Jump to content

KSP Weekly: The FELT


SQUAD

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Boyster said:

I have to say i am surprised how little impact the fairing drag bug had in the community.

There were only like 2-3 posts in forums discussing about it and its a pretty huge game breaking bug in a game that drag efficiency counts a lot.

Anyways i am glad it will be fixed in the next patch.

Same here, on all points.

The most active KSP streamers talked about it like its common knowledge though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

It is capable beamed X-ray beamed power transmission all the way to Pluto

Must be using magic then.

If the beam stayed the same diameter (rather difficult), then hitting Pluto with it will be somewhat difficult, especially hitting a very small spot on it.

Otherwise, the dispersion of the beam would make it rather useless, it will slowly get wider and the energy will be dispersed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Must be using magic then.

If the beam stayed the same diameter (rather difficult), then hitting Pluto with it will be somewhat difficult, especially hitting a very small spot on it.

Otherwise, the dispersion of the beam would make it rather useless, it will slowly get wider and the energy will be dispersed.

yes I know, that why it uses hard x-rays which dispersion is a lot less. Admittedly the hardest thing is probably to hit it as it cannot see the target (for example a 10 x 10 meter ) but it is assumed it is possible if the beamed power receiver is sending it exact location and trajectory to the transmitter requesting for beamed power.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

yes I know, that why it uses hard x-rays which dispersion is a lot less. Admittedly the hardest thing is probably to hit it as it cannot see the target (for example a 10 x 10 meter ) but it is assumed it is possible if the beamed power receiver is sending it exact location and trajectory to the transmitter requesting for beamed power.

Also beam travels for hours to Pluto and back :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Given the distances, just breathing on the power transmitter would be enough to throw it off to totally missed the planet

Yes, you need to be at a rock solid location without anything interfering. A possible good location would be on a plateau on the moon. Of course, there will be some tremors from time to time, but most of the time it won't affect your targeting

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Squad plan to create a plugin to generate Planets with Heightmap from softwares like World Machine ? I achieved some results with the help of kopernicua but it seems complicated to use a heightmap workflow.

We have to convert to seemless then polarise each poles manually and add procedural noise to blend the whole thing.  A plugin where we plug a 4096x2048 heightmap who automate theses process can be really great to mod planet and new systems with softwares like worldmachine or any layered or procedural world builder on the market.

I'm trying to create a superNode in World Machine Pro to automate this process but i will need help to achieve the best results.

What i got so far after a night of testings :

Spoiler

unknown.png

unknown.pngunknown.png

Still have issue on the poles ( I'm working on a distortion node to solve this issue )

Some World Machine artists pointed me toward this but i can't get rid of the grid : https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gprojector/

Then i'm trying to create a poles generators :

unknown.pngunknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

Idk where i can set the LOD distances and how to fix the specular yet. This is normal that it look like that at low orbit ?

The planet look good at landing and from far distance but at mid range it look like this. What i do wrongs ?

Look like the Albedoe is used to vertex paint instead of UV colormap ?

Can i add a procedural noise over the color ?

 

 

 

Edited by Warsoul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2018 at 12:21 PM, Redneck said:

:shakes head: Here we go again. We tried to tell you squad that consoles was not a good idea. But he is right,and he is a paying customer so... lets see how you guys handle it this go-round. So now any future development of KSP (im not talking about patches) will have to be put on hold until consoles have been addressed correct? (another year) So consoles ARE slowing down development like we said it would. :facepalm:

I hate to get personal, but this kind of comment right here is why we console gamers are complaining. I'm not sure if you know, but many of us aren't privileged enough to be able to afford a $700 starter PC, plus all the constant upgrades that are required. 

You know, maybe if PC players did wait for over a year and a half for the precious Making History, they'd understand the frustration of us.

As it stands, I rarely play KSP on my Xbox One X (which is MORE THAN CAPABLE of handling KSP). Elite: Dangerous has replaced KSP as my go-to space game. And before I get hate for comparing KSP to Elite, here's the facts for me. 

KSP lets you build your rockets, sure. So you've got that. But you've got 7 planets and some moons that are realistically sized and rendered.

Elite: Dangerous has 400 BILLION star systems, each one fully explorable, with exoplanets, exomoons, black holes, neutron stars, white dwarves, other spacecraft, etc.

Now, KSP on a good day tops out at around 15-25 FPS, and stutters frames, has corrupted jet sounds, etc.

Elite runs at a sultry 60 FPS, with all those stars still in it, and not to mention combat, mining, trading, flying, etc. all happening in real time. 

Both were originally PC games, are both very hardware intensive space games, and were both ported to console. On my One X, Elite runs gorgeously and with little to no issues (server dropout does happen), KSP runs like a PS2 launch title.

(I shouldn't disparage PS2 games, because many of them had few to no glitches, because game devs had to get it right the first time, since they didn't have the luxury of post release patches)

So it's not a "PCMR, consoles can't handle it issue". It's a "this game was still ported badly" issue.

Edited by LegendaryAce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LegendaryAce said:

I hate to get personal, but this kind of comment right here is why we console gamers are complaining. I'm not sure if you know, but many of us aren't privileged enough to be able to afford a $700 starter PC, plus all the constant upgrades that are required. 

You know, maybe if PC players did wait for over a year and a half for the precious Making History, they'd understand the frustration of us.

As it stands, I rarely play KSP on my Xbox One X (which is MORE THAN CAPABLE of handling KSP). Elite: Dangerous has replaced KSP as my go-to space game. And before I get hate for comparing KSP to Elite, here's the facts for me. 

KSP lets you build your rockets, sure. So you've got that. But you've got 7 planets and some moons that are realistically sized and rendered.

Elite: Dangerous has 400 BILLION star systems, each one fully explorable, with exoplanets, exomoons, black holes, neutron stars, white dwarves, other spacecraft, etc.

Now, KSP on a good day tops out at around 15-25 FPS, and stutters frames, has corrupted jet sounds, etc.

Elite runs at a sultry 60 FPS, with all those stars still in it, and not to mention combat, mining, trading, flying, etc. all happening in real time. 

Both were originally PC games, are both very hardware intensive space games, and were both ported to console. On my One X, Elite runs gorgeously and with little to no issues (server dropout does happen), KSP runs like a PS2 launch title.

(I shouldn't disparage PS2 games, because many of them had few to no glitches, because game devs had to get it right the first time, since they didn't have the luxury of post release patches)

So it's not a "PCMR, consoles can't handle it issue". It's a "this game was still ported badly" issue.

You're ignoring the fact that KSP models so many more physics interactions than Elite. Those interactions are expensive in terms of how long it takes are CPU to calculate. That's the single biggest problem with performance for KSP. So any system, be it console or PC, will be limited by the speed of its CPU. Since most games' performance are limited by the GPU, consoles have tended to aim for a good GPU with just an okay CPU. That strategy is sufficient for most games, whether it's on PC or console. But KSP was not made like most games: KSP went for lots of complex, "realistic" physics while largely ignoring fancy, pretty graphics. This means KSP requires a much better CPU, and barely needs a GPU at all. Since this is the opposite of how most consoles have been designed, it's led people to say that consoles aren't very well suited to KSP. It's not a PCMR thing, it's just a KSP design thing.

And I'd also like to say that for Frontier, the developers of Elite, it's extremely likely that they had a larger, more experienced team creating Elite than KSP had.

Should all games work great, sure, but comparing two games that are not trying to do the same things allnd were not built by the same caliber of developer doesn't seem to provide a good overall picture of the situation.

All this being said, should you have a working product for your money? Absolutely. Should you have had it in a better timeframe? That would be ideal. It's unfortunate how things went but it does seem that Squad is trying to do something about it. I'm sure people won't ever be able to agree on how much is warranted, though.

Also, you can play KSP on a sub-$500 laptop with at least as good FPS as playing on a console (I know, I've done it), so the $700 PC argument is a bit of a stretch. A base, non-premium console is still cheaper (unless you factor in the cost of the TV), of course, but I'd argue that a PC for KSP can be equally as affordable as affordable premium PS4 Pro or Xbox X.

And PCs requiring constant hardware upgrades is a myth unless you're constantly chasing excessive performance at the highest settings. I built my system in 2010 with hardware that debuted in 2008-2009. It was of course expensive, even with reusing the GPU and hard drives from my previous system, but with a minor GPU update a few years ago it's still working and playing things from KSP (all settings maxed with decent FPS timer green at around sub-200 parts) to Assassin's Creed Origins (at 720p with low graphics settings). The system has been going longer than previous console generations, and probably cost about as much as two consoles cost at launch. My point is PCs don't have to be that much more expensive. But everyone is welcome to their preferences on gaming machines and performance, of course.

Edited by Mako
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Redneck said:

whatever dont care

 

/|\

This right here is exactly my point.

 

15 hours ago, Mako said:

You're ignoring the fact that KSP models so many more physics interactions than Elite. Those interactions are expensive in terms of how long it takes are CPU to calculate. That's the single biggest problem with performance for KSP. So any system, be it console or PC, will be limited by the speed of its CPU. Since most games' performance are limited by the GPU, consoles have tended to aim for a good GPU with just an okay CPU. That strategy is sufficient for most games, whether it's on PC or console. But KSP was not made like most games: KSP went for lots of complex, "realistic" physics while largely ignoring fancy, pretty graphics. This means KSP requires a much better CPU, and barely needs a GPU at all. Since this is the opposite of how most consoles have been designed, it's led people to say that consoles aren't very well suited to KSP. It's not a PCMR thing, it's just a KSP design thing.

And I'd also like to say that for Frontier, the developers of Elite, it's extremely likely that they had a larger, more experienced team creating Elite than KSP had.

Should all games work great, sure, but comparing two games that are not trying to do the same things allnd were not built by the same caliber of developer doesn't seem to provide a good overall picture of the situation.

All this being said, should you have a working product for your money? Absolutely. Should you have had it in a better timeframe? That would be ideal. It's unfortunate how things went but it does seem that Squad is trying to do something about it. I'm sure people won't ever be able to agree on how much is warranted, though.

Also, you can play KSP on a sub-$500 laptop with at least as good FPS as playing on a console (I know, I've done it), so the $700 PC argument is a bit of a stretch. A base, non-premium console is still cheaper (unless you factor in the cost of the TV), of course, but I'd argue that a PC for KSP can be equally as affordable as affordable premium PS4 Pro or Xbox X.

And PCs requiring constant hardware upgrades is a myth unless you're constantly chasing excessive performance at the highest settings. I built my system in 2010 with hardware that debuted in 2008-2009. It was of course expensive, even with reusing the GPU and hard drives from my previous system, but with a minor GPU update a few years ago it's still working and playing things from KSP (all settings maxed with decent FPS timer green at around sub-200 parts) to Assassin's Creed Origins (at 720p with low graphics settings). The system has been going longer than previous console generations, and probably cost about as much as two consoles cost at launch. My point is PCs don't have to be that much more expensive. But everyone is welcome to their preferences on gaming machines and performance, of course.

That may be the case, but I'd think that rigid body physics aren't as CPU intensive as soft body physics in a game such as Beam.ng. Also, early on in the game, I can make a 200+ part craft and have no lag, but if I save a few, the game acts like they're being rendered in the world. Same with spacecraft. So why not use imposter rendering, or just remove the model of a spacecraft until you get within about 5km with it. Because as it stands, it seems like it's applying physics on objects in orbit when I'm testing a fighter jet on the runway. 

Also, you'd think the tech specs of the One X would be able to handle KSP. I used to own a gaming PC until it was lost in a move, but my One X is equivalent to at least a low-mid tier PC.

So then the current issues can (at least partly) be attributed to the porting process? If so, then thank you for saying that so I don't sound like I'm arbitrari placing blame. 

I wasn't comparing the genre of games they are. I'm comparing two space games that are on the Xbox that I play. I know that KSP has way more physics, but Elite has FAR more objects to render, plus a persistent in game economy. I know it's a bit of a bad comparison, but I am playing Elite now because of the lack of an update. Like how long does it take to fix that annoying crackling sound that the jet engine sound files have?!

My issue currently isn't that I don't have a perfectly working game. I as a paying customer have replaced it for another for the time being. My issue is the lack of communication that's been present since day one, and is still present.

I use that as an example since I currently play with 4K settings, and having researched 4K gaming PCs, they're not cheap. Even if I built my own, I'd pay more than my 4K One X and 4K TV combined. Plus I'm already set up and well established on Xbox. (Flight stick support on KSP would be nice though)

As of now, I don't have much spending money towards a PC, so in the meantime, I probably have to just wait. But since I'm going to enlist with the Air Force in the next year, a PC might not be feasible,.especially since laptop gaming PCs are VERY expensive.

Edited by LegendaryAce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LegendaryAce said:

That may be the case, but I'd think that rigid body physics aren't as CPU intensive as soft body physics in a game such as Beam.ng. Also, early on in the game, I can make a 200+ part craft and have no lag, but if I save a few, the game acts like they're being rendered in the world. Same with spacecraft. So why not use imposter rendering, or just remove the model of a spacecraft until you get within about 5km with it. Because as it stands, it seems like it's applying physics on objects in orbit when I'm testing a fighter jet on the runway. 

Also, you'd think the tech specs of the One X would be able to handle KSP. I used to own a gaming PC until it was lost in a move, but my One X is equivalent to at least a low-mid tier PC.

That really depends on what you are doing.

Wheels, docking ports, and water have all caused major performance headaches in KSP in the past(and in some cases in the present) even for relatively small vessels.

It is entirely possible that the port went with the Kerbalism(aka run everything real-time) background processing as opposed to the RoverDude(aka ignore everything outside of the 2km 'active' bubble and just do 6 hour bach updates when things get in range) background processing approach, but I would be surprised if that were the case.

What I can say, is that if you do not know which parts cause problems, you can get a slide-show with 50 part vessels even on a top-of-the-line gaming rig because there is a lot of exponential processing in KSP(compare a 50 part vessel with 40 docking ports compared to a 100 part vessel without any docking ports, for example.  Every tick, each open docking port will find and examine every other open docking port in physics range and check to see if it needs to do any docking.  I think this may have been mitigated in one of the 1.3 versions, but before that it was awful for stations with lots of docking ports) 

While this sort of thing can be partially mitigated with a high-end (and high-price) CPU, it is a problem for PC and console gamers alike.  

And this is just the sort of thing you need to expect when dealing with an indie shop.

Even though KSP is not owned by an indie shop any more, that sort of problem is not fixed quickly or without a great deal of pain and expense, so while I am expecting the number of problems like this to go down, I deem it highly unlikely that they will be able to eliminate them within the life-span of the game.(and even if they do, it would still take a world-class super-computer to handle the physics calculations for a wackjob level construct in anything like real-time, just because of the math involved)

 

Something you forgot to include in your comparison between KSP and Elite: how many physically-connected objects can you have in a single Elite construct?

(keep in mind that for most games, a single vessel is only one piece, while KSP will have a dozen pieces for even simple vessels.  This meanins even if they have similar levels of physics details, that 12 piece KSP vessel requires roughly 2^12 times as many calculations as that 1 piece Elite vessel, and a 50 piece KSP vessel takes a similar amount of processing power as Elite having 1.1e15 single-piece vessels in the same scene.  Of course KSP actually has does more detailed physics calculations, so those numbers would probably be a low-ball estimate) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LegendaryAce said:

/|\

This right here is exactly my point.

Seriously dude...what exactly is your point? I see some huge long post (that im not going to waste my time reading all that) of a very tired topic comparing console vs PC's. Then another person replies and the posts get longer and longer trying to explain and prove points and really what it comes down to is personal preference. So in the end who cares? Well i know of one group that should care and that is squad. They brought the console problem on themselves because they saw dollar signs. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with that they didnt,i dont think,consider what would happen if it failed. Did it fail in all areas? NO. But it did hurt their image and reputation and strained relations with their customers and the PC community as well because it delayed development. THAT was my point. I have no clue how what you are saying even relates to that. So go push your little report to moderator button if that makes you feel better. (i used to be one on here appointed by harvester until it got to liberal leaning for me) Me personally...let me check...one sec...yeah, still dont care. Now I envy you in one respect. And that is the fact that you have plans to serve our country. For that you get a pat on the back and a handshake from me. :salute:

Edited by Redneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you thought my intention was to make this a PC versus console thing, I sincerely apologize. I wanted to vent frustration out on the fact that I've left KSP for (in my opinion) a more well rounded game. 

In all fairness, Squad seems to have not wanted to have anything to do with KSP:EE. They've basically given that whole IP to Blitworks, so any delays in the PC version has nothing to do with consoles. Squad even made a point to say that they're handing control of that game to Blitworks. So the delays for PC aren't our fault. 

I actually don't have issues with PC gamers. I had a lot of fun playing Battlefield 2142 back in the day on my PC, so I get the thing about PC gaming. But I've since switched to console per personal preference and ease of use. 

Also, truth be told, I probably won't really care what happens to KSP:EE this year, since when Ace Combat 7 is released, that's all I'm gonna play. 

7 hours ago, Redneck said:

So go push your little report to moderator button if that makes you feel better.

Why would I do that? I'm not that kind of person. What kind of forum would it be if dissenting views between people weren't allowed? I have my views and opinions, and you have yours. I don't have any issues with that.

7 hours ago, Redneck said:

Now I envy you in one respect. And that is the fact that you have plans to serve our country. For that you get a pat on the back and a handshake from me. :salute:

I appreciate that. Hopefully I'll get to fulfill my dream of flying A-10's.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...