• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ronson49

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am thinking (and please correct me! I am interested). You can see Unity like Java. In the sense that, Unity has a runtime executable written in C++ and then, developers author their work in C#. Effectively what happens now is that the unity runtime is put into the final executable first, and then, the authored code is compiled on a separate layer. Meaning that your final code is still C# managed output running on the thread, CALLING INTO the C++ runtimes?
  2. It is just more of the same tired 2d/2.5d/3dplane (boardgame style). The bulk of this discussion is pointing out all these features but nothing exists beyond the pen and paper stage. And for all the people saying that Unity is somehow Assembly, that, the better you are, the better it is. Well not really. You hit the ceiling of the framework and the framework has to make assumptions so that my grandmother can make a game as well.
  3. Looks nice!! Actually your comment made me end up here: Some appear to be downloadable..... I will try them when I am home as interested.
  4. Some amazing knowledge in this post and I appreciate you all sharing it with us. Back on topic, all these features sound amazing. Is there anything in existence showing current (modern) versions of a 3D Unity Game that don't look like the "10 years ago" images above? Even Subnautica wasn't far off Halo 3.
  5. Hit me with a 60FPS 1080 AAA Unity game. No features have been done either and it is CRAWLING. Google "Premature Optimization". I expect 60fps@1080 right now on that demo. I don't want a 30fps demo when nothing has been implemented. = Welcome to Unity. Yeah, you just hit me with your golden unity child and we will chat further. That would be Unity itself? I could spend 1 million on software developers, to write optimised code. But Unity is compiling it..... So, you won't see it. Itll just be 1 million pound of developers, compiling through the same system as my grandmother learned in 24 hours. That is how compilation works. I am going to assume obvious coding in my statement above. I could have 10 entities calling 10 entities when 10 entities could possibly be shared. I get it.... but, that only takes you so far before you hit the compiler.
  6. The Unity Look is in the video below. What you see is the usual, slow FPS that Unity provides and that isn't going away.
  7. I was educated and into games for a good few years, graphics and physics before I won some money. I am not qualified. Perhaps you can share a Unity game of similar scope that is not 2d, 2.5d, or 3d plane? These games are fine. Unity is a great choice in fact. But KSP is pretty vast, it's uniqueness makes it difficult to compare to other things. Anyway guys, I just want to iterate that this is all my view, anything I say isn't going to change the choices that have been made. I am just saddened and maybe it is unfounded. I lack the faith is all.
  8. @HebaruSan Isn't that the ultimately issue with "The Unity Look"? Garbage Collection and the entire middle tier of managed stuff existing between your code and the executable? The stuff that "Makes it easy for Newbs" also makes it absolutely dire for performance. One of the reasons you aren't going to get GTA or Elder Scolls written in Unity is because it isn't possible to do so in a way that is satisfactory. It doesn't matter how many years of experience you have, you cannot undo its Entity system or any of the tens of thousands of choices that lay the foundation for it all working in the first place when you hit run. There is definitely limitations, and KSP is going to hit those limitations before the actual user is ready for them.
  9. Thanks for your help guys. I have just never played a well performing 3D rendered Unity game and I was an Avid gamer since the 80s. Cuphead.... Hearthstone... Cities:Skylines. They aren't anything close to what is needed to do this game justice. I mean by several magnitudes. I would go further and say even with a top tier engine, it would need exceptional work to tune the engine to this scale and make it performant. I could get my grandmother to download unity and get some physics rendered within 24 hours..... Do you know what I mean? I totally understand a small team making massive games like Squad and I appreciate (only a percentage of) the skill, time, and effort that went into making it a reality. But when a multi billion pound entity takes over the purse strings, I expect a little bit more. Each to their own on that, I am just crestfallen
  10. Hey guys! Long term lurker. I stopped playing KSP because i bought a 2 grand gaming PC and the game ran worse than my 2008 old PC. Is it true that they are sticking to Unity for KSP2? That really shatters my excitement if so. Unity is best kept for Shovelware, it is not what I expect Take Two to be doing on a game of this scale. Thanks :)!
  11. Sorry Sarbian, please ignore me. You were right, AntiVirus blocked it but silently. Thanks for your hard work. No MechJeb Window? = Check this!
  12. So just to confirm to a newbie here, I can no longer just install Mechjeb? I mean, I have did it like I used to into GameData and I see the Mechjeb Box during rocket creation, but I see no panels or mechjeb controls on launch. I looked through the last few pages here, and people are saying you need a toolbar plugin? But once you have the toolbar plugin, you need another toolbar plugin for Mechjeb? I have no idea what is going on To people having my problem see this:
  13. I install the new 0.23 version from SpacePort and place the Mechjeb Control on my rocket. But there is no windows on the right like there should be Clean install only mechjeb.
  14. Hey mate thanks for this mod, is there any chance you could update this version to 0.20+ I really liked this one.