Honestly, i'd be interested to figure out if you could do clipping shenanigans and put it on the bottom. It's possible also that with the current changes it'd be better to actually use multiple small engines and have a central docking point or some such - You can cut a chunk of weight by dropping the various parachutes, and possibly even the landing legs (though they'd still be useful if you're landing on Mun/Minimus/other low/no atmo stuff.
THough a side attachement point does have some benefits.
I will point out the attachment point to the command pod there is actually on the jettionsable first stage. If you were taking it into orbit, you'd want to pack em like sardines inside a cargo or fairing. You might be able to get away with clipping something that can be jettionsed off some how though.
Honestly, I hope KSP2 let's me lean into this style of miniaturization. It's easy (within reason) to build large rockets - but creating effective small tech, especially for things like planetary exploration? That's quite the trick
Though I also really hope that we get the ability to build in orbit, and create some truly grand spaceships
Though I also really hope that we get the ability to build in orbit, and create some truly grand spaceships
The wobbliest of explorers, using the lowest of TWRs.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Assuming it's rigid and just bobbles back and forth, going through any parts with torque and turning the reaction wheel authority down can help stabilize them. I had to fiddle with that on this monstrosity for a while to keep it from shaking more than the SAS could counter:
The thing I had to learn was not putting all of the thrust at the very end of the train, so you're not pushing a noodle. Outriggers or nacelles, with more stuff tucked in behind (but not in the exhaust cones), are good.
Then again, I was playing mostly with 3m parts, not those 5m+ monsters. That might bring your total length and part count down enough to not have to bother.
I didn't have any limp noodle problems with that one (then again I've got kerbal joint reinforcement turned up to max). Before I fiddled with the RWA on everything, the issue was that it wobbled up and down (relative the picture, between the angle of the two aeroshells), and then side to side (in the direction of the landers pointing towards and away form the camera) at different rates, making the navball meander all over the damn place while under power. To make things worse it slowly twisted clockwise for reasons I never did figure out.
Also. Locking gimbals will reduce boost-caused wobbling (otherwise it will keep trying to correct the wobble using thrust vectoring, which will just increase the wobble).
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I see no reason for it being earthscaled. Scale is easily modded (some of the first mods played with planetary scales) and earthscale makes it less fun for beginners.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
+7
Options
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
So I have a decision to make.. Follow the tutorials in KSP or take what I know so far and make my own Mun Mission. And I choose to try my own design. I can already throw junk on the moon. My probe was supposed to be an accessible science platform for the next mission, but comms and control fail. And I forgot the importance of landing lights too. So I just have an orbiting Mun probe with lander legs. I tried linking comms with my Kerbin satellite, but no dice. I may try waiting a few days for the mun and kerbin to be in a better spot for my probe to land.
Decisions, decisions!
Landing lights? On the Mun? I've only used those if I wanted to land in a very specific spot far from the Muns equator (like the Polar crater or the highland craters). Otherwise you can always wait a few rotations and land in sunlight.
Communications is a very different issue. Ideally you need 2-3 of satellites in high-Mun Orbit (a moderately inclined orbit can help avoid ending up in Munshadow), and they need to use the Relay antennas (Communotron antennas will not work).
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Is it weird that the welding sparks whenever they add a new component in that trailer makes me... happy?
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
+3
Options
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
This is my Mun Lander with Rover tucked in. Everything tested and deploys correctly despite every possible configuration tried. It was not easy. I needed extra engine thrusters just to carry with this design and it works as deployable with ditching of the added fuel and thrusters for takeoff. Works well enough on Kerbin. Fuel consumption is tricky.
Here is everything tucked in for my launch design. Rocket works but needs a lot of tweaks. Not even cost or weight efficient.
I cannot figure out how to get the lander flipped around for the command module to dock easily. So everything is in the right order layout, but docking in orbit will be dangerous and difficult.
Holy shit. They dropped the Recommended/Minimum requirements for Early Access and now your first attempt to asparagus-stage isn't the only thing that's on fire, all the KSP forums are too.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It's a 4 and a half year old lower end GPU for a game that is in early access and could potentially see more optimization in the future.
Like, I get that the GPU market has been fucked for a while but at some point developers will be moving on from the 900 series baseline.
Edit: Also I believe both of those are the minimum card levels for each manufacturer to enable direct storage streaming assets to the GPU. So if that is a baseline engine implementation of asset loading, right there you have the reason.
It's a 4 and a half year old lower end GPU for a game that is in early access and could potentially see more optimization in the future.
Like, I get that the GPU market has been fucked for a while but at some point developers will be moving on from the 900 series baseline.
Edit: Also I believe both of those are the minimum card levels for each manufacturer to enable direct storage streaming assets to the GPU. So if that is a baseline engine implementation of asset loading, right there you have the reason.
Was the 2000 series ever lower end? Because I think the 1600-series was their budget line for that entire era.
Meanwhile 3080 as the recommended is just...wtf? I could buy an entire new computer with a 3060 card and it would be cheaper than just the 3080 card.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It's a 4 and a half year old lower end GPU for a game that is in early access and could potentially see more optimization in the future.
Like, I get that the GPU market has been fucked for a while but at some point developers will be moving on from the 900 series baseline.
Edit: Also I believe both of those are the minimum card levels for each manufacturer to enable direct storage streaming assets to the GPU. So if that is a baseline engine implementation of asset loading, right there you have the reason.
Was the 2000 series ever lower end? Because I think the 1600-series was their budget line for that entire era.
Meanwhile 3080 as the recommended is just...wtf? I could buy an entire new computer with a 3060 card and it would be cheaper than just the 3080 card.
I imagine 3080s will probably be somewhat cheaper when the game finally comes out of beta Early Access, two (maybe three) years from now...
*looks back at aforementioned GPU market*
Then again, maybe not.
It's a 4 and a half year old lower end GPU for a game that is in early access and could potentially see more optimization in the future.
Like, I get that the GPU market has been fucked for a while but at some point developers will be moving on from the 900 series baseline.
Edit: Also I believe both of those are the minimum card levels for each manufacturer to enable direct storage streaming assets to the GPU. So if that is a baseline engine implementation of asset loading, right there you have the reason.
Was the 2000 series ever lower end? Because I think the 1600-series was their budget line for that entire era.
Meanwhile 3080 as the recommended is just...wtf? I could buy an entire new computer with a 3060 card and it would be cheaper than just the 3080 card.
I imagine 3080s will probably be somewhat cheaper when the game finally comes out of beta Early Access, two (maybe three) years from now...
*looks at 3080 pricing over the last 4 years*
I guess technically cheaper if you account for inflation.
It's a 4 and a half year old lower end GPU for a game that is in early access and could potentially see more optimization in the future.
Like, I get that the GPU market has been fucked for a while but at some point developers will be moving on from the 900 series baseline.
Edit: Also I believe both of those are the minimum card levels for each manufacturer to enable direct storage streaming assets to the GPU. So if that is a baseline engine implementation of asset loading, right there you have the reason.
Was the 2000 series ever lower end? Because I think the 1600-series was their budget line for that entire era.
Meanwhile 3080 as the recommended is just...wtf? I could buy an entire new computer with a 3060 card and it would be cheaper than just the 3080 card.
So I went and double checked, RTX 2000 cards support Direct Storage, but the 1600 series does not. So if I had to put money, that's why it's the base requirement.
Yeah, those are some rough requirements. Fortunately my 1080ti should still be good enough, since I'm waiting for NVIDIA to come to its sense with 4000 series pricing (I know, good luck me). I upgraded the rest of my computer a while back in no small part because of KSP2. And that's assuming I decide to buy in the Early Access, of which I am far from convinced at the moment.
For additional context:
Minimum is 1080p at Low Settings
Recommended is 1440p at High Settings
These systems requirements are to ensure a high-quality experience while playing KSP2 in a variety of in-game scenarios.
KSP 2 will work across a wide variety of hardware beyond what is listed in our recommended specs, with performance scaling based on the size and complexity of the crafts you build.
Throughout the Early Access period, our development team will continue to prioritize performance optimization to ensure an optimal gameplay experience for as many @Kerbonauts as possible.
We hear you and we take your feedback very seriously. You are a core part of the development process, so please continue to share your expectations for what you want your KSP2 experience to be.
I'm wondering if some of that GPU requirement might be from utilizing like PhysX to offload the rigid body physics from the CPU. Otherwise I'm not seeing how KSP2 is graphically demanding enough to need a 3080. Unless all those seemingly low detail textures are really all full 4k res.
I'm more weirded out by the disk space needing to be 30% larger for some reason.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I'm wondering if some of that GPU requirement might be from utilizing like PhysX to offload the rigid body physics from the CPU. Otherwise I'm not seeing how KSP2 is graphically demanding enough to need a 3080. Unless all those seemingly low detail textures are really all full 4k res.
I'm more weirded out by the disk space needing to be 30% larger for some reason.
There is some speculation that the disk space bloat indicates uncompressed unoptimized textures, which is what is driving the video card demand bloat.
KSP1 is *gloriously* unoptimized so this is really on brand.
The weird ass shit it does to allow a seamless flight from one planet to another (basically everything outside of physics range is faked, planets are much smaller and closer than they appear and occasional glitches making your window lights illuminate a whole hemisphere will give it away) apparently made every attempt to fix that fact a nightmare, so we're stuck with the solution of "load everything into memory and pray" as the best effort.
Hevach on
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm just going to assume my old, rickety, grandpa of a card 1080 is going to be fine because I can't afford to upgrade!
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Those system specs are designed to give the most realistic, classic aerospace experience of all: trying to get the most out of inadequate hardware while running a space program.
Regarding KSP2, I'm looking at the game less as an actual sequel and more a KSP remake. An attempt at the game being made today, as a main focus by the dev team, with a much stronger foundation for building out future content (instead of a small dev team's side-project that blew up beyond anyone's expectations). There are a lot of good early signs so far in how modular a lot of systems are. A good example is a telling detail in the new early access trailer:
The heirarchical structure to the VAB's placement shows how the VAB isn't special, but just an assembly plant that happens to be on Kerbin - it's being designed ground up to be buildable anywhere in Kerbol or interstellar systems. This kind of thing should make future development, and modding, a lot less janky.
I'm expecting a bit of a rocky reception out the gate, as they haven't done an amazing job of setting expectations (and tbh it does look like going EA in itself was from being stuck in dev hell), but I think it'll shape up to be a fantastic game as it goes along. Long as the foundation's there, I'm happy to explode kerbals all the way up to 1.0 and beyond.
Regarding KSP2, I'm looking at the game less as an actual sequel and more a KSP remake. An attempt at the game being made today, as a main focus by the dev team, with a much stronger foundation for building out future content (instead of a small dev team's side-project that blew up beyond anyone's expectations). There are a lot of good early signs so far in how modular a lot of systems are. A good example is a telling detail in the new early access trailer:
The heirarchical structure to the VAB's placement shows how the VAB isn't special, but just an assembly plant that happens to be on Kerbin - it's being designed ground up to be buildable anywhere in Kerbol or interstellar systems. This kind of thing should make future development, and modding, a lot less janky.
I'm expecting a bit of a rocky reception out the gate, as they haven't done an amazing job of setting expectations (and tbh it does look like going EA in itself was from being stuck in dev hell), but I think it'll shape up to be a fantastic game as it goes along. Long as the foundation's there, I'm happy to explode kerbals all the way up to 1.0 and beyond.
I'm certainly giving it a side eye and very much waiting and seeing.
Like don't get me wrong - I want this to succeed, and quite badly so. But also it looks like it's a hot mess right now, and nothing I'm seeing is doing a good job of building faith in it (especially with such a long development tail launching a very feature light early access at a pretty crazy price).
It pretty much entirely rests on if KSP2 can garner the same kind of fan community that KSP1 did to provide mods for things the base game lacks.
A prospect which is... difficult if they charge too much for it.
Problem for me is most of those "things KSP lacked" were features supposed to be in KSP2 that we are explicitly not getting for this release.
The big thing for me (and from what I've seen, a lot of long-term players) is whether KSP2 can slay the Kraken. KSP1 can be modded all day long, but no matter what you do, the physics randomly fucking up a perfectly good journey/craft is a largely unsolveable problem. If KSP2 can at least significantly reduce the chances of the game deciding to throw a random tantrum that torches all your work, it'll be worth it.
I fully understand heavy scepticism, it's entirely deserved, and their communication around the game has honestly sucked. Details of systems, graphics levels, what parts are available, etc, have all been left up to players to glean from trailers and screenshots (which themselves are repeatedly clarified as very unrepresentative as devs have been taking random shots from the Unity preview window, giving bad impressions of the game's state). Even something as simple as the system specs were a confused mess days out from the EA release, which is exactly when you don't want your fanbase on fire.
I'm hoping that they manage to right the ship once EA is out and they have 1. income and 2. an example of what KSP2 really looks and works like. If it can fix the longterm issues in KSP1, even if the content isn't quite there yet, I have faith we'll see the modding community and playerbase come over. I'm throwing the dice on this one and buying as soon as it releases, so we'll see.
Posts
THough a side attachement point does have some benefits.
I will point out the attachment point to the command pod there is actually on the jettionsable first stage. If you were taking it into orbit, you'd want to pack em like sardines inside a cargo or fairing. You might be able to get away with clipping something that can be jettionsed off some how though.
Honestly, I hope KSP2 let's me lean into this style of miniaturization. It's easy (within reason) to build large rockets - but creating effective small tech, especially for things like planetary exploration? That's quite the trick
Though I also really hope that we get the ability to build in orbit, and create some truly grand spaceships
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
The wobbliest of explorers, using the lowest of TWRs.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Some of my assembled-in-orbit interplanetaries were very wobbly indeed.
Then again, I was playing mostly with 3m parts, not those 5m+ monsters. That might bring your total length and part count down enough to not have to bother.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Early access gameplay trailer. Nothing that super sticks out here, but hey, gameplay if you want it?
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Decisions, decisions!
Communications is a very different issue. Ideally you need 2-3 of satellites in high-Mun Orbit (a moderately inclined orbit can help avoid ending up in Munshadow), and they need to use the Relay antennas (Communotron antennas will not work).
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Here is everything tucked in for my launch design. Rocket works but needs a lot of tweaks. Not even cost or weight efficient.
I cannot figure out how to get the lander flipped around for the command module to dock easily. So everything is in the right order layout, but docking in orbit will be dangerous and difficult.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It's a 4 and a half year old lower end GPU for a game that is in early access and could potentially see more optimization in the future.
Like, I get that the GPU market has been fucked for a while but at some point developers will be moving on from the 900 series baseline.
Edit: Also I believe both of those are the minimum card levels for each manufacturer to enable direct storage streaming assets to the GPU. So if that is a baseline engine implementation of asset loading, right there you have the reason.
an understatement on par with "the Sun is hot"
Was the 2000 series ever lower end? Because I think the 1600-series was their budget line for that entire era.
Meanwhile 3080 as the recommended is just...wtf? I could buy an entire new computer with a 3060 card and it would be cheaper than just the 3080 card.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I imagine 3080s will probably be somewhat cheaper when the game finally comes out of beta Early Access, two (maybe three) years from now...
*looks back at aforementioned GPU market*
Then again, maybe not.
*looks at 3080 pricing over the last 4 years*
I guess technically cheaper if you account for inflation.
So I went and double checked, RTX 2000 cards support Direct Storage, but the 1600 series does not. So if I had to put money, that's why it's the base requirement.
So Kerbal
I'm more weirded out by the disk space needing to be 30% larger for some reason.
There is some speculation that the disk space bloat indicates uncompressed unoptimized textures, which is what is driving the video card demand bloat.
MWO: Adamski
The weird ass shit it does to allow a seamless flight from one planet to another (basically everything outside of physics range is faked, planets are much smaller and closer than they appear and occasional glitches making your window lights illuminate a whole hemisphere will give it away) apparently made every attempt to fix that fact a nightmare, so we're stuck with the solution of "load everything into memory and pray" as the best effort.
Regarding KSP2, I'm looking at the game less as an actual sequel and more a KSP remake. An attempt at the game being made today, as a main focus by the dev team, with a much stronger foundation for building out future content (instead of a small dev team's side-project that blew up beyond anyone's expectations). There are a lot of good early signs so far in how modular a lot of systems are. A good example is a telling detail in the new early access trailer:
The heirarchical structure to the VAB's placement shows how the VAB isn't special, but just an assembly plant that happens to be on Kerbin - it's being designed ground up to be buildable anywhere in Kerbol or interstellar systems. This kind of thing should make future development, and modding, a lot less janky.
I'm expecting a bit of a rocky reception out the gate, as they haven't done an amazing job of setting expectations (and tbh it does look like going EA in itself was from being stuck in dev hell), but I think it'll shape up to be a fantastic game as it goes along. Long as the foundation's there, I'm happy to explode kerbals all the way up to 1.0 and beyond.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
That's one small step for a derp, one giant stumble for derpkind!
*slaps forehead* Will be reloading a save....
I'm certainly giving it a side eye and very much waiting and seeing.
Like don't get me wrong - I want this to succeed, and quite badly so. But also it looks like it's a hot mess right now, and nothing I'm seeing is doing a good job of building faith in it (especially with such a long development tail launching a very feature light early access at a pretty crazy price).
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
A prospect which is... difficult if they charge too much for it.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Problem for me is most of those "things KSP lacked" were features supposed to be in KSP2 that we are explicitly not getting for this release.
The big thing for me (and from what I've seen, a lot of long-term players) is whether KSP2 can slay the Kraken. KSP1 can be modded all day long, but no matter what you do, the physics randomly fucking up a perfectly good journey/craft is a largely unsolveable problem. If KSP2 can at least significantly reduce the chances of the game deciding to throw a random tantrum that torches all your work, it'll be worth it.
I fully understand heavy scepticism, it's entirely deserved, and their communication around the game has honestly sucked. Details of systems, graphics levels, what parts are available, etc, have all been left up to players to glean from trailers and screenshots (which themselves are repeatedly clarified as very unrepresentative as devs have been taking random shots from the Unity preview window, giving bad impressions of the game's state). Even something as simple as the system specs were a confused mess days out from the EA release, which is exactly when you don't want your fanbase on fire.
I'm hoping that they manage to right the ship once EA is out and they have 1. income and 2. an example of what KSP2 really looks and works like. If it can fix the longterm issues in KSP1, even if the content isn't quite there yet, I have faith we'll see the modding community and playerbase come over. I'm throwing the dice on this one and buying as soon as it releases, so we'll see.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.