Complete graphical overhaul?

[SpaceCube2000]

I think that update 1.6 would be a great opportunity to give the game a much needed face lift. Updating the parts, planetary textures, skybox and sun flare could greatly improve the visual presentation of the game. Who else agrees? 

Edited October 21, 2018 by SpaceCube2000

[Athen]

I think that they're already content with the EVE and Scatterer mods, but I think it would be nice. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Athen

[SpaceCube2000]

11 minutes ago, Athen said:

I think that they're already content with the EVE and Scatterer mods, but I think it would be nice. 

I think EVE and Scatterer should remain mods. I'm talking more about improving upon effects and models already in the game, like the parts, which are already being remastered. 

[Athen]

7 minutes ago, SpaceCube2000 said:

I think EVE and Scatterer should remain mods. I'm talking more about improving upon effects and models already in the game, like the parts, which are already being remastered. 

Oh, that makes sense. Then totally.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Increasing the game's minimum requirements is never a good idea commercially.

A new skybox certainly wouldn't kill anyone though, the stock one is like what? 640x640 or something? It's just terrible.

[SpaceCube2000]

3 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Increasing the game's minimum requirements is never a good idea commercially.

A new skybox certainly wouldn't kill anyone though, the stock one is like what? 640x640 or something? It's just terrible.

I don't think improving the skybox or implementing a new lens flare would impact performance, and it would improve graphical fidelity substantially. Improving the planetary textures would decrease performance substantially, so it should be a separate DLC (like the Ultra textures for Watch Dogs 2, if you play that). 

 

[Shadowmage]

With enough mods -- you can already do it.

This is just with EVE (clouds), Scatterer (atmo), KS3P (bloom), and TU (metallic shaders/textures/recoloring), using PBR shaders on stock parts and PBR shaders/textures on KerbalFoundries parts.  Could also add in SVT for improved stock ground textures (and scatters? idk, haven't used that mod much).

Note that the stock Mk2 parts have been recolored to be shiny brushed silver, and red...  More examples can be seen in the recent posts on the TU thread.

KSP can already be quite stunning.

(yes, I believe that much of this should at least be available in stock... but it is all available now if you look around)

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Shadowmage

[SpaceCube2000]

54 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

With enough mods -- you can already do it.

This is just with EVE (clouds), Scatterer (atmo), KS3P (bloom), and TU (metallic shaders/textures/recoloring), using PBR shaders on stock parts and PBR shaders/textures on KerbalFoundries parts.  Could also add in SVT for improved stock ground textures (and scatters? idk, haven't used that mod much).

Note that the stock Mk2 parts have been recolored to be shiny brushed silver, and red...  More examples can be seen in the recent posts on the TU thread.

KSP can already be quite stunning.

(yes, I believe that much of this should at least be available in stock... but it is all available now if you look around)

 

I've used Sci-Fi visual enhancements and KS3P in the past, and they look nice together. However, the developers can better optimize these effects for all computers. My PC is decent (i5 4670k, GTX 750 Ti and 8gb ram), yet it struggles to maintain 60 FPS with even a lighter graphics mod like Sci-Fi visual enhancements. 

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, SpaceCube2000 said:

so it should be a separate DLC (like the Ultra textures for Watch Dogs 2, if you play that). 

Nope, won't happen, cause it won't sell.  

Standard speech about mods as DLC:  They won't have the sales to justify the cost of development.  @Shadowmage's post explains how mods would work, and therefore no sales of  DLC.    Now if they did the graphics overhaul, sure, I don't like it cause I run a potato, but that doesn't mean it wouldb't be good for the whole community.    I'd much rather them make DLC's expand the game into another aspect they haven't tried before, and leave the upgrades that should be part of the stock game, stock. 

 

8 minutes ago, SpaceCube2000 said:

yet it struggles to maintain 60 FPS

Anything over 30 fps is moot. 

[SpaceCube2000]

16 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Nope, won't happen, cause it won't sell.  

Standard speech about mods as DLC:  They won't have the sales to justify the cost of development.  @Shadowmage's post explains how mods would work, and therefore no sales of  DLC.    Now if they did the graphics overhaul, sure, I don't like it cause I run a potato, but that doesn't mean it wouldb't be good for the whole community.    I'd much rather them make DLC's expand the game into another aspect they haven't tried before, and leave the upgrades that should be part of the stock game, stock. 

 

Anything over 30 fps is moot. 

We already have the parts being overhauled, why not improve a few other assets? A new skybox and lens flare wouldn't impact performance very much and are in desperate need of an update. 

Also, while you can play KSP with 30 fps, it isn't the best experience. I brought that point up because I think that the developers would be able to better optimize effects like clouds if they were developing them. 

Planetary textures are not a necessary update, and I can see why that would be reserved for mods. 

[Gargamel]

4 minutes ago, SpaceCube2000 said:

We already have the parts being overhauled, why not improve a few other assets? A new skybox and lens flare wouldn't impact performance very much and are in desperate need of an update. 

My computer decided to reboot during my edit, and then it won't let me edit that post now.     For clarity: I'm all for an overhaul in stock, just not as a DLC.  DLC's need to expand the game into new areas and mechanics that don't already exist, not fix old broken things. 

5 minutes ago, SpaceCube2000 said:

Also, while you can play KSP with 30 fps, it isn't the best experience. I brought that point up because I think that the developers would be able to better optimize effects like clouds if they were developing them. 

Your eye really can't discern differences above 30 fps or so.   The more FPS you have, the better though, as when your computer does lag, you won't notice it as it drop from 50 to 35 fps.   But complaining about not staying at 60fps is rather.... well... obtuse, but I do not mean to be offensive there, I just can't think of a better word. 

[SpaceCube2000]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

My computer decided to reboot during my edit, and then it won't let me edit that post now.     For clarity: I'm all for an overhaul in stock, just not as a DLC.  DLC's need to expand the game into new areas and mechanics that don't already exist, not fix old broken things. 

We can agree here. 

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Your eye really can't discern differences above 30 fps or so.   The more FPS you have, the better though, as when your computer does lag, you won't notice it as it drop from 50 to 35 fps.   But complaining about not staying at 60fps is rather.... well... obtuse, but I do not mean to be offensive there, I just can't think of a better word. 

Your eye can't discern differences above 30 fps, but you can feel the difference in the form of input latency and slow responsiveness. Maybe it's me, but I can certainly feel the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. However, like I said in my previous post, I brought that point up because I think that the developers can better optimize graphical effects, so rather than my game running at 30 fps with graphics mods, it can run at 60 fps with stock graphical improvements. 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Am I some kind of mutant?

I could totally tell you if a game is running at 30 vs. 60 just by watching it.

Heck, I can tell when it dips even by 5-10 frames per second, and it drives me nuts lol. I will however agree that past 60 I can't really see any difference. Even 120 just looks like 60 to me.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[SpaceCube2000]

23 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Am I some kind of mutant?

I could totally tell you if a game is running at 30 vs. 60 just by watching it.

Heck, I can tell when it dips even by 5-10 frames per second, and it drives me nuts lol. I will however agree that past 60 I can't really see any difference. Even 120 just looks like 60 to me.

Agreed. Above 60 FPS only makes a difference in shooters. 

 

[Gargamel]

Maybe I'm just jealous cause I don't even get a green clock on the pad.

Quote

Quote

Quote

???

 

 

^ No idea how that happened, hit a key a few times and a bunch of quotes appeared.  Not even sure which key!

[Superfluous J]

In KSP, the framerate has never bothered me except that one ship where I got about 3 fps.

I noticed it. Of course. I just didn't mind because I wasn't trying to 360 no scope some noob.

(did I say that right?)

[SpaceCube2000]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

In KSP, the framerate has never bothered me except that one ship where I got about 3 fps.

I noticed it. Of course. I just didn't mind because I wasn't trying to 360 no scope some noob.

(did I say that right?)

I stay away from graphics mods and run my game completely stock. Low framerate only seriously bothers me while I'm flying a plane or trying to dock in orbit. 

 

[Chel]

On 10/21/2018 at 2:38 PM, SpaceCube2000 said:

I think that update 1.6 would be a great opportunity to give the game a much needed face lift. Updating the parts, planetary textures, skybox and sun flare could greatly improve the visual presentation of the game. Who else agrees? 

It would be nice to have new textures and graphics, but not everybody would then be able to run the game due to issues with the framerate, overloading CPU, and just the amount of time that it would take SQUAD to complete your request. 

[SpaceCube2000]

3 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

It would be nice to have new textures and graphics, but not everybody would then be able to run the game due to issues with the framerate, overloading CPU, and just the amount of time that it would take SQUAD to complete your request. 

Agreed. However, a new skybox and lens flare effect wouldn't take that much time and could easily be fit into update 1.6. 

 

 

[Chel]

58 minutes ago, SpaceCube2000 said:

Agreed. However, a new skybox and lens flare effect wouldn't take that much time and could easily be fit into update 1.6. 

 

 

Skybox? Easy. The lens flare would take some time though.

[juanml82]

On 10/21/2018 at 11:29 AM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Increasing the game's minimum requirements is never a good idea commercially.

A new skybox certainly wouldn't kill anyone though, the stock one is like what? 640x640 or something? It's just terrible.

Except that KSP doesn't work well with low end computers anyway. On top, AFAIK, a built-in scatterer and the use of minimaps would actually increase performance rather than reduce it. Scatterer causes a performance hit because the game processes the hole thing and then scatterer adds its effects on top. A built-in version wouldn't process the whole thing to begin with.

Or, just look at any screenshot from The Elders' Scrolls Oblivion, which dates back to 2006, and look how the water and the sky look - and now compare it with stock KSP. A graphic overhaul which puts the environment at the same level than a 12 years old game shouldn't be taxing for modern computers.

Edited October 24, 2018 by juanml82

[zebidia kerman]

On 10/21/2018 at 1:01 AM, SpaceCube2000 said:

I think EVE and Scatterer should remain mods. I'm talking more about improving upon effects and models already in the game, like the parts, which are already being remastered. 

I think that the parts should have more shine, the new stayputnik is a good example. the parts are all smooth metal and I wish they looked like what they where. 

[SpaceCube2000]

3 minutes ago, zebidia kerman said:

I think that the parts should have more shine, the new stayputnik is a good example. the parts are all smooth metal and I wish they looked like what they where. 

Agreed. 

 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

5 hours ago, juanml82 said:

Except that KSP doesn't work well with low end computers anyway. On top, AFAIK, a built-in scatterer and the use of minimaps would actually increase performance rather than reduce it. Scatterer causes a performance hit because the game processes the hole thing and then scatterer adds its effects on top. A built-in version wouldn't process the whole thing to begin with.

Or, just look at any screenshot from The Elders' Scrolls Oblivion, which dates back to 2006, and look how the water and the sky look - and now compare it with stock KSP. A graphic overhaul which puts the environment at the same level than a 12 years old game shouldn't be taxing for modern computers.

Sure it does, I used to play on an ancient under powered laptop. KSP is still on Dx9, it's very low end friendly really. You don't even need a dedicated graphics card to play it, it's also totally playable at low fps for the most part.

Just because I play at 4k on Ultra settings with tons of visual mods now, doesn't mean I want other players with weak systems barred from enjoying the game. Comparing KSP to Oblivion is like apples and oranges, two entirely different game engines prioritizing entirely different things. What's good for the goose, is not good for the gander in this case.

Adding additional effects increases requirements, it's not something you can get around, sure a built in scatterer would be more performance friendly, but it wouldn't be free performance wise. One of the best parts of PC gaming is that we have mods (Speaking of the Elderscrolls games...Lol.) Why increase stock performance requirements when those of us with more powerful computers can just mod it? As I said before though, a new skybox wouldn't kill anyone; would just eat up a bit more RAM and they dropped 32 bit support anyways recently.

[SpaceCube2000]

6 hours ago, juanml82 said:

Except that KSP doesn't work well with low end computers anyway.

27 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Sure it does, I used to play on an ancient under powered laptop.

 

Kerbal Space Program is very CPU dependent, but not very GPU dependent. I've seen it run at playable frame rates on a Surface Pro with Intel HD graphics but it couldn't run on my old computer with a Core Duo and ATI graphics. 

32 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Why increase stock performance requirements when those of us with more powerful computers can just mod it?

Not every PC player mods their game (I personally haven't in a while because I don't like having to wait weeks for mods to update after each update). But that's besides the point. Personally, I don't think that adding some new effects like a better lens flare effect, clouds or even a scatterer effect would impact performance as much as you'd think. They could be optional (like terrain scatters), so If players can't run those effects, they can disable them.