Video Four BIG Challenges for Kitten Space Agency - video by ShadowZone

[TROPtastic]

@ShadowZone released this video on the 4 main challenges he thinks Kitten Space Agency needs to overcome during development.

While the distribution choice and the funding sustainability questions are relevant, I was particularly interested by the idea that KSA might not have a big enough audience to support its development. KSA will need to avoid being so hardcore that it only appeals to people who modded KSP (a niche of a niche), while grappling with the fact that it has been a decade since the heyday of KSP1 and too many fans may have moved on.

One thing KSP did really well was attracting new players to rocketry without scaring them away with complexity, and KSP2 was on the right track with its tutorials. I hope KSA can somehow repeat that success, but what do you think?

 

[Halengar]

Personally I don't really see that as part of the challenge I would see the contributions and continued funding as more of a challenge. We got to remember how many thousands of people in the aerospace industry working today had been influenced by KSP. I'd think even a mild interest in space would be enough to get someone interested. The thing that made KSP that much more interesting was not only what was possible with the game but the people around it that made content for it like EJ, Stratzenblitz, Matt and Shadowzone

 

[TheUssLoliChan]

The hardest part to overcome, honestly, truthfully, is the failure of ksp 2, regardless of finger pointing simulator.

That game made this genre lose tons of trust, and well, support. Not everyone wanted to mod the heck out of a 14~ year old game and deal with 14 years of tech debt and a mash of tons of mods together to get what "they" feel that should be stock "ksp". besides the performance issues, loading times, and computer specs required due to the mods.

"visual upgrades, more parts, future parts, more complex resource management, more planets/moons/solar systems, base building, some cool QOL features, gameplay features".. all those in some fashion. and some wanted a larger scale of the game..

KSA does that... and from what it seems, without a proper roadmap on hand and just based off of what has been said in the discord server in its entirety, it's going to be almost exactly what people want.. The issue is trying to reach out to the gaming community.. However i see the reason to want a roadmap or well a chart/list of stuff that needs to be added, instead of trying to piece together the bits of info from discord/townhalls.. (Also around 1/4th~ real scale instead of ksp 1/10th~, so tons of things can happen/look better etc)

Then they WANT modders to mod it, and even from what they said the "main" game will be pretty much be a mod.

Ontop of that, KSA is performance first, then try to squeeze out the visuals.. I think it really can go well as long as KSA can get the ball rolling, and stay hot on it, start producing video's about the game that is more informal and direct and if need to compare to other space games similar to what ksa, rather than a townhall/"discord general dev talking discord searching", but I know the stage where we are at isn't the time for making those as the game is still being developed, we are just seeing what would be behind doors (until at least the first release).

And the main competition is:

• Kerbal Space Program (2011)
• Kerbal Space Program 2 (Canned)
• Spaceflight Simulator (2D Game 2017)
• Spaceflight Simulator 2 (TBA)
• Simple Rocket 2/ "Juno: New Origins" (2023)

And honestly, the truth is, its Juno VS KSA, add features from juno like certain custom modular parts, and its a true game spacerace.. Even if what the games are trying to be, they all compete on the same idea

And we haven't even started making the custom solar system (which for me would be cool to slowly bring out kinda like old ksp), so you can give people stuff in stages, and more complex planets/moons time they need.

Other than that, contributions shouldn't be a issue, you just need a good product, good products give word of mouth of "at least try it", people like it, they give a contribution if they want to see more into the game, if not the game will fizzle out, unless a different form of additional income comes in, DLC's of some fashion, or marketable items (people already want plushie cats)... For me even i can see it being marketable, they just need a product behind the items, which looks promising.

 

[DrVenkman]

I came to KSP as a full grown adult gamer. I was in my 40’s, for goodness sake, having earned my engineering degree literally decades before, with a lifelong interest and past space industry work experience. So I am probably not a typical target customer in the long-term. Having said that, I have a number of industry friends/peers/former co-workers all in the same boat, who all played around with KSP to greater or lesser degree.

What drew us to a game like that was not just an interest in space and playing around/discovering how rockets work. We already knew that. We knew how orbital mechanics work. We knew about atmospheric entry. We knew about the Rocket Equation. No, what drew us to KSP was the Lego-like approach in a big, reasonably-well modeled physics sandbox. “What if we put THESE engines onto THIS size tank, but then added THAT kind of antenna …” So I think it’s likely in today’s world, a lot of potential early KSA players/customers will already have a pretty good working understanding of the underlying physics and concepts. I think people like me and my friends represent a potential early-customer group: space industry veterans and experienced KSP folks. We are going to be the early adopters who will - hopefully - help push the game into growing and developing into the kind of thing that will attract a larger audience base.

To do that, to reach that goal, what a lot of us will want and need to really buy into KSA is a reasonably large selection of PARTS, with a wide variety of capabilities - various ISP ranges, various thrust/mass ratios, etc. It’s all well and good to see lovely plume and refraction effects and terrain modeling visuals on a vacuum moon. It’s wonderful that the BRUTAL framework supports all that in a performant way. But what about the crew modules, tanks, engines and structural parts we need to build a reasonably “realistic” vehicle to go visit them? What about docking interfaces so we can send large modular craft to distant target? Etc. And how will BRUTAL deal with part-physics on a vessel with a few hundred parts all interacting in a complex way?

So to me, the tl;dr is: What about parts? A challenge will be to give us a wide variety of useful and interesting components to play with. And just as important, what about part physics? Can that be handled in a performant and stable way without triggering a KSA-equivalent Kraken?

 

[moeggz]

I think Spaceflight is a rising tide that raises all boats.

As Artemis II and then III launch I think the wide interest in the subject will increase, in addition to the Chinese missions doing the same.

This increased interest will lead to more of the upcoming youth entering aerospace in school and in work. This raises the potential player base of KSA.

Something with the donation model I don’t think people understand is that if they get just a few large parties or wealthy individuals they could potentially receive a large portion of their funding from a few. Imagine if, after the game works, is released, and is available in schools as a teaching tool with a default launch pad at LC-39A, that NASA invests $1 million as an outreach incentive with KSA including in a pack an Orion capsule. Same goes for Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and of course SpaceX. All of these companies could get a little advertising (and increase their future pool of engineers) for a relatively small investment for them but a big boost to KSA.

I think keeping it free and marketed as a largely educational program will vastly increase its reach. I graduated highscool just as KSP was entering steam’s early access. I remember my physics class and doing some simple orbital mechanics with a teacher who absolutely would’ve had us in the computer lab (I guess nowadays all the children have their own laptop) playing KSP if it existed earlier and was free. I’d wager a bet that Mr. Jones physics class still doesn’t have KSP with the hoops that would have to be jumped through for even the Edu version to be purchased by the school. But a free program? Thats a completely different story.

The biggest issue is for sure the sour taste that KSP2 has left on the larger gaming population. But the antidote is the same, a free game comes with no risk. I would even suggest that they withhold a wide release until the gameplay reaches the level of about 1.0 KSP. This will widen the gap from the disaster of KSP2 and also make players first impression not one of “nice but it’s missing so many features” to playing a real game with a gameplay loop of some kind. I think sandbox only to start is a big part of why KSP2 failed.

If they release a free and educational game with a full gameplay loop the risk of trying is so small that I think they’ll get many downloads, and I feel many people when playing a game that they truly enjoy will donate, alongside the companies that will see an opportunity to advertise and increase the number of future engineers.

 

[TROPtastic]

I came to KSP as a full grown adult gamer. I was in my 40’s, for goodness sake, having earned my engineering degree literally decades before, with a lifelong interest and past space industry work experience. So I am probably not a typical target customer in the long-term. Having said that, I have a number of industry friends/peers/former co-workers all in the same boat, who all played around with KSP to greater or lesser degree.

What drew us to a game like that was not just an interest in space and playing around/discovering how rockets work. We already knew that. We knew how orbital mechanics work. We knew about atmospheric entry. We knew about the Rocket Equation. No, what drew us to KSP was the Lego-like approach in a big, reasonably-well modeled physics sandbox.

I'm glad to see that there are experienced engineers / space professionals who were attracted to the Lego-like aspects of KSP! I guess that speaks to the strength of Kitten Space Agency's approach: parts that will (hopefully) be ready to drop in and use immediately without the tweaking that often necessary in Juno New Origins, while still providing customizable subparts for those who have the time and interest to tinker deeply.

So to me, the tl;dr is: What about parts? A challenge will be to give us a wide variety of useful and interesting components to play with. And just as important, what about part physics? Can that be handled in a performant and stable way without triggering a KSA-equivalent Kraken?

That last question seems to have a positive answer based on what Rocket (Dean Hall) has said on Discord. He has said that KSA won't have the same part limitations as KSP, with the former expected to handle up to 65,535 parts per vessel. The higher performance apparently comes from having minimal communication between the CPU and GPU when rendering meshes with BRUTAL (source). What's more, physics simulation is largely disconnected from rendering, so parts will be able to perform actions while being off-screen, independent of time warp or framerate (one, two).

There's more information that can be found by searching "from:rocket2guns physics" or "from:rocket2guns simulation", but hopefully someone will take the initiative to compile this information on the Kitten Space Agency wiki that we have been building out (maybe under Parts or BRUTAL).

 

[TheUssLoliChan]

I'm glad to see that there are experienced engineers / space professionals who were attracted to the Lego-like aspects of KSP! I guess that speaks to the strength of Kitten Space Agency's approach: parts that will (hopefully) be ready to drop in and use immediately without the tweaking that often necessary in Juno New Origins, while still providing customizable subparts for those who have the time and interest to tinker deeply.

That last question seems to have a positive answer based on what Rocket (Dean Hall) has said on Discord. He has said that KSA won't have the same part limitations as KSP, with the former expected to handle up to 65,535 parts per vessel. The higher performance apparently comes from having minimal communication between the CPU and GPU when rendering meshes with BRUTAL (source). What's more, physics simulation is largely disconnected from rendering, so parts will be able to perform actions while being off-screen, independent of time warp or framerate (one, two).

There's more information that can be found by searching "from:rocket2guns physics" or "from:rocket2guns simulation", but hopefully someone will take the initiative to compile this information on the Kitten Space Agency wiki that we have been building out (maybe under Parts or BRUTAL).

Also another thing on the subject of parts and stuff..

With the subject of public release and stuff, a good reason to NOT release to the public without custom parts testing is due to the entire game needs that to work, work well, and have something "substantial" enough for players to "play" with..

The game only has with the limited videos we have seen on it via content creators a few crafts to play around with.. I think they are waiting for ksa to have some custom craft building before pushing it to the public..

And it is from what it SEEMS to be, perhaps medium size, with a small assortment of other sizes (due to rcs), I find it weird that the parts shown, most all medium sized ones are named and tagged with Rocket Werkz....

All links to parts known (discord links): From Newest To Oldest

• WIP Engine, Inspired by Titan GLV's Second Stage
• PBR of first suite of parts
• WIP of assortment of RCS Engines
• First diffuse pass on medium capsule service bay
• Textured Medium Capsule, With basic diffuse map
• Crew Hatch
• First basic diffuse texture pass on a few monoprop tanks
• Service module with Medium Capsule with a six bay service module
• Fuel Tanks, RCS, External Plate Progress (Second Link Here)
• Teaser of parts

And finally what i been talking about Daishi directly saying the first batch of parts will be medium sized, small selection of bay parts, RCS engines, Heatshield, Small profile Fuel Tank, Small Service Bay, and Gemini-esque service module Bay

SO, I feel like they are waiting on this initial set of parts to be fully finished, and basic coding/area to create craft in some fashion, perhaps an area to build it, and a saving system for the crafts (speculation)..

i think thats when they will do the first public release, so we might creep into extremely early 2026, or it might be said "end of year/next month release"

 

[Air]

Personally I think one of the biggest Challenge is funding, I don't know if keeping the game free will be good long term.

 

[TROPtastic]

Personally I think one of the biggest Challenge is funding, I don't know if keeping the game free will be good long term.

The funding model is one of easier things to change. Rocket has said that if they don't get enough contributions to support continuing development, they can pivot to a traditional pay-once model, with everyone who has contributed a certain amount (US$40 or US$60, for ex.) being given future updates and everyone else being able to keep playing the last free build.

Think of it as an experiment in doing a new type of fan-supported game dev, with the worst case scenario having it turn into an extended free demo rather than development stopping entirely.

 

[LongLiveKSA!]

The hardest part to overcome, honestly, truthfully, is the failure of ksp 2, regardless of finger pointing simulator.

That game made this genre lose tons of trust, and well, support. Not everyone wanted to mod the heck out of a 14~ year old game and deal with 14 years of tech debt and a mash of tons of mods together to get what "they" feel that should be stock "ksp". besides the performance issues, loading times, and computer specs required due to the mods.

"visual upgrades, more parts, future parts, more complex resource management, more planets/moons/solar systems, base building, some cool QOL features, gameplay features".. all those in some fashion. and some wanted a larger scale of the game..

KSA does that... and from what it seems, without a proper roadmap on hand and just based off of what has been said in the discord server in its entirety, it's going to be almost exactly what people want.. The issue is trying to reach out to the gaming community.. However i see the reason to want a roadmap or well a chart/list of stuff that needs to be added, instead of trying to piece together the bits of info from discord/townhalls.. (Also around 1/4th~ real scale instead of ksp 1/10th~, so tons of things can happen/look better etc)

Then they WANT modders to mod it, and even from what they said the "main" game will be pretty much be a mod.

Ontop of that, KSA is performance first, then try to squeeze out the visuals.. I think it really can go well as long as KSA can get the ball rolling, and stay hot on it, start producing video's about the game that is more informal and direct and if need to compare to other space games similar to what ksa, rather than a townhall/"discord general dev talking discord searching", but I know the stage where we are at isn't the time for making those as the game is still being developed, we are just seeing what would be behind doors (until at least the first release).

And the main competition is:

• Kerbal Space Program (2011)
• Kerbal Space Program 2 (Canned)
• Spaceflight Simulator (2D Game 2017)
• Spaceflight Simulator 2 (TBA)
• Simple Rocket 2/ "Juno: New Origins" (2023)

And honestly, the truth is, its Juno VS KSA, add features from juno like certain custom modular parts, and its a true game spacerace.. Even if what the games are trying to be, they all compete on the same idea

And we haven't even started making the custom solar system (which for me would be cool to slowly bring out kinda like old ksp), so you can give people stuff in stages, and more complex planets/moons time they need.

Other than that, contributions shouldn't be a issue, you just need a good product, good products give word of mouth of "at least try it", people like it, they give a contribution if they want to see more into the game, if not the game will fizzle out, unless a different form of additional income comes in, DLC's of some fashion, or marketable items (people already want plushie cats)... For me even i can see it being marketable, they just need a product behind the items, which looks promising.

Well, yes. I mean Juno New Origins is not as good as KSP 1 Modded, and it is more difficult than KSP 1 to use in terms of UI, etc. SFS isn't a serious space simulator, and SFS 2 looks like a worse ksp that is free. Still, you have a point that those games might appeal more to the masses.

 

[Hermano]

I think another factor is streamers playing the game.
Back in the early days of ksp several youtube channels that were popular were playing the game and introduced lots of people to it. The game being free to try allowed those to check it out right away and probably was a factor for its popularity.
It seemed to me that with ksp 2 mostly geeky ksp streamers touched the game. Combined with its price few people would get excited about it.

So having a free early version of the game that looks fun in the hands of twitch/youtube streamers and can be played and understood without getting into space travel details (but rewards you for learning them) would be a good combination. Kittens + lego style building + lots of explosions might work.