igor290506

should clouds and city lights be stock in ksp

Recommended Posts

Its nice to have clouds and city lights stock in ksp.beacuse it make the planets in Kerbol System more realictict and planets 

yes or no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clouds yes city lights, hell no. They look crap at sea level and confusing in orbit, no, no, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

clouds yes city lights, hell no. They look crap at sea level and confusing in orbit, no, no, no.

I agree. with RBray's mod, after each update I always (and without hesitation) deleted the city lights folder. Not only for the exact reasons you state here but in the past, I have created actual settlements (using planetary base) on the surface. If I am going to have "city lights" I'd rather it be real rather than just meaningless points of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

clouds yes city lights, hell no. They look crap at sea level and confusing in orbit, no, no, no.

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with all above, clouds yes, city lights no.

I like anything that adds natural environmental realism to KSP. Clouds, rain, snow, wind, rainbows, dust storms, natural chemical haze, aurora, solar flares, shooting stars/meteors/meteorites, comets, volcanoes, flowing rivers, puddles, swamps, seasons and ice-ages - all ok by me. Anything anthropogenic, hell no, it's just pollution by another name.

The Kerbol system is where I go to get away from the disgusting waste of massive-scale human industry, I don't want any evidence of it whatsoever in my perfect natural oasis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spend the absolute majority of my time either in the VAB or in space, so I can't say that I bother much about cities or clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

clouds yes city lights, hell no. They look crap at sea level and confusing in orbit, no, no, no.

I totally agree. I always disable the city lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen it rain on Kerbin so why would there be any clouds?

I mean really, we know nothing about the composition of the atmosphere or if it even includes enough water to form clouds.

Considering Kerbin is smaller but still just as massive as the Earth, it wouldn't surprise me if the oceans were essentially pinned down to the planet by the intense gravitational pull, trapping all the available water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with most on here...

Clouds - yes please.

City lights - no, not unless there are actual towns and cities to go with them.  Even then I wouldn't want Earth level areas of habitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, would love city lights. I would make navigation on night side much easier. But Majorjim is right, night landing into some ugly flat texture is not the way.

Clouds, no. I mean, yes, but no. Not if it ends up as thin bolted-on overhead texture. Now, if real wind could be factored in, that would give it some sense gameplay wise. Imagine this:  you look at flagpole to see what today wheather is like, then look at clouds to see if high-altitude winds permit launch of a… weather sattelite.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

I spend the absolute majority of my time either in the VAB or in space, so I can't say that I bother much about cities or clouds.

you realize you can see cities and clouds from space, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Iamsodarncool said:

you realize you can see cities and clouds from space, right?

Never noticed, my attention is on navigation or docking :wink:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These suggestions for the game's development have been moved to Suggestions & Development Discussion. They are both frequently requested features, by the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Majorjim said:

clouds yes city lights, hell no. They look crap at sea level and confusing in orbit, no, no, no.

Completely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please i want clouds in stock ksp. in the VAB there is clods but when you launch nothing;.;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ImmaStegosaurus! said:

Yes to both if they would be optional.

Having a space center on a desolate planet feels just weird.

The thing is with City lights you still have a space center on a desolate planet.... that just happens to have bioluminescent grass,.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alshain said:

The thing is with City lights you still have a space center on a desolate planet.... that just happens to have bioluminescent grass,.

Yes, but unless you specifically land a spacecraft in middle of major population centre or on a road you wouldn't really see the difference. Day time those cities could be visible as grey blobs of generic city textures. Maybe add few models of small houses and cottages in hills and mountains to break some of that black nothingness that surrounds KSC in the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clouds yes, especially if they come with weather like FSX and Prepar3d.  Note this implies sliders so clouds can be from 0 (off) to 100 (overcast) and hopefully layers so different cloud types (and wind strength, directions etc.) can be used and each layer gets its own 0..100 control.

City lights yes, if they come with cities or if the effect can be easily controlled (i.e. set to automatically turn off, or better fade away, when you reach altitude x while descending and come on when you reach altitude y while ascending; or turned off altogether is desired).

Edited by kBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely. I want my screenshots from orbit to look like photos from orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that drives KSP's bloated memory requirements higher than they are already should not be stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ImmaStegosaurus! said:

Yes, but unless you specifically land a spacecraft in middle of major population centre or on a road you wouldn't really see the difference. Day time those cities could be visible as grey blobs of generic city textures. Maybe add few models of small houses and cottages in hills and mountains to break some of that black nothingness that surrounds KSC in the night.

You clearly don't fly many planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:30 AM, ImmaStegosaurus! said:

Yes, but unless you specifically land a spacecraft in middle of major population centre or on a road you wouldn't really see the difference. Day time those cities could be visible as grey blobs of generic city textures. Maybe add few models of small houses and cottages in hills and mountains to break some of that black nothingness that surrounds KSC in the night.

Based on E.V.E's city lights/textures, I can confirm that you can see the difference in daytime, even from a distance, but all it really does it make something that used to look green, living and picturesque into something that looks diseased, dead and grey. The closer u get, the more disappointing it is - like photoshopping sections of Google Maps into photographs of wilderness. If we're going to have Kerbal settlements, I'd much prefer they were small, remote and unintrusive than a permanent blight on Kerbin's blue-green paradise.

That being said, proper cities with proper buildings to avoid during re-entry would add a new element of danger and dynamicism to the game, so I'm more willing to have on or two permanent-but-destructible urban areas here and there. I just don't want crappy city textures, that add nothing except misery, splurged all over my nice Kerbal grass tyvm.

 

Edited by Frybert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2016 at 1:18 AM, Alshain said:

You clearly don't fly many planes.

That is true. Why would I fly around in atmosphere when I can putz around in space crash in different worlds?

When I need to get science from some faraway place, suborbital jumps are the fastest and easiest solution.
 

Spoiler

Atmospheric flight is so darn hard in KSP that I consider any crash crew can walk out of as a successful landing. Why is there no "hold altitude & bearing" so we could go for smoke and get a cup of coffee while in atmospheric flight?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.