Jump to content

Luriss

Members
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Luriss

  1. Just now, GoldForest said:

    If KSP 2 can handle more than a dozen or so star systems. It should, but keyword, should. It could end up having a soft limit due to limitations in the code or hardware. 

    This is true. Iirc KSP 1 has all planets and moons loaded to some extent, even if you're nowhere near them.

    Then again, this is a game focused on interstellar; it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect some sort of optimization that makes lots of stars possible right? New star systems also seem like an obvious thing for the devs to add in updates and/or dlc down the road.

  2. Y'know, I think SZ forgot to mention the biggest problem with KSP 1 in his video; performance.

    I'd argue the reason people don't go interplanetary is mainly due to the fact that in order to do so you have to build a 100 - 200 part ship which guarantees bad FPS, even on decent computers; the bugs are just icing on the cake.
    Take me for example, I've been playing KSP since 2012 and the farthest I've ever gone is a one way trip to Duna, right about the time my career games really start to chug.

  3. 1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

    Obviously, at no one point did I state it as a fact.

    "If I had to wager a guess"

    "Might be"

    1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

    It's not a bug if it is being done on purpose. You should take some time to learn a thing or two about how programming works rather than calling everything under the sun a "bug".

  4. 5 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

    It's not a bug if it is being done on purpose. You should take some time to learn a thing or two about how programming works rather than calling everything under the sun a "bug".

    To be fair, the idea that it's intentional is bit of an assumption.

  5. 2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    No, Early Access is not "The launch." Early Access is that, Early Access. It's literally in the name. 1.0 is not a formality, 1.0 is the official launch of the game. 

     

    1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

    Early Access - Open Alpha or Beta of an unfinished yet to be released game.

    Launch - The game is released in a 'full' state and is considered 'finished'. 

    I beg to differ. The launch is not when the game is considered to be in a 1.0 state but when the game is first released to the public. The official 1.0 "launch" is just ceremony if the game has already been publicly avaliable prior.

  6. I think the argument that the marketing effort seems a bit lackluster has merit. Sure, they're not paying for 50 ads on YouTube or the like and to be fair, they shouldn't be either. The thing is the marketing effort aimed at us diehard fans isn't that great either.

    We get about four screenshots and a ten second TikTok video a week. Its really not that much to go on, especially with launch rapidly approaching.

    And a quick aside on launch, yes it might be Early Access but don't be fooled, its the launch. The later 1.0 launch is just a formality.

  7. 2 hours ago, K^2 said:

    So if you have a sunset/sunrise situation, the side of a building facing the sun will be washed in auburn orange, while the side away from the sun will be bluish gray, exactly as you expect in that sort of a scene, and it takes almost zero work once you have the skybox computed.

    If I'm reading this right, this means scatter and sunrise/sunset lighting are interlinked.

    This is consistent with the stream; there was no coloured lighting at sunrise/sunset.

  8. 7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

    I think it's safe to assume that the beta gameplay videos are using low graphics settings, to improve frame rate.

    If so, they're a bit over a month from launch and what is presumably a high end PC has to run the game at low settings.

    That's somewhat concerning.

  9. 14 minutes ago, selbie said:

    the left symbol is the same shape as Kerbol star but with a hollow centre. This means one thing to me - a black hole. Therefore, I theorize that this is a quintuple star system with a black hole at its centre

    Y'know, you might be onto something there. If you skip to 5:20 in the new feature video you can see a binary pulsar and star.

  10. 8 minutes ago, Master39 said:

    I get your point, and your experience is a welcomed addition to the usual atmosphere of these forums, but I think that, as @Bej Kerman said, you're overselling modded KSP1 a bit.

    Let's not talk about the technical part, and focus a bit on the mere artistic side, KSP1 seems to be made out of assets raided from 20 different games. The fact alone that KSP2 has an art direction makes it better, something that even Restock+ struggles to do.
    Let's talk about the new VAB system, an unified building environment, with the same rules for both planes and rockets and all that magic happening with saving crafts and sub-assemblies and working together on multiple of them in the same environment without having to go though loops. I spend more than half my time in the VAB, that alone for me personally is worth 20-30€ if it was a KSP1 DLC.

    I admittedly don't know anything about what's going on under the hood, but on the thing I can see, whenever they speak or show anything I see an amount of competence and thoughtfulness that was never there with KSP 1 development.

    I'm already taking into account bugs and feature missing at launch, I'm pretty sure we're not going to get the automated supply runs systems until much later in the EA as they're probably going to ship it with resources, and I'm not going to be surprised if the non-impulsive maneuver planner is missing to from the first release, and I wouldn't certainly start to plan some long lasting save file with a tour of the Kerbolar system on the launch day release, but as someone that had my last two big interplanetary projects blocked by the Kraken bugging out random parts of my mother-ships I say that basically the same applies to KSP1.

    To expand on this, I've seen this idea of KSP 2 just being a modded KSP 1 thrown around far too much.

    You can technically do everything KSP 2 promises in a heavily modded KSP 1 game. The problem is as soon as you leave the realm of technicality and enter reality, you find out very quickly that KSP 1 is a game held together by duct tape and string.

    Take for example a Mun colony;  you'll at best get 15 FPS, the 5 mods required to make it work turns the resource system into an opaque mess, and there's a 50/50 chance the colony will phase through the ground when you load it.

    The further out and more complicated things get, the worse it gets. By the time you go interstellar you're looking at single digit frame numbers.

  11. 1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

    Year-long acceleration burn, many years long coast, then a year-long deceleration burn. And then you have to worry about entering orbit around the star, and then orbit around a planet. 

    Thank god we're getting acceleration under "Time zoom."

    Speaking of year long burns, will we be able to turn the engine on and then switch to a different vessel? It'd be bit of a pain if I had to waste a whole year in time warp when I could be launching other missions or managing my colonies in the mean time.

  12. 4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    But they're being implemented in a game where they do have to exist alongside other graphical elements, and KSP 2's clouds do a much better job of that.

    It's still in development. The clouds aren't perfect, never said that, but the basic style shown does a lot more for the game than pure realism like EVE. It's there, all the devs have to do is build variety off the style they've got here.

    Ehh fine. Fair enough.

  13. 37 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    I'm guessing this is the same mindset that led to KSP 1 ending its development with a smattering of conflicting and borderline ugly part textures, with some not even being touched (like the launch clamps). Whether or not they clash matters a significant amount when you're trying to make a competent game that doesn't look ugly.

    I'm not arguing that things should be implemented regardless of how they clash/compliment each other. In the aforementioned case of the EVE clouds, they're gorgeous by themselves in a vacuum, clashing aside.

    40 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    They are undoubtedly from the same game as the rocket. As for KSP 1 + EVE, the clouds just look out of place. The outlines around the parts in the VAB, the cartoonish clouds and plumes that achieve a good mix of realism and style all fit nicely together and communicate a specific style - realistic clouds as EVE is doing would just throw a wrench in all of that and would look tacky against an otherwise carefully crafted style.

    You're right, the style is a lot more unified and that's a good thing. The problem, I'd argue, is that the clouds are too cartoony and that they've become too stylized, not that they should be ultra realistic.

  14. 38 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Consider this: maybe they're just not meant to be realistic? EVE's clouds do not look nice. Well, they do look nice, but they do not mesh well with KSP's graphics. KSP 2's clouds do look like they're from the same game as the rocket in the foreground, though.

    I've seen this answer a lot and to be completely honest, I think it's rubbish.

    The new EVE clouds are simply gorgeous, whether or not they clash with the rest of the game aside. The KSP 2 Kerbin clouds on the other hand look distractingly cartoony, with the samey little cloud blobs dotted over the whole planet - I'd argue they clash more than the new EVE clouds do in KSP 1.

    As Stephensan suggested, if they added varied, large cloud formations with a bit of verticality as shown in the new EVE clouds, then it would look great.

×
×
  • Create New...