MrNeon
New Member
- Oct 26, 2025
- 9
- 37
I already have discussed this in one of my previous threads. This time, i hope to make it in-depth, as someone who is kind of experienced with designing planets, because this topic is still unexplored.
KSA is already showing signs of a playable game, with the new surface features and a vehicle editor. Out of all the features i am the most excited about, are parts (which are fantastic), and the solar system.
But, where is it? We know that our real Solar System will not be actually KSA's star system. It's just a matter of time before the first concepts start appearing, my guess is after vehicle editor.
I have worked on a KSP planet pack as a designer - A Billion Years Before (ABYB, i'd insert a link here but the forums are down...) and while i did not make the planets themselves, i have designed the majority of them.
So, what are the two most important features of a good collection of celestial objects?
In terms of a solar system, i think there are three types of people:
1. Realism
Those people would like a realistic solar system with planets that are, well, realistic. You'd expect nearly 1:1 analogues of Mars, Venus, or Jupiter, but made in KSA, or just realistic planets, lack of habitability, and the general coldness of space. KSP planetpacks that fall into this category are most notably JNSQ, RSS, and KSS2 (Although it's kind of near the semi-realistic line, but the creator states it's "optimistic realism")
2. Semi-realism
My favourite type - combining realism and fantasy. The stock KSP solar system is the best example - planets look noticeably different from their real-life world counterparts, but are still fairly realistic even though some lack explanation for a few of their properties, and a couple of celestial objects are under heavy debate whether they're realistic or not (Laythe, Jool and Eve's colors). Majority of KSP planetpacks sit here, including the famous ones: OPM, or Promised Worlds, and many, many more.
3. Unrealism
It's very rare to see unrealistic star systems, because few people enjoy them. Unrealistic characteristics are usually a plethora of "paradise" worlds, really out-of-place properties, or looks of the astral bodies. When unrealistic planetpacks come to my mind, i usually think of The World Beyond, or Planet Jam 2 (Even though it has just a LOT of objects, it still has some unrealism. Also, check it out! Old, but gold.)
Looking back - what are the positive and negative sides of each one of them?
Realism
+ Realistic. Planets are what you would expect a hard sci-fi star system to look like.
+ Believable. Playthroughs can really immerse you.
+ Scientific. Excellent grounds for people to learn about astronomy.
- Could get boring. Yes, realism is great, but people can eventually get tired of every moon having a super-thin atmosphere or a lack of it, planets looking similar and "uninteresting", and the lack of change of color in the star system.
- Bland. Not necessarily "bland" as you'd think, but planets aren't usually colorful and have surface features other than rocks, right?
Semi-realism
+- Mostly realistic.
+ Partially-believable, usually still believable
+ Diversity - some objects look more fictional, therefore usually making them "cooler" and a lot more unique
+ Great for sci-fi settings. (if you like to share mission reports or make fan works! wait, isn't that similar to the previous point?)
+- Not very scientific. It isn't a 1:1 recreation of what a planet could look like, but it still looks realistic enough, however they still have some "mysterious" properties.
Unrealism
+ Very diverse and unique. No planet is the same.
+ Huge amount of mission possibilities. Deploy a submarine here, start a colony here and there, fight extreme weather, even roleplay.
- Unrealistic. Can feel like a space opera.
- Not scientific, either.
- Barely believable.
Depending on how you view some of these points i mentioned, you can argue one is a lot more important than the other, based on your own "taste" in space media settings. I personally find semi-realism the most appealing, and i'm sure majority of people find it the most fitting too.
What about another part?
Analogues.
VERY important. Connected to the types of systems i brought up here too.
It's a wide spectrum, too.
You can end up making nearly everything basically identical to our Solar System (like the outer planets of Juno: New Origins) or change them to the point of the analogue not looking like one, but rather as a completely original planet. Both of those are bad in my opinion.
And, as always, KSP did an excellent job at balancing it. The Joolian system looks similar to Jupiter and it's moons if you compare the most visible characteristics (Io/Europa - Laythe, Europa - Vall, Ganymede - Tylo,) but there are STILL some outliers like Bop or Pol, even Laythe. Take a look at Eve too! It has a thick atmosphere and is hot just like Venus, but has oceans and a funky colour - it's what makes it stand out. Ike is one too - one big moon orbiting close to a Mars analogue? What?
My point is - i don't want everything to be an analogue or a completely custom star system. I want a blend of it, both analogues and original celestial bodies. It's an excellent way to keep the solar system familiar, yet alien at the same time. It's what makes it fresh, what makes Kerbol so timeless, and so memorable.
I think i should end this here. Apologies if it's short, as of time i am writing this now it's 3 AM.
To the Devs
If you see this post in the sea of other suggestions - please, give us the direction you are going for, and some concepts you made during development. I, and i think others are still patiently waiting for the custom solar system to be announced, and we'd love to hear it.
Final words
I intended this post to be the start of a discussion - the topic of an original star system is still very much untouched by the community, and i feel like it needs some attention too. I'm waiting to hear some opinions!
KSA is already showing signs of a playable game, with the new surface features and a vehicle editor. Out of all the features i am the most excited about, are parts (which are fantastic), and the solar system.
But, where is it? We know that our real Solar System will not be actually KSA's star system. It's just a matter of time before the first concepts start appearing, my guess is after vehicle editor.
I have worked on a KSP planet pack as a designer - A Billion Years Before (ABYB, i'd insert a link here but the forums are down...) and while i did not make the planets themselves, i have designed the majority of them.
So, what are the two most important features of a good collection of celestial objects?
In terms of a solar system, i think there are three types of people:
1. Realism
Those people would like a realistic solar system with planets that are, well, realistic. You'd expect nearly 1:1 analogues of Mars, Venus, or Jupiter, but made in KSA, or just realistic planets, lack of habitability, and the general coldness of space. KSP planetpacks that fall into this category are most notably JNSQ, RSS, and KSS2 (Although it's kind of near the semi-realistic line, but the creator states it's "optimistic realism")
2. Semi-realism
My favourite type - combining realism and fantasy. The stock KSP solar system is the best example - planets look noticeably different from their real-life world counterparts, but are still fairly realistic even though some lack explanation for a few of their properties, and a couple of celestial objects are under heavy debate whether they're realistic or not (Laythe, Jool and Eve's colors). Majority of KSP planetpacks sit here, including the famous ones: OPM, or Promised Worlds, and many, many more.
3. Unrealism
It's very rare to see unrealistic star systems, because few people enjoy them. Unrealistic characteristics are usually a plethora of "paradise" worlds, really out-of-place properties, or looks of the astral bodies. When unrealistic planetpacks come to my mind, i usually think of The World Beyond, or Planet Jam 2 (Even though it has just a LOT of objects, it still has some unrealism. Also, check it out! Old, but gold.)
Looking back - what are the positive and negative sides of each one of them?
Realism
+ Realistic. Planets are what you would expect a hard sci-fi star system to look like.
+ Believable. Playthroughs can really immerse you.
+ Scientific. Excellent grounds for people to learn about astronomy.
- Could get boring. Yes, realism is great, but people can eventually get tired of every moon having a super-thin atmosphere or a lack of it, planets looking similar and "uninteresting", and the lack of change of color in the star system.
- Bland. Not necessarily "bland" as you'd think, but planets aren't usually colorful and have surface features other than rocks, right?
Semi-realism
+- Mostly realistic.
+ Partially-believable, usually still believable
+ Diversity - some objects look more fictional, therefore usually making them "cooler" and a lot more unique
+ Great for sci-fi settings. (if you like to share mission reports or make fan works! wait, isn't that similar to the previous point?)
+- Not very scientific. It isn't a 1:1 recreation of what a planet could look like, but it still looks realistic enough, however they still have some "mysterious" properties.
Unrealism
+ Very diverse and unique. No planet is the same.
+ Huge amount of mission possibilities. Deploy a submarine here, start a colony here and there, fight extreme weather, even roleplay.
- Unrealistic. Can feel like a space opera.
- Not scientific, either.
- Barely believable.
Depending on how you view some of these points i mentioned, you can argue one is a lot more important than the other, based on your own "taste" in space media settings. I personally find semi-realism the most appealing, and i'm sure majority of people find it the most fitting too.
What about another part?
Analogues.
VERY important. Connected to the types of systems i brought up here too.
It's a wide spectrum, too.
You can end up making nearly everything basically identical to our Solar System (like the outer planets of Juno: New Origins) or change them to the point of the analogue not looking like one, but rather as a completely original planet. Both of those are bad in my opinion.
And, as always, KSP did an excellent job at balancing it. The Joolian system looks similar to Jupiter and it's moons if you compare the most visible characteristics (Io/Europa - Laythe, Europa - Vall, Ganymede - Tylo,) but there are STILL some outliers like Bop or Pol, even Laythe. Take a look at Eve too! It has a thick atmosphere and is hot just like Venus, but has oceans and a funky colour - it's what makes it stand out. Ike is one too - one big moon orbiting close to a Mars analogue? What?
My point is - i don't want everything to be an analogue or a completely custom star system. I want a blend of it, both analogues and original celestial bodies. It's an excellent way to keep the solar system familiar, yet alien at the same time. It's what makes it fresh, what makes Kerbol so timeless, and so memorable.
I think i should end this here. Apologies if it's short, as of time i am writing this now it's 3 AM.
To the Devs
If you see this post in the sea of other suggestions - please, give us the direction you are going for, and some concepts you made during development. I, and i think others are still patiently waiting for the custom solar system to be announced, and we'd love to hear it.
Final words
I intended this post to be the start of a discussion - the topic of an original star system is still very much untouched by the community, and i feel like it needs some attention too. I'm waiting to hear some opinions!
Upvote
1
