sure they can really be made intuitive. As much as I'd love to have stuff like lagrange points, I'm not sure it would be worth it.
Squad even said back in the day that n-body physics would make station-keeping tedious and make the game not fun for casual players. I don't mind if hardcore players want to mod it, but as a default I think SOIs are perfectly fine
There could be a switchable option to put small invisible bodies with a very small SOI at the Lagrange points. That way you could search for a Lagrange point and with very precise targeting you could put a satellite there. Of course that would be unrealistic and the L-point would be totally stable, but it just adds the L-point as a game element without affecting the rest of the game too much while still allowing player to put a spacecraft there. Did nobody ever do this? I think it might even be possible to build this yourself with the Kopericus mod for KSP1.
If they had been the least bit honest about it, instead of scurrying off with our money and saying nothing about it, it wouldn't have been so poorly received.
I wanted science to act more like a tool than a point getter. For instance, scansat. Using stats and probes to help find resources and scout out good locations for bases n stuff Also hoped VR support would come down the line and I could build ships in the VAB with my hands...
Here are some topics that people find interesting about space in reality: = asteroid mining = energy harvesting from space using huge arrays of satellites with solar cells = rockets with reusable parts that can self land (Space X Falcon 9 Starship) = black holes, supernovas, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, dark matter = building bases in caves or in holes in asteroids, O'Neill cylinders = other galaxies = solar sail propulsion = geological discovery of celestial bodies and search for life = ... I think KSP2 could have looked a bit deeper in some of these.
I agree, but I would actually put Colonies above Interstellar. That's the one thing you simply _cannot_ do in KSP1. Yeah, there are mod packs that make an attempt, and I genuinely like how some of them function, but the game just can't handle it. As soon as multiple craft are anywhere near each other, the game slows to an absolute crawl. The only workarounds for this are to use the less-interesting colony mods, with big multi-function parts you don't need very many of... or using ones with "planetary logistics" added in, a.k.a. "the entire planet is your storage chest because you can't actually build a colony in one place without killing performance." Neither of those is very satisfying... I _want_ the complex infrastructure and ISRU needs of USI, _and_ I want to see my awesome collection of buildings and vehicles forming a skyline, maybe even a lit-up area I can see from orbit! And KSP1 just can't even _begin_ to do that. Certainly not both at once. Interstellar exploration on the other hand, while janky and not fully polished, is at least _possible_ in KSP1 with mods. I'd rather they'd focused on something that wasn't, rather than polishing something that was, though the ideal would obviously be to have _both_ features. I... honestly couldn't possibly care less about multiplayer. I'm an adult, whose friends are all adults. Nobody has time and schedule-deconfliction to put 500 hours together into building a colony in KSP. Nobody I know, anyway. If it can be done fairly easily, without sacrificing single-player fidelity and gameplay options, fine, then it's pure positive, but if many sacrifices start having to be made to get everything to work together across network sync issues, and we lose time warp or something like that, then... forget it, and just make a good game.
You asked, so here are 2 (maybe 2 1/2) things you didn't mention that I would also like to have seen in KSP2. 1. Robotics. Movable parts, such as hinges and pistons and rotor engines, give us the ability to create even wackier rockets and planes than we already can. These are a huge part of KSP1, and the fact that we were told they weren't coming to KSP2 was a real let-down. The community wants robotics, and I couldn't agree more that they aren't just wanted, but that they are needed. 2. Planetary occlusion. Yes, we are aware of shadows and how Kerbol shines light and reflects off the planets and moons. But the developers made the decision that radio waves and antenna signals wouldn't be occluded or obscured by the celestial bodies, and that was a really bad decision. Part of the challenge of KSP1 was to create CommNet, and you had to have multiple satellites in orbit of bodies in order to get clear and strong signals. But in KSP2, we don't have to account for that, which makes it far easier to put a single satellite up in orbit and then drop a probe core rover somewhere and not have to worry about having a signal for control. 2.5. To go along with #2, varying degrees of antenna with different signal strengths would be nice. Yes, I know that we have several different antenna, and that they do have different degrees of strength. But early in the tech tree you can get the 80 Gm antenna, and that's the end of your antenna needs. There should be far smaller ones for Kerbin and it's SOI, then gradually ramp up to get ones that barely reach Duna/Eve, then reach Moho/Dres, then out to Jool, then out to Eeloo. Along with no occlusion, there is no challenge here when you get the large antenna right away. That's my 2 Kerb-dollars.
Just use KSP1 with the Principia mod. I found it quite intuitive and if you do the tutorials and watch a few TH-cam videos you will be able to do it. Actually I was really interested at first, but after I used it for a while, orbiting Lagrange points, trying to do a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) etc. I found that Patched Conics was good enough for me. The N-body orbits require constant attention which is not ideal if you are looking after multiple spacecraft. Maybe I should look at it again and combine with some kOS algorithm but I think you cannot have a spacecraft run kOS in the background while at the same time you are focused on another spacecraft.
The N-Body problem *CAN* be made better, using various methods, that can be combined, such as different levels of Runge-Kutta, using oct-trees for summarizing mass interactions, and it can be done on real life scales when using 64-bit floats. 64-bit float points do come with some problems, but given the massive opportunities it allows in scale and accuracy, I believe it's well worth the drawbacks. In 2018-2019, a friend and I did extensive research into making a realistic successor game to KSP and we settled on these topics for our own design. However, we abandoned hope when we heard KSP 2 was announced, and let the project collect dust. Since then, he and I haven't been in contact much. Please, if someone out there has a team or a dream (with the skills or drive to match), please take note on all of this and make the best space exploration game there ever was. Thank you ShadowZone for making this video, to highlight key QoL features, for future aspiring developers.
Great video as always! Just s point: it is not correct that ksp has just the vectors in the maneuver node to adjust, it has also natively a maneuver panel in the bottom left hud where you can precisely tune the strength of the movement both for vector and position on the node, as well as the possibility to instert the numbers precisely.
I was looking forward to building rockets and vehicles on other planets. No more hauling stuff between transit windows; instead you could just use your Laythe base to build a rover and go for a joyride
The best thing about KSP2 is that it got me to finally try out the USI Kolonization mods, since I was so excited for building long term bases on other planets
We all really just wanted a better KSP with QoL improvements (honestly DLC for colonies, etc would be fine in retrospect). Agreed with the multiplayer part. My 6yr old loves watching me play "Alien Rockets" lol.
You know what I never understood? Why more engines make lag. All technically, I do understand that traversing a list can be slow, depending on the design of the list. As it stands, KSP apparently traverses 1 or more lists every frame to find all the engines drawing fuel and all the tanks each engine is drawing from. As a mere few hundred parts cause lag, these lists must be extremely poorly suited to rapid traversal. There are so many possible optimizations for this that I can hardly start typing them out for new ideas, but they all have 1 thing in common: creating short, efficient lists when the vessel is loaded or changed. This means the big, inefficient list(s) only need to be traversed when the vessel is loaded, stages, docks/undocks, or takes damage. That's vastly better than once per frame! For coders, I'm using "list" in the loosest possible sense. I'm familiar with APL where a list is a 1D array; very efficient on modern processors. I'm also familiar with the traditional design of Lisp, whose lists could hardly be less efficient on modern processors. I could be wrong about the root cause, of course, but how many bad designs could there be? Oh wait, no, don't tell me. I already know the number of potential bad designs is, in fact, infinite. I just don't like to think about it.
Since the release of this video I have wondered what I would have liked in KSP2: Improved performance of big crafts, improved vehicles performance on celestial body(breaking up and wheel traction), setup automated networks of mining and resource gathering, intersteller to give new systems and easy-to-build-on mod systems. Just on par 2020s graphics and no multiplayer. I am happy with bodies on wheels and no n-body physics. Colonies is harder because what is it exactly? If it just is automatic scenery I dont care about it. If it is creating with LEGO or like in minecraft I would be great, but I just dont see it being other than scenery in KSP2, so I am undecided leaning to "no thx".
I was mostly excited for colonies. In ksp1, there was the problem of "landed... now what?" The breaking ground dlc tried to solve this problem, but it ultimately failed because it only took a few minutes to set up and you did it the same way every time. I eventually stopped using the parts cuz they got repetitive.
There should have been a part that you can unlock in like Tier 3 where you can slap it on a craft and then when you right click it in flight or something and it auto creates maneuvers for you. That way there's options for those who still want to plan their own maneuvers, or you just leave it up to the machine.
This video just confirms to me that when anyone said "everyone just wanted KSP2 to be just be KSP1 with better performance" is just bullshitting. Don't get me wrong, KSP1 is a great game, but it's also servery flawed in many areas. - Performance is the obvious one. - Easy of use and enjoyment in every area. You don't want to dread doing any task in a game. It should be fun and engaging and not complicated. - Actual goals. KPS1 contracts were okay at the start, but they mostly boil down to fetch and delivery quests. The thing you are doing should be unlocking opportunities when completed. Colonies could have solved the lack of goals problem. Build a colony on Duna, add rocket building capability, now you are able to more easily explore and expand to the outer planets. The story missions in KSP2 are also great, it would have been awesome if it had continued into something bigger. - You're basically only running a taxi service, there is no real exploration incentive. Once you get somewhere, you can click on a collect and send science data, but that's it. Sure, there are different biomes to visit to get more science data, but it mostly just ends in building a hopper and hop from one biome to the next to quickly farm science. Compare it with real missions like any rover on Mars or probes around any planet, and you'll that the cruise phase (although long) is just a small part of the total mission. Missions to the outer planets do add more travel time, but still a mission like Cassini had a cruise phase of more than 6 years, but the mission time at Saturn was 13 years. In KSP1 it's just 120 days to Duna, once on Duna it's just a few clicks to collect science (and maybe visit some other locations) and that's it. What I think would have been great for KSP2 is to emulate the real world more. - Kerbals are superior to rovers, they have no requirements. They don't need food, water, minimum living space, or even sleep. They can fly, stand up again if they fall, and walk over more things than rovers. Rovers need power, they to be balanced and not drive too fast, need all kinds of parts to make it functional. There should be something which makes it harder to use Kerbals and making rovers in some areas a better option. Now we just pick rovers because it's fun, not because it's needed.
well, I have KSP for many years now. And OPM was almost always installed during this time ... but I never visited any of the planets, it is about time I do.
I wanted multiple window/multiple monitor support so that I could move instruments and data to another window at times. With all the mods that make intense space missions fun the screen can get cluttered so it'd be nice to be able to move stuff over so I can see the rocket and my maneuvering without having so much stuff covering it. Also I wanted some sort of auto-mission system. I want to design a rocket that can carry a certain payload weight to a certain max orbit, then, after proving it, queue up missions that will automatically happen in the background. It'd be so much more fun moving fuel and parts into space if I could have some level of automation letting me focus on the larger picture. A good example would be having a refueling station above a planet or moon, that could have an automated ship that lands, fills up, launches, and supplies the station. Without that if I run a mission and need fuel there, I'd have to manually do a bunch of loops just to get the fuel into place. Link that up with colonies so you could have Kerbals and other resources getting shuttled around and it'd be amazing.
I want the ability to have ships undergo continuous low thrust for long periods of time, without needing to have the ship 'active'. (I.e. I set the thrust vector, and I can timeskip or deal with other ships while it accelerates.) This makes sizable delta-v from ion thrusters much less tedious, and allows solar sailing. Solar sailing is also on my wish list. Well, my #1 wish is to kill the kraken, but that is so obvious that I don't really need to push for it. (Note that I've only played original KSP, so that is my comparison.)
13:00 also multilaunch missions would be so much better in mp with a mate, so you don't have to fly and dock 5 rockets, but only 3. And at the destination (for the stock system say Jool) you then have each perform their own mission to different moons.
I wanted the cool propulsion concepts: nuclear gas, liquid, and bomb rockets, inertial pulse propulsion, _something_ with a magnetic nozzle would be so fun to base ships around
I would like a proper ksp2 colonies and multiplayer the most since i wanted to make a space race with my friend. And before you say I know there are mods for ksp 1 but I kind of wanted that integrated into the game. Btw nice video I enjoyed it and talking about previous videos you explained really well what happened to ksp2. And I still hope ksp2 gets made in one way or another
Been working on a "first game" type project. Got a few more ideas in the pipeline from a Descent ripoff, to a top-down ARPG roguelite, an RTS full of goofy conspiracy theories, and a massive game with (if I can pull it off) real-world scale procedurally generated planets in a matching galaxy.
So is everyone just gonna whine ineffectively, or are you going to actually do things that Take Two will actually notice? You know, like emailing them? Here’s what you do if you actually care about this game: find Take Two’s email, find their social media sites, find the emails for all of their important people, and GIVE THEM BOTH BARRELS. Make it crystal clear that you are upset, disappointed, and disgusted with what they’re doing, and make it known that you will boycott them if they don’t undo this. Then start boycotting them. Uninstall EVERY game you’ve got from them, get refunds if you can, DEMAND refunds from them if you can’t, and basically do everything in your power to make them feel our pain until they capitulate. THAT is what you do. Not this ineffective “oh woe is me, I guess that’s that” whining.
JNO's maneuver editor is better than KSP's. The sensitivity of the draggable nodes is much better. I haven't needed to move the sensitivity slider whether going to Brigo, a nearby mini-moon, or Tydos, a gas giant. Number entry is better than in KSP; the font is a reasonable size, the entry fields are thoroughly debugged and behave properly.
Ima be honest. The only thing I wanted from ksp2 was for them to rebuild the game to not simulate every part individually. Of which makes the game run at 2fps and massive amounts of kracken attacks. And make the maneuver node to be easier to use for interplanetary missions. I did not want multiplayer. Interstellar would have been cool but I'm not done in the kerbol system yet.
Honestly, I'd love to see a game like KSP be open-source (or free-source technically, a lot of rug-pulling when cheap equity dries up). Seeing the growth of Godot is promising, or even Epic and Unreal Engine- Epic could even support an open-source of the game with Unreal(they contribute to Godot), which would create good marketing for their game engine. But, overall, like most people I'm disappointed that Take-Two basically shut down Private Division. KSP2 isn't their only project, and then they go and brag about Zynga to their investors-
Thank you for great summary of what it should have been. I learned today there are actually mod for KSP-2. Looking at your previous video, I think we both got lucky something come out of that horrendous development cycle and that all the early-adopter, I am one, got scammed.
6:43 Incorrect for KSP1 since 5 years! Stock has a fine maneuver tool in the lower left. Looking through the wiki I find it was added in version 1.7 in April 2019.
I always thought the people who were unironically most excited for clouds fell for manufactured consent from T2. That's a *mod* opportunity, and a visual mod at that (no disrespect for the work blackrack has done, and I respect that he got a few paychecks out of it, but purely visual enhancements should've been prioritized last, not first). KSP2 should've focused first and foremost on optimization compared to the original game, being built from the ground up to support multiplayer and acceleration under timewarp, followed by any added or enhanced realism, along with colonies and revamping the science system, filling out missing part niches, etc., and THEN moved on to visual enhancements.
I really like the Lego style of building crafts out of parts. Performance was also the number one improvement I hoped KSP2 would manage. I am right now on my third PC Upgrade since I started playing KSP, and now the performance is acceptable. Meaning I can get around 30 FPS with Parallax on vessels with 400-500 parts. Graphics is not a big topic. If I want good graphics, I am starting up Star Citizen. The core gameplay and the physics need to work. There is no sense in great music or tutorials or whatever someone thinks about colonies and Multiplayer, if the base mechanic is not working well. Mod support is absolutely essential. It keeps the game alive well over its own lifetime. You can get planetary systems, parts and new gameplay features for free with good mod support. I would appreciate more stuff to do on planets and surfaces. Give me a reason to go somewhere apart from just discovery. I also like the goofyness of Kerbals. Especially for kids, they are great to watch an play and fail with them. They make crashing and learning more fun and less technically sterile. I really hope someone is going to develop a worthy alternative to KSP.
You should take a look at the Whirligig World mod. Trinary star system (means interstellar is kinda possible), and more than 40 bodies to explore. Oh, and don't forget Mesbin! 😀😉
The saddest thing is: that once the business people are done playing their dirty game of making money, they won't release the game open-source for those that really love it. We need laws for this "once you stop financing it, it's opensource by default"
I understand what you want but I think it is difficult in development instead I would like to see the following: = A good and fun way to create your own parts in Blender. I created a few KSP1 parts in Blender but it is too tricky to be really fun. With some good integration/procedure You could create wonderful parts and create your supper ships with much fewer parts resulting in much better performance. = I would like to be able to drill holes / caves inside asteroids and planets and preferably multi-point attachments. If you could modify the surface of bodies (terraforming?) that would allow to create much more realistic future space stations like an O'Neill cylinder inside an asteroid. Ok it would become a bit like Minecraft in KSP, but that is actually great. = It could be very interesting to be able to do more with bio-science, agriculture, food production, CO2 / O2, creating large greenhouses in space on planets. = I still have issues with landed space station modules or spacecraft on the surface of celestial bodies. Sometimes when you come back to them they jump or fall over or fly etc. If landed objects were more stable and easier to connect to each other and to the body, that would allow to build much better permanent bases on a celestial body. In the same way I don't understand that wheels sometimes work so badly. = I think using docking ports or grabbers to attach and detach for example rovers to a spacecraft deserves and improvement. Even a strong small magnalock could be a solution. In reality attaching and detaching objects in space by astronauts is never a big issue. In KSP it is always ugly and often results in object jumping if not exploding. Patch-Conics and N-body physics (Principia) are already very good. I think you will need to find real specialist Ph.D.'s in astrophysics if you want something better. It is easy to complain. In reality calculating optimal trajectories for interplanetary spacecraft with the optimal; gravity assists and other perturbation effects is a full time job for a team of specialists for several years, just to plan one spacecraft. You can not really expect a game developer to do much more than what was already done in KSP1 + Principia. Personally I found Principia quite reasonable to get into. There are some tutorials which explain it quite well.
You wanted 5 things, I only wanted 3: Sincerity, Humility, Communication. I actually wanted Commitment too, but we already got it covered by the devs...
The thing I always wanted was aliens! I want to take them from their home planet, and bring them to other planets to see how well they live, or maybe just see how well they live in the vacuum of space
I wanted the combination of multiplayer, interstellar and colonies since the three would have built on one another. Instead, we got a cautionary tale about pre-ordering and how publishers and their front men in the developer will bait you along for years even while none of those features are anywhere near complete. Take Star Citizen for example that's now 12 years and 0.7 Billion dollars in to development and they are admitting that the bounty hunting gameplay they showed off years ago was faked and that as usual their status is 'almost started.... on a Tier 0 placeholder implementation'.
Regarding discoverables, you didn't touch at all how they tied them in to the story progression in KSP2's for science update. I thought that implementation was only halfway there to be honest, but it bears mentioning at least.
Discoverables should be difficult to find. Space is big. Planets are big. Moons are big. I hate the fact that mission control spoon feeds you coordinates instead of tasking the player with finding specific locations. It's called "exploration" mode, so I think a fair degree of exploration is warranted. There should be a ScanSat-esque tool or something so you don't have to do a tedious visual scan, but it seems silly to me to water down the exploration component of a game that's largely about exploration. I found most of the discoverables by chance, and I wasn't looking for any of them, so I don't think they're too difficult to find...for the most part.
What would N-body physics do for the game? All I understood of this segment of the video is that the planets wouldn't "be on rails", in other words they would influence and be influenced by each other but what exactly does this mean for gameplay?
You know the Midas’s touch where everything turns to gold.
Take-Two has the sh*t touch. 😢
I’d say rather the “cancel-touch”
@@Wurtoz9643 Unfortunately
You're talking about the amateurs at Uberent who has consistently fucked up everything they tried.
@@doltBmBit’s not their fault that T2 didn’t even tell them what kind of game their position was for
@doltBmB it was consistently kneecapped by management since the start. Devs didn't have a chance.
I wanted to build infrastructure networks. Resource gathering, exotic matter, fuel supplies, food and water. And have purposes for such resources.
Same, I hoped that there would be some purpose for all these flights, not just a sandbox, remote bases, their maintenance, research of new resources. And we got all the slide shows at 10 FPS and a severely cut-down game.
Not only does this apply to me, but I am attempting to develop a game that is tightly focused on exactly that element. I've begun to realize that a huge portion of the work is all in the user interface.
@@Rose_Harmonic yes, but ksp2 devs had A LOT of money for development.
@@Misimpa True, but sadly the guy in charge felt that the single worst part of KSP1 (wobbly instability that forces you to reload quicksaves 5 times just because your rocket is too based) needed to be increased and made worse.
@@Rose_Harmonic whats the game's name?
In KSP1, RSS had a hacky workaround to get axial tilt on Earth. The old engine assumed for convenience that no planets had axial tilt. It was a little indie game, a prototype that grew and grew. It was understandable. KSP2 had the chance to start with a new engine and make something exquisite with the benefit of hindsight. Better performance, better planet customization (which they teased endlessly), etc. Axial tilt. That’s what I wanted.
Instead they integrated a few flashy shaders, tried to reproduce the original engine (got about half way) and then called it a day. KSP needs a solid physics sim at its heart, everything graphical is secondary.
Putting arts guy as project lead of the physics sandbox game... 🙄
We have seen that orbits in KSP2 had multiple bugs. You need developers who are pretty good in orbital mechanics and mathematics to get this right plus pretty good in UI to make it usable, intuitive plus pretty good in computer science to get a reasonable performance. I think it is not so easy and people that are good in all these things may already have good job. Ok I agree that adding axial tilt to celestial bodies may not be a huge effort compared to developing full new N-body physics.
Problem of KSP is that it was created by a new studio... If you start from scratch you will make same mistakes as previous people.. we saw it in KSP2... they simply had same errors as KSP 1 like problems with performance and problem with wooble rockets...
RSS? Real Slim Shady?
@@kitsune_thunderReal Solar System - It’a KSP mod that attempts to recreate our solar system, with correct to scale distances and planets and as OP states…sorta recreate the axial tilt of earth in the mod which the original game didn’t inherently support.
I would have been happy with just Interstellar and colonies.
I would've been happy with just interstellar. All I've ever wanted is Gas Planet 2
@@wewladstbh It's a shame well never get to see it
I would've been happy with anything frankly. As long as it was an open and transparent development. So that at the very least we know what to expect, even if its just a simple overhaul of ksp1.
I think the thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that they severely overpromised and underdelivered, and then continued to be so secretive about everything. They Continued to lie to us about state of development and then chickened out at the last moment and ran with all our money with no explanation and complete radio silence.
It was an extremely undignified end to where I can understand why people feel like this whole thing was a scam, looking at it now it certainly feels that way.
Especially the way they just shut down at the end with no explanation whatsoever, like someone running off your money. Feels exactly like what it feels to be scammed.
I was looking forward to multiplayer
I just can't believe that KSP 2 was doomed from the beginning. The dishonesty, deception, greed, and lack of transparency. I hope someone will buy KSP2 from take 2 and build a new studio dedicated to the game and build it on a new code made for KSP 2. Not reusing old code from KSP 1. What in the world were they thinking?!?!?!?
This is what happens when suits make decisions and not the developers.
They were thinking IQ increases proportionally to wallet size.
@@mikicerise6250 Not even that, they cheaped out at every step and ended up spending more in the long run. If they’d thrown enough money to hire experienced people from the get go and let them do their job we would have ended up with a better product.
It wasn't doomed from the beginning, just from PAX 2019, when the development shifted from an improved KSP1 to all of Nate's dream features
I can, Take 2 was involved.
To expand on exploration, I feel like what was missing in KSP1 (and what I hoped they would do for KSP2's new systems) is an actual need for sky observation.
What's the point of sending a probe to Jool if you can just press m, switch to the Jool system and look at it in full HD from the map screen ?
Sure it's still fun to design a ship that can actually do the trip, but there's no feeling of exploration. And personally, a bunch of 3d models scattered around the, otherwise mostly empty, surface of a planet is not motivating enough to make me explore the surface.
Imagine starting with no detailed knowledge of what the planet look like and having a dedicated tech-tree branch for optics and sensors.
You'd start only knowing what you're able to see from kerbin's surface and have to actually put observation satellites to see what's beyond, slowly getting more details the more advanced your sensors get, and the farther you send your probes.
And ultimately, to get a real sense of what it actually looks like, you'd have to send kerbonautes instead of probes.
You wouldn't even know what the far side of the Mun look like until you go there.
I mean, we didn't really know what pluto's surface looked like until New Horizon got there in 2015...
Exactly. That has been my biggest gripe with KSP planet mods hence why me and some others want to make mods that give you legitimate exploration of the planet rather than a sandbox to drive a rover around in.
Research Bodies mod does this if you're interested in giving it a go in ksp 1!
@@williambrown3699 Thanks, I'll give it a shot !
@@williambrown3699 I do highly recommend, only issue is that it has some weird issues with volumetric clouds, as sometimes you still see the full HD versions, but that is nothing game breaking
Yes, %1000 this. What you see in the tracking station for a given body should be a composite of all the pictures you've taken of it (like the ones NASA actually publishes). There should be a reason to send another spacecraft to the same body again.
I wanted space adventure with my own spaceship, me and my crew on a faraway missions amongst the stars... Now im sad
Kinda sounds like Space Engineers tbh, I’d recommend giving that game a look if you haven’t already
N-Body physics is what kept me playing KSP1 for a while longer. I really enjoyed Principia mod and it would have been cool to have it on a new installation of the game.
That and, of course, weather
In KSP 1 there is a brilliant, stock tool on the screen (bottom left, need to select the manoeuvre mode and change from number to the diagram/scale tab) that allows incredibly fine precision when adjusting manoeuvre nodes. It has a sliding scale that you use to adjust the "size" of each increment and a diagram eith all the 6 core "directions" and you can click once on a directio to increase it by one step of the scale you chose).
Stock KSP1 actually does have a way to make fine adjustments to maneuver nodes. One of the things I missed the most with KSP2.
Turn your engine thrust power down you get finer adjustments on nodes
The dream of multiplayer was always complicated by the problem of time warp, making multiplayer campaigns a difficulty. However, multiplayer missions would have been awesome, and solved the issue of recoverable boosters, Apollo style landers, and other things. It would be so cool to do a mun mission with friends, give everyone a different role on the ship! I’m sure the devs were working on this, it’s too bad we will probably never see it now
Multiplayer was always bad one. It just doesn't work. In this game.
Better would have been implementing an automation system where play it once, toggle some variables, and the system repeats that action. Land the burn back booster manually, game just accepts within reason, can always land booster hack at launch pad.
My main hope for the game was a better time system. The vast majority of the time everything is on rails anyway, so I would have liked to be able to jump time and even go backwards. Then having multiple people working on the same save file but at different times would be entirely possible, and they could time warp to their hearts content. You could even be doing things like crashing a booster in the sea, building a barge at an earlier time, then sailing it out to the spot the booster will come down at, then changing the last bit of booster flight to be a barge landing! All without changing the upper stage trajectory. Rather than a save being a state at a fixed moment in time, it could be the whole history, that players can add to in any order they like. It is much more multiplayer friendly, and also avoids having to manage multiple missions at the same time if windows overlap. You can play through your Duna mission, then your Eve one, and they can happen at the same time in game chronology.
^this. It would require some kind of warning, polling and agreement framework or the ability to spawn multiple timelines.
Asynchronous multiplayer could be negotiated using a kerbal alarm clock style system. Launch your mission, run your maneuver, then set an alarm for the next maneuver you'll need to make. When every player is ready to warp forward, it goes to the next players maneuver, and play passes around different computers player by player, probably asynchronously. It's time for your alarm, boot up the game, run your maneuver and pass to the next kerbalnaut. It would be a slow process but you could have a real multiplayer space race campaign this way. Of course, this is something you could do already by just sharing a save file, if you can find a way to manage the different progression trees & craft...
@@joshuasims5421 That would be synchronous multiplayer. All players would be operating on the same clock: 'synchronised'. In particular, somebody waiting to run their duna mission might have to wait days while there are 30 mun missions that take place between launch and encounter. Worse than that, they might have a 10m/s node in the middle of those 30 mun missions, so everybody would have to wait for them to fire their game up for a whole 30s to perform a single small burn. I don't see that being fun. Kerbal inherently requires time manipulation. The inability to reorder time is a limitation from the development of KSP 1, and they could have gotten rid of it for KSP 2 if they actually understood the game.
Kerbal missions are sort of unique in games design, in that it is extremely unlikely for them to run into each other by chance. Unless there is deliberate intent, intersections will be extremely rare. This gives us a lot of room to play with history with very little chance of a conflict. Even things like space stations can be set up with 'stationkeeping', making them automatically cancel any changes to their orbit from hard dockings. Then you can dock and release from a station in the past and it still be valid in the future. You only run into issues when two players try to upload histories that have the same docking port occupied for a while.
Don't get me wrong, there would definitely be challenges with this sort of 'sum of stories' game design, and it certainly could not be competetive, but Kerbal is uniquely placed to make it work. Kerbal missions generally add to the history, rather than modify something already there. The only reason to not go back in time is because of how KSP 1 was built, and KSP 2 gave us an opportunity to fix that... And they didn't.
The other reason I think this would be a fantastic idea is Green Harvest, and Matt Lowne's other cinematics. If the game is automatically recording a replayable physics history, you can play the game at full speed with full instrumentation, then re-render it with different graphics settings (and even choreographed cinematic cameras) into a cinematic. You could re-render your missions into far higher graphical quality than would be possible at real time, and from angles that would be impractical for play. I would love the idea of being able to share your mission and somebody else make a cinematic out of it. From a marketing standpoint alone this would have been huge, as youtube would have been flooded with high quality renderings of fairly mundane missions!
My hope for KSP 2 was an out of order timeline construction. That could be multiplayer almost as easily as single player, while still sticking with the 'ever upward' feel of the game. If we also have the timeline as a resource, we are free to do other things with it, such as construct cinematics. It seemed such a clear way to go.
I just wanted to not be scammed....
same, goodbye our money (we will never get it back)
Yep, that's why I never buy early access games.
The game is not a scam.
@@IvanRodriguez-tl2zr how? Take 2 marketed it as early access, a work in progress, but it's pretty clear they intended to cancel it for a while now, but kept selling it and taking peoples money. In fact, they still are.
Yeah i almost bought in after the latest update. Glad i held off. I wanted it to materialize so bad too.
I wanted Science, Some kind of career challenge/progression, Colonies and Exploration beyond KSP1, Good opportunities for modders. Nothing else and no Multiplayer.
"wanted it to have, would have, could have" all this past tense talk of KSP 2 is breaking my heart.
after years of hoping... the Kraken yet lives, our heros are dead, no revert to launch available v.v
"now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" - Dark Helmet
Honestly ANYTHING new compared to game 1, even if it were lacking in other ways would have been a huge help! My biggest wishlist: Huge QoL improvements from vehicle control and maneuver planning. Well integrated colony and resource system that gives me reasons to go SPECIFIC places and maybe put some infrastructure down. Interstellar is nice and all but its not a must for me. Although I'd love something like Outer Planet Mod, the kerbal system seems so small to me...
I loved n-body physics in Principia, and also found it confusing (also slow on my machine.) I think that a KSP successor could work well with a simplified 3-body system. Add in some transitional zones between SOI, rather than having a hard switch, and maybe some special SOIs modeling Lagrange points. I think this would allow for a lot of cool complexity while remaining approachable for most players. It would also solve the problem of orbital jank when crossing SOIs, if you transition from SOI to SOI gradually.
This story is so sad... I was so excited for interstellar exploration and non-linear trajercories.
I want caves.
like, caves.
And, yes I can agree with you and Scott, performance, stability, and maybe multiplayer.
I wanted to build accurate ISV Venture Stars and use them as oversized skycranes so bad. Let's hope someone takes up the challenge to create a successor to KSP
I’m so glad that before I bought ksp2 I was like “eh I’ll wait for career mode”
funnily enough career mode wasnt planned, only science mode
@@pastaya science mode with supply lines & resource gathering.
ie: Resources in KSP2 were supposed to take the place of money in KSP1.
Career mode in KSP1 is incredibly limiting and boring. Science mode in KSP2 already has commercial missions and it works much better.
Same. Saved 50 euro on that.
@@Nethan2000 I understand where you are coming from but I really like it. It forces me to try an build efficient rockets and I can unlock only the parts I really need
In 2013 or 2014 I remember wishing that KSP 2 be rid of spheres of influence to have a more realistic orbit system.
Ksp 1 + Principia
They brought on modders to work on graphics…they should have hired the Principia team to do the physics engine. Principia would work so much better if it were implemented in the game engine rather than being spliced in.
Honestly I love the sphere of influence system. No messing about with perturbations in orbits; coming back from an Eeloo trip to discover your LKO station is now somewhere near Minmus.
@@joshuasims5421 They didn't implement that because it would make managing spacecraft a nightmare. The only way I could see it working is if it was an optional setting.
I just wanted a complited game 😢
We all did...
@@ShadowZone Btw I just got back to ksp1 and I'm having a great time in here
@@thesharkyno that ain't gonna happen
@@thesharky did you not watch the last video? They lost a lot of money and don't see a way to get it back. After next month it's probably dead.
@@awilliams1701And they've already rinsed the fans wallets out.
I'm looking each and every day at steamdb to see if there are updates to builds (there are) and discord for any public update (there not)
Take 2 silently killed a game in 2013 and has yet to publicly make any statement about doing so 11 years later. You need to stop. They don’t care. They’ll never do anything. They got your fiat currency already. Your relationship is over, as far as they’re concerned.
The SteamDB builds might be automated by their CI/CD pipeline and aren't necessarily proof that active development is still ongoing.
@@ShadowZone Yeah, for sure. But, you know, sometimes we just need some copium until see it really dies.
Well you know how it is with scams...you dont want believe it, so you hold out hope as long as possible that maybe something will come out of it eventually but of course deep down you know you're probably never going to see your money again.
I wanted what they were selling. I was sold on the trailers, the colonies, especially the interstellar. Even with the disappointment of the initial delays, and the release of the barebones and broken KSP2, I had confidence they would see it through because KSP1 was eventually brought to a completed state. I waited over five years. If you ask people what games I was excited for, this was always up near the top of the list. I can't believe one of the wealthiest publishing firms, with the most profitable game in the world under their belts in GTA with all the microtransactions, can't see this fucking project through. They bear the most responsibility as far as I'm concerned for setting the initial constraints of the development to using old KSP1 that lead them to waste so much time. They be forced to make this right, but I'm not holding my breath.
LOL, and it was the delay of GTA 6 causing the stock price to drop that got T2 to shut down everything too. Had nothing to do with the state of the game, just "where can we cut losses and not lose more money than we cut" from bean counters. An absolute farce from the beginning. If they hadn't been so obsessed with getting "the next Minecraft" for cheap, there could have been a GREAT game made.
The one thing I was looking forward to and have always wanted was orbital or off planet construction. If anyone knows a good orbital construction mod I would greatly appreciate it.
Maybe Konstruction is the mod you are looking for. Particularly the weldable construction port. The crane and forklift part of the mod have extremely limited ranges.
For me, in KSP2 the important things were: colonies with the transfer of resources, then optimization, and finally, interstellar flights.
N-Body physics was not particularly important for me: if it was done, then ok, but if not, then it doesn’t matter. It makes the game very difficult and would scare off even many fans of the first part.
I hardly play online games, so multiplayer is not important at all. I don’t really understand why it is needed in KSP2 and how it could be implemented.
From what was not presented by the developers, I wanted more opportunities in unmanned flights (similar to block programming as in Stormworks) for completely atomomous missions
Ehat I wanted from multiplayer was an in-game and easy to use save file splicer over network. Just having the same ships in one save would be good for me
I was waiting with buying the game until it had a career mode. That's all I wanted, more or less feature parity, with some of the roughest edges smoothed out a bit. I figured a sequel would mean a new codebase, more funding and a team that have an idea of what they're making instead of coming up with everything on the fly, which would lead to a much smoother experience. Colonies were an awesome idea too that I was looking very much forward to trying out, since those kinds of giant multi-launch projects are just the coolest. But I suppose updating a project 10 guys made working for an advertising company just isn't possible for a major gaming industry publisher to get off the ground.
Imagine if you could select from a set of 4 different planetary systems to choose from when starting up a new save. And by adding someone's mod, that list could be expanded to 5.
Separately; I think a similar conundrum comes from Starfield: yes you can have 1000 planets to visit, but if they are all boring copies with nothing to do, does anyone want to or do they serve any point? Adding some cool things to do on the different worlds you visit would be nice. Anything that's more than picture tourism or clicking 'run' on some experiment to make a science number go up.
A rogue-like would be great for a game with orbital mechanics. Procedurally generate the solar system every playthrough
> Imagine if you could select from a set of 4 different planetary systems to choose from when starting up a new save.
There is code for something very similar in KSP2, but it was never used. Likely was a planned feature, though.
I wouldve liked better planetary tech so the planets werent just endless rolling hills with textures
In ksp 1 u can type In and exact number into your maneuver planner
RIP KSP2
who are you
I wanted a more sophisticated gravity model that had real Lagrange points. They could've had planets and moons on rails. Possibly asteroids as well, though it might've been fun to try to push those around. But spaceships should respond to celestial bodies in a more significant way than "this one's gravity dominates here".
The JWST relies on one of the Lagrange points to stay in orbit in the proper location. And modeling them requires taking the gravity of two significant bodies into account.
I assume you already tried Principia mod on KSP1. If not I highly recommend it because it does exactly what you are asking for. However keeping your JWST satellite orbiting the Lagrange point requires small corrections every 1 or 2 orbits around the Lagrange point. Therefore it is not so nice as a game where you probably also want to launch other spacecraft. Going back and forth between multiple spacecraft to constantly adjust all the orbits very quickly becomes annoying (main reason I went back to Patched Conics).
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 - Yeah, the JWST couldn't be done in KSP without some kind of automated station keeping.
But, it's good to know there's a mod that implements a more sophisticated gravity model.
#1 - A finished product.
#2 - A game without bugs.
#3 - Improved physics.
#4 - Something that isn't overpriced.
#5 - A game beyond Early Access.
#2 doesnt make sense, every game will have bugs they can never be bug free.
The future should be a stable platform, with all the basic features, such as avoiding surface displacement, ship shaking, correct physics with larange points, and the ease of navigating and letting the Mods do the rest of the work, such as creating planets and systems. There is a saying: "He who encompasses much squeezes little"
For the interplanetary part, i wanted a new building only for planning missions (with better tools, undo redo etc). After a mission is planned you can launch it when the time comes and follow your plan (manually or automatic). And if problems occure you can manage the future of the mission from that building before do every one step.
One of the things that captured my attention and really got me excited for KSP2 - COLLONYS!
MKS was great and there were lots of good colonization mods for KSP but there was always a chance that when you jumped back to your colony something would move the tiniest bit and KSP physics would be "nope" and your whole colony would explode. This single feature kept me captivated and longing for KSP2.... the hope that things on the ground would stay ON the ground and not everything you build was a "vehicle" (yes, for the most part, in KSP1 a "building" you land was still a vehicle and the game treated it like one so nothing would EVERY stay put).
Even if it didn't blow up, buildings would still end up sliding on the terrain, even if it was .0000000001m/s, no matter how many anchors mods tried to throw on there.
Maybe KSP2 will get this figured out? I hope so!
I honestly never thought that colonies and interstellar travel were going to be an issue, since at least for interstellar travel, there are already mods for that in KSP1, and colonies could be made to work by having some sort of static assets system that generates non-physics objects like the KSC buildings…
But the thing that always made me very skeptical was the multiplayer aspect of KSP2, not because I thought it was impossible to make, but because I never really saw how 99% of KSP players (which is already a small percentage of video game players) would really use multiplayer more than one or two times to mess around, so it really made me question the game’s direction… and lo and behold, it did have very questionable direction -_-
PS, reading other comments in here, I can’t believe how many people are in denial of this not being scammy from Take-Two’s part… Sure, it wasn’t their initial intention, but now it sure has become their current decision!
I honestly never thought that colonies and interstellar travel were going to be an issue, since at least for interstellar travel, there are already mods for that in KSP1, and colonies could be made to work by having some sort of static assets system that generates non-physics objects like the KSC buildings…
But the thing that always made me very skeptical was the multiplayer aspect of KSP2, not because I thought it was impossible to make, but because I never really saw how 99% of KSP players (which is already a small percentage of video game players) would really use multiplayer more than one or two times to mess around, so it really made me question the game’s direction… and lo and behold, it did have very questionable direction -_-
1. Pretty and performance on multiple platforms, 2. planetary seasons and Kerbol cycles, 3. exospheric drag, 4. sufficient n-body physics to permit Lagrange points, 5. a science system that reduces flight anomalies (e.g. discovering and mitigating the van Kallen Belts) not just tech tree with arbitrary science points. (5a. and colonies).
Multiplayer was the main thing I was hanging out for. Interstellar stuff was a distant second.
This is a really important counter to the suggestion that you can just slap mods on KSP1 and get everything on the KSP2 roadmap. You really can't, and I'm tired of that argument being used to say that KSP2 should never have even been attempted.
1. Try adding OPM and then doing a sorta-realistic mission to visit the moons of Urlum. Since it's going to take literally decades, include a gravity ring, a nuclear plant, a greenhouse. And because now your ship is huge, add a docking landing module, and because getting home is going to require tons of fuel too, add an automated ISRU module. Even in interplanetary space, that ship will cause the clock to always be yellow, with a very good chance after the first landing mission of triggering the garbage collector to pause the whole game for a full second out of every 5. KSP1 is hobbled by its engine and no amount of modding can fix that.
2. Then try building bases... Sure, it is possible to build bases in KSP1. With Planetary Modules they can even look pretty cool. And then there's a 50% chance every time you switch to the base (or worse, fly another ship into physics range of it) that the base freaks out, turns into a Kraken itself and shakes itself around the landscape until it explodes. Whee! Bases are possible!
3. People complained about how KSP2's first build would jank up orbit indicators and whatnot, but the dirty secret of KSP1 is that whenever the clock goes yellow (or worse, red) the accuracy of orbit calculations goes down. When the engine chugs, it is possible to go from being on an impact trajectory with Minmus to suddenly completely missing the SOI entirely!
5. Interstellar. Oh, man, I wish there was a good interstellar mod for KSP1. KSPIE is not it. FFT is not it. They're... fine, I guess, but get out to the far reaches of the KSPIE tech tree and count how many launches you have that can't even ignite an engine because there's zero in-game indication of what fuel you need or whether you're even carrying any of the right fuel. (I don't mean LH2 vs LiquidHydrogen, I mean stuff like VacuumEnergy or AntiMatter...)
There's a New Project that Plans to make a Open Source Version of KSP called Open Kosmos
More to explore (interstellar) sounded fun. New technical challenges were intriguing (colonies and interstellar). Orbital construction wasn't precisely on the roadmap but I thought it would add a fun new dimension to the game.
Basically, I thought the overarching roadmap for KSP 2 was good... Except multiplayer. From the beginning I had always viewed multiplayer as a bit of a pipe dream.
I wanted my jet engines to stop reversing thrust at takeoff. They coded *ALL* jet engines as jet/rocket engines so when they detected low air flow they tried switching to nonexistent rocket engines components. Now here's the kick: because there are no rocket components on the first jet engines it uses an also nonexistent reverse thrust component. Never got working jet engines and was able to launch zero planes from the KSP2 circus lol
I don't think n-body physics would be well suited for casual players, at least if the whole game had them (having one place in the galaxy with them enabled, like Rask and Rusk, would have been pretty cool though). Orbits often wouldn't be stable and having to keep track of them would be a pain with multiple crafts, and I'm not really sure they can really be made intuitive. As much as I'd love to have stuff like lagrange points, I'm not sure it would be worth it.
Squad even said back in the day that n-body physics would make station-keeping tedious and make the game not fun for casual players. I don't mind if hardcore players want to mod it, but as a default I think SOIs are perfectly fine
Agreed. I get how it sounds cool in theory but when you’re a single person managing an entire space program it would be pretty draining
There could be a switchable option to put small invisible bodies with a very small SOI at the Lagrange points. That way you could search for a Lagrange point and with very precise targeting you could put a satellite there. Of course that would be unrealistic and the L-point would be totally stable, but it just adds the L-point as a game element without affecting the rest of the game too much while still allowing player to put a spacecraft there. Did nobody ever do this? I think it might even be possible to build this yourself with the Kopericus mod for KSP1.
Its a shame really. if performace was no issue from launch then it would have gotten no where near the criticism it recieved.
If they had been the least bit honest about it, instead of scurrying off with our money and saying nothing about it, it wouldn't have been so poorly received.
I wanted science to act more like a tool than a point getter. For instance, scansat. Using stats and probes to help find resources and scout out good locations for bases n stuff
Also hoped VR support would come down the line and I could build ships in the VAB with my hands...
Here are some topics that people find interesting about space in reality:
= asteroid mining
= energy harvesting from space using huge arrays of satellites with solar cells
= rockets with reusable parts that can self land (Space X Falcon 9 Starship)
= black holes, supernovas, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, dark matter
= building bases in caves or in holes in asteroids, O'Neill cylinders
= other galaxies
= solar sail propulsion
= geological discovery of celestial bodies and search for life
= ...
I think KSP2 could have looked a bit deeper in some of these.
Outer wilds did have realistic orbits that interacted with each other and went on rails.
I agree, but I would actually put Colonies above Interstellar. That's the one thing you simply _cannot_ do in KSP1. Yeah, there are mod packs that make an attempt, and I genuinely like how some of them function, but the game just can't handle it. As soon as multiple craft are anywhere near each other, the game slows to an absolute crawl. The only workarounds for this are to use the less-interesting colony mods, with big multi-function parts you don't need very many of... or using ones with "planetary logistics" added in, a.k.a. "the entire planet is your storage chest because you can't actually build a colony in one place without killing performance."
Neither of those is very satisfying... I _want_ the complex infrastructure and ISRU needs of USI, _and_ I want to see my awesome collection of buildings and vehicles forming a skyline, maybe even a lit-up area I can see from orbit! And KSP1 just can't even _begin_ to do that. Certainly not both at once.
Interstellar exploration on the other hand, while janky and not fully polished, is at least _possible_ in KSP1 with mods. I'd rather they'd focused on something that wasn't, rather than polishing something that was, though the ideal would obviously be to have _both_ features.
I... honestly couldn't possibly care less about multiplayer. I'm an adult, whose friends are all adults. Nobody has time and schedule-deconfliction to put 500 hours together into building a colony in KSP. Nobody I know, anyway. If it can be done fairly easily, without sacrificing single-player fidelity and gameplay options, fine, then it's pure positive, but if many sacrifices start having to be made to get everything to work together across network sync issues, and we lose time warp or something like that, then... forget it, and just make a good game.
You asked, so here are 2 (maybe 2 1/2) things you didn't mention that I would also like to have seen in KSP2.
1. Robotics. Movable parts, such as hinges and pistons and rotor engines, give us the ability to create even wackier rockets and planes than we already can. These are a huge part of KSP1, and the fact that we were told they weren't coming to KSP2 was a real let-down. The community wants robotics, and I couldn't agree more that they aren't just wanted, but that they are needed.
2. Planetary occlusion. Yes, we are aware of shadows and how Kerbol shines light and reflects off the planets and moons. But the developers made the decision that radio waves and antenna signals wouldn't be occluded or obscured by the celestial bodies, and that was a really bad decision. Part of the challenge of KSP1 was to create CommNet, and you had to have multiple satellites in orbit of bodies in order to get clear and strong signals. But in KSP2, we don't have to account for that, which makes it far easier to put a single satellite up in orbit and then drop a probe core rover somewhere and not have to worry about having a signal for control.
2.5. To go along with #2, varying degrees of antenna with different signal strengths would be nice. Yes, I know that we have several different antenna, and that they do have different degrees of strength. But early in the tech tree you can get the 80 Gm antenna, and that's the end of your antenna needs. There should be far smaller ones for Kerbin and it's SOI, then gradually ramp up to get ones that barely reach Duna/Eve, then reach Moho/Dres, then out to Jool, then out to Eeloo. Along with no occlusion, there is no challenge here when you get the large antenna right away.
That's my 2 Kerb-dollars.
9:10 N-body physics sounds really cool, but I doubt anyone would really enjoy them.
Just use KSP1 with the Principia mod. I found it quite intuitive and if you do the tutorials and watch a few TH-cam videos you will be able to do it. Actually I was really interested at first, but after I used it for a while, orbiting Lagrange points, trying to do a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) etc. I found that Patched Conics was good enough for me. The N-body orbits require constant attention which is not ideal if you are looking after multiple spacecraft. Maybe I should look at it again and combine with some kOS algorithm but I think you cannot have a spacecraft run kOS in the background while at the same time you are focused on another spacecraft.
All I wanted was feature parity and multiplayer. Performance enhancements would have been nice too.
The N-Body problem *CAN* be made better, using various methods, that can be combined, such as different levels of Runge-Kutta, using oct-trees for summarizing mass interactions, and it can be done on real life scales when using 64-bit floats. 64-bit float points do come with some problems, but given the massive opportunities it allows in scale and accuracy, I believe it's well worth the drawbacks. In 2018-2019, a friend and I did extensive research into making a realistic successor game to KSP and we settled on these topics for our own design. However, we abandoned hope when we heard KSP 2 was announced, and let the project collect dust. Since then, he and I haven't been in contact much.
Please, if someone out there has a team or a dream (with the skills or drive to match), please take note on all of this and make the best space exploration game there ever was. Thank you ShadowZone for making this video, to highlight key QoL features, for future aspiring developers.
Great video as always! Just s point: it is not correct that ksp has just the vectors in the maneuver node to adjust, it has also natively a maneuver panel in the bottom left hud where you can precisely tune the strength of the movement both for vector and position on the node, as well as the possibility to instert the numbers precisely.
They did not have to focus on graphics. They should have focused on smoothness and functionality
Yup... When I 1st started KSP1, I was disappointed in the graphics, but quickly forgot about eye-candy once I got into it.
I was looking forward to building rockets and vehicles on other planets. No more hauling stuff between transit windows; instead you could just use your Laythe base to build a rover and go for a joyride
The best thing about KSP2 is that it got me to finally try out the USI Kolonization mods, since I was so excited for building long term bases on other planets
We all really just wanted a better KSP with QoL improvements (honestly DLC for colonies, etc would be fine in retrospect). Agreed with the multiplayer part. My 6yr old loves watching me play "Alien Rockets" lol.
You know what I never understood? Why more engines make lag. All technically, I do understand that traversing a list can be slow, depending on the design of the list. As it stands, KSP apparently traverses 1 or more lists every frame to find all the engines drawing fuel and all the tanks each engine is drawing from. As a mere few hundred parts cause lag, these lists must be extremely poorly suited to rapid traversal.
There are so many possible optimizations for this that I can hardly start typing them out for new ideas, but they all have 1 thing in common: creating short, efficient lists when the vessel is loaded or changed. This means the big, inefficient list(s) only need to be traversed when the vessel is loaded, stages, docks/undocks, or takes damage. That's vastly better than once per frame!
For coders, I'm using "list" in the loosest possible sense. I'm familiar with APL where a list is a 1D array; very efficient on modern processors. I'm also familiar with the traditional design of Lisp, whose lists could hardly be less efficient on modern processors.
I could be wrong about the root cause, of course, but how many bad designs could there be? Oh wait, no, don't tell me. I already know the number of potential bad designs is, in fact, infinite. I just don't like to think about it.
Since the release of this video I have wondered what I would have liked in KSP2:
Improved performance of big crafts, improved vehicles performance on celestial body(breaking up and wheel traction), setup automated networks of mining and resource gathering, intersteller to give new systems and easy-to-build-on mod systems. Just on par 2020s graphics and no multiplayer. I am happy with bodies on wheels and no n-body physics.
Colonies is harder because what is it exactly? If it just is automatic scenery I dont care about it. If it is creating with LEGO or like in minecraft I would be great, but I just dont see it being other than scenery in KSP2, so I am undecided leaning to "no thx".
I was mostly excited for colonies. In ksp1, there was the problem of "landed... now what?" The breaking ground dlc tried to solve this problem, but it ultimately failed because it only took a few minutes to set up and you did it the same way every time. I eventually stopped using the parts cuz they got repetitive.
I wanted the crazy graphics, the multiplayer, realistic physics, interstellar travel, and the colonies
There should have been a part that you can unlock in like Tier 3 where you can slap it on a craft and then when you right click it in flight or something and it auto creates maneuvers for you. That way there's options for those who still want to plan their own maneuvers, or you just leave it up to the machine.
Interstellar and the colony stuff....
Everything else we already had in KSP1.
This video just confirms to me that when anyone said "everyone just wanted KSP2 to be just be KSP1 with better performance" is just bullshitting. Don't get me wrong, KSP1 is a great game, but it's also servery flawed in many areas.
- Performance is the obvious one.
- Easy of use and enjoyment in every area. You don't want to dread doing any task in a game. It should be fun and engaging and not complicated.
- Actual goals. KPS1 contracts were okay at the start, but they mostly boil down to fetch and delivery quests. The thing you are doing should be unlocking opportunities when completed. Colonies could have solved the lack of goals problem. Build a colony on Duna, add rocket building capability, now you are able to more easily explore and expand to the outer planets. The story missions in KSP2 are also great, it would have been awesome if it had continued into something bigger.
- You're basically only running a taxi service, there is no real exploration incentive. Once you get somewhere, you can click on a collect and send science data, but that's it. Sure, there are different biomes to visit to get more science data, but it mostly just ends in building a hopper and hop from one biome to the next to quickly farm science. Compare it with real missions like any rover on Mars or probes around any planet, and you'll that the cruise phase (although long) is just a small part of the total mission. Missions to the outer planets do add more travel time, but still a mission like Cassini had a cruise phase of more than 6 years, but the mission time at Saturn was 13 years. In KSP1 it's just 120 days to Duna, once on Duna it's just a few clicks to collect science (and maybe visit some other locations) and that's it. What I think would have been great for KSP2 is to emulate the real world more.
- Kerbals are superior to rovers, they have no requirements. They don't need food, water, minimum living space, or even sleep. They can fly, stand up again if they fall, and walk over more things than rovers. Rovers need power, they to be balanced and not drive too fast, need all kinds of parts to make it functional. There should be something which makes it harder to use Kerbals and making rovers in some areas a better option. Now we just pick rovers because it's fun, not because it's needed.
well, I have KSP for many years now. And OPM was almost always installed during this time ... but I never visited any of the planets, it is about time I do.
I wanted multiple window/multiple monitor support so that I could move instruments and data to another window at times. With all the mods that make intense space missions fun the screen can get cluttered so it'd be nice to be able to move stuff over so I can see the rocket and my maneuvering without having so much stuff covering it.
Also I wanted some sort of auto-mission system. I want to design a rocket that can carry a certain payload weight to a certain max orbit, then, after proving it, queue up missions that will automatically happen in the background. It'd be so much more fun moving fuel and parts into space if I could have some level of automation letting me focus on the larger picture. A good example would be having a refueling station above a planet or moon, that could have an automated ship that lands, fills up, launches, and supplies the station. Without that if I run a mission and need fuel there, I'd have to manually do a bunch of loops just to get the fuel into place. Link that up with colonies so you could have Kerbals and other resources getting shuttled around and it'd be amazing.
I want the ability to have ships undergo continuous low thrust for long periods of time, without needing to have the ship 'active'. (I.e. I set the thrust vector, and I can timeskip or deal with other ships while it accelerates.) This makes sizable delta-v from ion thrusters much less tedious, and allows solar sailing. Solar sailing is also on my wish list.
Well, my #1 wish is to kill the kraken, but that is so obvious that I don't really need to push for it.
(Note that I've only played original KSP, so that is my comparison.)
13:00 also multilaunch missions would be so much better in mp with a mate, so you don't have to fly and dock 5 rockets, but only 3.
And at the destination (for the stock system say Jool) you then have each perform their own mission to different moons.
I was hoping for a colony space station where you could launch an orbital craft build in zero G.
I wanted the cool propulsion concepts: nuclear gas, liquid, and bomb rockets, inertial pulse propulsion, _something_ with a magnetic nozzle would be so fun to base ships around
Aside from things you already mentioned, the main thing I wanted was a better UI more like KSP1's.
I would like a proper ksp2 colonies and multiplayer the most since i wanted to make a space race with my friend. And before you say I know there are mods for ksp 1 but I kind of wanted that integrated into the game. Btw nice video I enjoyed it and talking about previous videos you explained really well what happened to ksp2. And I still hope ksp2 gets made in one way or another
Been working on a "first game" type project. Got a few more ideas in the pipeline from a Descent ripoff, to a top-down ARPG roguelite, an RTS full of goofy conspiracy theories, and a massive game with (if I can pull it off) real-world scale procedurally generated planets in a matching galaxy.
So is everyone just gonna whine ineffectively, or are you going to actually do things that Take Two will actually notice? You know, like emailing them?
Here’s what you do if you actually care about this game: find Take Two’s email, find their social media sites, find the emails for all of their important people, and GIVE THEM BOTH BARRELS. Make it crystal clear that you are upset, disappointed, and disgusted with what they’re doing, and make it known that you will boycott them if they don’t undo this. Then start boycotting them. Uninstall EVERY game you’ve got from them, get refunds if you can, DEMAND refunds from them if you can’t, and basically do everything in your power to make them feel our pain until they capitulate.
THAT is what you do. Not this ineffective “oh woe is me, I guess that’s that” whining.
JNO's maneuver editor is better than KSP's. The sensitivity of the draggable nodes is much better. I haven't needed to move the sensitivity slider whether going to Brigo, a nearby mini-moon, or Tydos, a gas giant. Number entry is better than in KSP; the font is a reasonable size, the entry fields are thoroughly debugged and behave properly.
Ima be honest. The only thing I wanted from ksp2 was for them to rebuild the game to not simulate every part individually. Of which makes the game run at 2fps and massive amounts of kracken attacks. And make the maneuver node to be easier to use for interplanetary missions. I did not want multiplayer. Interstellar would have been cool but I'm not done in the kerbol system yet.
Honestly, I'd love to see a game like KSP be open-source (or free-source technically, a lot of rug-pulling when cheap equity dries up). Seeing the growth of Godot is promising, or even Epic and Unreal Engine- Epic could even support an open-source of the game with Unreal(they contribute to Godot), which would create good marketing for their game engine.
But, overall, like most people I'm disappointed that Take-Two basically shut down Private Division. KSP2 isn't their only project, and then they go and brag about Zynga to their investors-
Thank you for great summary of what it should have been.
I learned today there are actually mod for KSP-2.
Looking at your previous video, I think we both got lucky something come out of that horrendous development cycle and that all the early-adopter, I am one, got scammed.
6:43 Incorrect for KSP1 since 5 years! Stock has a fine maneuver tool in the lower left. Looking through the wiki I find it was added in version 1.7 in April 2019.
Automated unmanned missions. That’s what I’d like to see.
I always thought the people who were unironically most excited for clouds fell for manufactured consent from T2. That's a *mod* opportunity, and a visual mod at that (no disrespect for the work blackrack has done, and I respect that he got a few paychecks out of it, but purely visual enhancements should've been prioritized last, not first). KSP2 should've focused first and foremost on optimization compared to the original game, being built from the ground up to support multiplayer and acceleration under timewarp, followed by any added or enhanced realism, along with colonies and revamping the science system, filling out missing part niches, etc., and THEN moved on to visual enhancements.
I really like the Lego style of building crafts out of parts.
Performance was also the number one improvement I hoped KSP2 would manage.
I am right now on my third PC Upgrade since I started playing KSP, and now the performance is acceptable. Meaning I can get around 30 FPS with Parallax on vessels with 400-500 parts.
Graphics is not a big topic. If I want good graphics, I am starting up Star Citizen.
The core gameplay and the physics need to work. There is no sense in great music or tutorials or whatever someone thinks about colonies and Multiplayer, if the base mechanic is not working well.
Mod support is absolutely essential. It keeps the game alive well over its own lifetime.
You can get planetary systems, parts and new gameplay features for free with good mod support.
I would appreciate more stuff to do on planets and surfaces. Give me a reason to go somewhere apart from just discovery.
I also like the goofyness of Kerbals. Especially for kids, they are great to watch an play and fail with them. They make crashing and learning more fun and less technically sterile.
I really hope someone is going to develop a worthy alternative to KSP.
You pretty much mentioned all the points that I would had liked in KSP2. Only thing not mentioned are the colonies.
Juno has a lot of the features requested
You should take a look at the Whirligig World mod. Trinary star system (means interstellar is kinda possible), and more than 40 bodies to explore. Oh, and don't forget Mesbin! 😀😉
The saddest thing is: that once the business people are done playing their dirty game of making money, they won't release the game open-source for those that really love it.
We need laws for this "once you stop financing it, it's opensource by default"
Nah the new games engine is already a distaster it would be easier to just start from stratch.
@@Furyfire520 3rd rewrite is a charm? 😂
I understand what you want but I think it is difficult in development instead I would like to see the following:
= A good and fun way to create your own parts in Blender. I created a few KSP1 parts in Blender but it is too tricky to be really fun. With some good integration/procedure You could create wonderful parts and create your supper ships with much fewer parts resulting in much better performance.
= I would like to be able to drill holes / caves inside asteroids and planets and preferably multi-point attachments. If you could modify the surface of bodies (terraforming?) that would allow to create much more realistic future space stations like an O'Neill cylinder inside an asteroid. Ok it would become a bit like Minecraft in KSP, but that is actually great.
= It could be very interesting to be able to do more with bio-science, agriculture, food production, CO2 / O2, creating large greenhouses in space on planets.
= I still have issues with landed space station modules or spacecraft on the surface of celestial bodies. Sometimes when you come back to them they jump or fall over or fly etc. If landed objects were more stable and easier to connect to each other and to the body, that would allow to build much better permanent bases on a celestial body. In the same way I don't understand that wheels sometimes work so badly.
= I think using docking ports or grabbers to attach and detach for example rovers to a spacecraft deserves and improvement. Even a strong small magnalock could be a solution. In reality attaching and detaching objects in space by astronauts is never a big issue. In KSP it is always ugly and often results in object jumping if not exploding.
Patch-Conics and N-body physics (Principia) are already very good. I think you will need to find real specialist Ph.D.'s in astrophysics if you want something better. It is easy to complain. In reality calculating optimal trajectories for interplanetary spacecraft with the optimal; gravity assists and other perturbation effects is a full time job for a team of specialists for several years, just to plan one spacecraft. You can not really expect a game developer to do much more than what was already done in KSP1 + Principia. Personally I found Principia quite reasonable to get into. There are some tutorials which explain it quite well.
the most i want from ksp2 is Interstellar and colonies.
I never got the game but if there was multiplayer, i wouldve gotten it. Nothing like sending a cruise missle at your friends base.
I bought ksp1 back when ksp2 was first announced. At least I still got to play ksp1 :)
N body would be a disaster. There is no way to simply it for the masses.
Yup... The orbital drift bug of satellites in KSP1 was annoying enough. Imagine if Nate had said that's a new feature. (N-body)
You wanted 5 things, I only wanted 3: Sincerity, Humility, Communication. I actually wanted Commitment too, but we already got it covered by the devs...
The thing I always wanted was aliens! I want to take them from their home planet, and bring them to other planets to see how well they live, or maybe just see how well they live in the vacuum of space
I wanted the combination of multiplayer, interstellar and colonies since the three would have built on one another. Instead, we got a cautionary tale about pre-ordering and how publishers and their front men in the developer will bait you along for years even while none of those features are anywhere near complete. Take Star Citizen for example that's now 12 years and 0.7 Billion dollars in to development and they are admitting that the bounty hunting gameplay they showed off years ago was faked and that as usual their status is 'almost started.... on a Tier 0 placeholder implementation'.
Regarding discoverables, you didn't touch at all how they tied them in to the story progression in KSP2's for science update. I thought that implementation was only halfway there to be honest, but it bears mentioning at least.
Discoverables should be difficult to find. Space is big. Planets are big. Moons are big.
I hate the fact that mission control spoon feeds you coordinates instead of tasking the player with finding specific locations. It's called "exploration" mode, so I think a fair degree of exploration is warranted. There should be a ScanSat-esque tool or something so you don't have to do a tedious visual scan, but it seems silly to me to water down the exploration component of a game that's largely about exploration. I found most of the discoverables by chance, and I wasn't looking for any of them, so I don't think they're too difficult to find...for the most part.
I would love to work on KSP2, maybe as an managed open source project. But with TK2 behind it we are fucked.
What would N-body physics do for the game? All I understood of this segment of the video is that the planets wouldn't "be on rails", in other words they would influence and be influenced by each other but what exactly does this mean for gameplay?
So are we doing a post mortem now?