KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Are you kidding? Where did atmospheric scattering go?

And what has happened to the surface of the planets since 2021? Or was it a pre-alpha and you shouldn't expect something like that in the game?

 

We saw it in a beta sneak peek a week ago. Don't remember which one, but it was there.

Edited February 18, 2023 by GoldForest

[Alexoff]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

We saw it in a beta sneak peek a week ago. Don't remember which one, but it was there.

Really? Kerbin? Why was this included? After all, everyone knows that potential buyers should only be shown screenshots and very short videos at minimum settings on old builds of the game!

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Are these system requirements for version 0.1 or for version 1.0 from 2026? Or maybe it's for those who added +1000 not yet created mods?

System requirement should be for the finished game as far as they know. It would be pretty stupid to release specifications who would work in version 0.1 but would not work with colonies in 0.3 as it would include the colonies and the large ships used to build them. 
And they can test this simply by building an huge ship and cheat it into orbit and test how it handles. Sure they have the ground work for colonies to so they can test this to. Only the physic and rendering is an challenge, no point in colony management and stuff like that but landing an ship near one would also be interesting. 

[Alexoff]

20 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

It would be pretty stupid to release specifications who would work in version 0.1 but would not work with colonies in 0.3 as it would include the colonies and the large ships used to build them. 

This is completely logical, but since the requirements appeared a week before the release, most likely this follows from the current build, which was recently compiled. I just can't imagine that normal bases and large ships require such weak processors. In any case, the developers should have dispelled the fears of users and explained the system requirements. Since if in a year we need at least 3090, then there is no reason to buy 2080ti today.

[Vortygont]

I saw that some objects like trees in ksp2 footages disapear on view beacuse of render distance. Did devs hear about IMPOSTOR SYSTEM FOR UNITY, which replace 3d object with their 2d sprites that reduce needed VRAM. For example there are examples how it looks like
https://forum.unity.com/threads/amplify-impostors-next-generation-billboards.539844/

Spoiler

It can be used for rocks, craters, trees, clouds and objects without animations. And you don't need to stress memory much

I think that it can solve some problem with optimization. If you dev read it, can you answer very please, are you planning to implement this system in game or why not. I'm very worrying about KSP2

[MARL_Mk1]

10 minutes ago, Vortygont said:

I saw that some objects like trees in ksp2 footages disapear on view beacuse of render distance. Did devs hear about IMPOSTOR SYSTEM FOR UNITY, which replace 3d object with their 2d sprites that reduce needed VRAM. For example there are examples how it looks like
https://forum.unity.com/threads/amplify-impostors-next-generation-billboards.539844/

  Hide contents

It can be used for rocks, craters, trees, clouds and objects without animations. And you don't need to stress memory much

I think that it can solve some problem with optimization. If you dev read it, can you answer very please, are you planning to implement this system in game or why not. I'm very worrying about KSP2

To be completely honest, and being on the Below Low< side of the minimum specs, if the main worries happen to be about how the scatters aren't exaggerated enough or how the trees disappear on the distance, I'm guessing the game will be just fine...

[Kerbart]

I'm surprised by the reactions. With hindsight, I shouldn't be, since the theme of the hype, for a large segment, has been unrealistic expectations. Screenshots that looked absolutely fine to me were burned with comments like "haven't seen it this bad since Doom, worse than KSP1, not of this day and age"

Then there were comments like "there's no specs, what should I buy to run this game" — and when Intercept delivered and said "buy this" there were complaints that, while demanding a game representative of this day and age, Intercept had the sheer audacity to suggest you run it on hardware of this day and age.

And this is not an ivory-tower comment from someone who comfortable exceeds recommended specs. Yes, it's sad that by the looks of it, the game won't even run on my PC but that wasn't entirely unexpected. But specs are usually flexible. We still don't know what the game really looks and feels like. Or how it runs on different hardware. So instead of complaining "even my gaming rig that I bought for $800 5 years ago at Best Buy won't run this, this is insane!" why not just wait and see? We can expect streamer content as early and Monday, and the latest by Friday? Why not reserve the outrage for then, when the game truly is worse than KSP (0.18, I assume), worse than Doom, perhaps even worse than FS4? Or perhaps, when at that point things don't seem to be that bad at all, and emotions have died down, start thinking, if the game seems worth upgrading your hardware, to what extend?

[SolarAdmiral]

8 hours ago, LHACK4142 said:

I don't think that a crappy work laptop in 2025 will have an RTX 2060...

No. But maybe a 4040 or a 5030.

[Alexoff]

6 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

We still don't know what the game really looks and feels like.

Why don't we know this? Why are those who played KSP2 in Holland recently silent? They were forbidden by contract to talk anything about the game? Why do we have to constantly look for excuses for developers ourselves? Do they have PR specialists on staff?

[GoldForest]

20 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Why don't we know this? Why are those who played KSP2 in Holland recently silent? They were forbidden by contract to talk anything about the game? Why do we have to constantly look for excuses for developers ourselves? Do they have PR specialists on staff?

Because it hasn't been shown. NDA. Yes, forbidden by NDA, which means if they talk, they get sued. We're not, we're rationalizing, different than making up excuses. Of course they do. Ghostii Space is one of them. 

The NDA is supposedly going to end Monday, if it does, we should get some content creator KSP 2 videos.

Edited February 18, 2023 by GoldForest

[LoSBoL]

5 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I'm surprised by the reactions. With hindsight, I shouldn't be, since the theme of the hype, for a large segment, has been unrealistic expectations. Screenshots that looked absolutely fine to me were burned with comments like "haven't seen it this bad since Doom, worse than KSP1, not of this day and age"

Unrealistic expectations are a result of faulty managing of expectations. I'd say with everything I've seen of screenshots of the gameplay, it definitely should not need such hefty GPU requirements. Thats the expectations that I had, and haven't been met by dropping the system requirements a mere week before the game drops. I can perfectly understand the row, which could have been handled a whole lot beter by Intercept by dropping this ball earlier. 

As for myself, I knew I wanted a top tear machine when KSP2 would drop, and would have upgraded before it would drop in 2020, 2022 or now in 2023, and postponed upgrading till last december for it, so I'm good to go, but many were on the fence by lack of managing expectations. 

[Kerbart]

30 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Why don't we know this? Why are those who played KSP2 in Holland recently silent? They were forbidden by contract to talk anything about the game? Why do we have to constantly look for excuses for developers ourselves? Do they have PR specialists on staff?

NDA's are very effective.

The reason we constantly have to look for excuses is because everyone is getting their underwear in a bunch over software they haven't seen in action.

Those that are seen as "defenders" (I'm sure you'll see me as one of them) will be equally disappointed if the game disappoints. But to get an aneurysm over jumping to conclusions when there's nothing to be enraged over (yet?), is just plain silly.

Yes there have been screenshots.  'What are you working on Joe?' 'Landing gear animations' 'Cool, can I get a shot?' 'Sure, here's a 5s screengrab' and before you know it, Joe's animation (and Joe is not) on the landscape team) gets ripped apart because it's not showing clouds or trees.

I'm just amazed on how many people are obsessed with burning the game down before they have seen it. Don't be surprised when you don't get to see anything about the new features until they're released; this is why.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Kerbart

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I'm surprised by the reactions. With hindsight, I shouldn't be, since the theme of the hype, for a large segment, has been unrealistic expectations.

I've started to notice this the first time with Fallout New Vegas almost 10 years ago.

I have a friend that has always been the biggest fan of that game, completed it several times (he's actually doing another run right this week).

At the beginning he was the only one liking that game, the hive mind of Internet and gaming culture deciding he was wrong.

Over the years that game has been elevated on a pedestal, now it suddenly is this shining beacon of how RPGs should be made, "not like all this garbage they're releasing now".

Since then I've seen this over and over again, over-hype turning into a ragefest around release and after it, turning into a "NMS story", and the game turning into a "hidden gem" or "timeless classic" a few years after that.

Fallout 4, Elders Scolls Online, Fallout 76, the PC release of RDR2, NMS, Minecraft (at every single new mayor update).

Same script every time.

I was baffled when one of the last Cyberpunk updates dropped (1.51, possible? To lazy to go and check), the game was suddenly considered good, I was in the middle of my third run and let me tell you, the experience, while a tad more refined and less prone to bugs, is the same you got ad D1, nothing big changed in the gameplay or story. At least, nothing to justify the 180, it just feels like people are now allowed to say that the game is actually good, not a masterpiece, maybe, but a good one.

 

I don't know how the release will go, but I predict that we'll see KSP2 win Steam's "Labor of Love" award before 2026.

At least, that's what the script dictates.

 

BTW, unpopular opinion, I don't really like Fallout New Vegas.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Master39

[Kerbart]

31 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Unrealistic expectations are a result of faulty managing of expectations. I'd say with everything I've seen of screenshots of the gameplay, it definitely should not need such hefty GPU requirements. Thats the expectations that I had, and haven't been met by dropping the system requirements a mere week before the game drops. I can perfectly understand the row, which could have been handled a whole lot beter by Intercept by dropping this ball earlier. 

There is definitely blame on how Intercept managed this. Instead of dropping sneak peeks without any comments, saying what they are ("we grabbed this cool sequence during interface testing") it's easy and very appealing to disect the very sparse morsels we've got thrown at us. I've worked for years together with people doing just that. There's just things they don't know, can't know, until someone tells them. We've seen landscapes with scatter, and landscapes without. Who's to say what it is in the final game? We haven't seen that. The ignorance along schoolkids and students — no doubt a very large segment of the playerbase — isn't their fault and Intercept (or the gaming industry in general) definitely did a bad job managing that. It worked well as long as the hype went up. Until it didn't.

31 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

As for myself, I knew I wanted a top tear machine when KSP2 would drop, and would have upgraded before it would drop in 2020, 2022 or now in 2023, and postponed upgrading till last december for it, so I'm good to go, but many were on the fence by lack of managing expectations. 

I wonder how many saw the publication target back in 2019, naively imagined the game would be released then, or shortly after, and bought a top-of-the-line machine back then "to be ready when it drops." And then the game got delayed and delayed, and now their supermachine is no longer up to spec. I'm sure that's where a lot of the saltiness comes from. When you're older you have less illusions about publication dates (I'll believe it when I see it), but again, it's a game, for a good chunk of the audience it's likely their first rodeo.

[ArmchairGravy]

With less than one week to go I am commencing wild hype gyrations.

[Pthigrivi]

So there’s so much going on about the requirements and its just not something Im an expert on. My impression is given the quality of the lighting and terrain detail we’re seeing advertised most people don’t understand why the GPU requirements are so high, but a possible explanation is that they’re offloading a lot of the physics calcs onto to the GPU? Is that close?

10 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Vl3d. Read the room. 

Oh and sorry, Vl3d. I may have misread the point of your post. If you mean these requirements are probably meant to hold through 1.0 and players having lots of complicated vessels and colonies all moving simultaneously under time warp then I agree that might be part of the sticker shock. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

39 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

So there’s so much going on about the requirements and its just not something Im an expert on. My impression is given the quality of the lighting and terrain detail we’re seeing advertised most people don’t understand why the GPU requirements are so high, but a possible explanation is that they’re offloading a lot of the physics calcs onto to the GPU? Is that close?

To reiterate again:

 

 

It's in development. Stuff runs horribly in development then is optimised for release. KSP 2 isn't releasing, it's being shoved out of the door into a VIP preview state (because EA implies consumer friendliness).

[Vortygont]

2 hours ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

To be completely honest, and being on the Below Low< side of the minimum specs, if the main worries happen to be about how the scatters aren't exaggerated enough or how the trees disappear on the distance, I'm guessing the game will be just fine...

Honestly maybe nobody knows why requirements for GPU is so high, but maybe if there is jump from 6 Gb -> 45-60 Gb it can be because of high res textures and models which is not optimized for properly and fast loading. Maybe there is no blur at long distances, or somewhere models are not optimized by polygons, or maybe there are a lot of GPU memory leaks. Someone must check KSP2 for memory leaks and others problems after EA release

Edited February 18, 2023 by Vortygont
changed mistake

[LoSBoL]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

I wonder how many saw the publication target back in 2019, naively imagined the game would be released then, or shortly after, and bought a top-of-the-line machine back then "to be ready when it drops." And then the game got delayed and delayed, and now their supermachine is no longer up to spec. I'm sure that's where a lot of the saltiness comes from.

I'm not so sure about that, a top tier 2020 rig would very comfortably run KSP2 towards the now released recommended requirements. That same rig would play any game on the market today you throw at it beautifully still. I think most of the owners of such rigs would frown their eyebrows looking at the published recommendations.  Again, because of what has been shown, and knowing what their rig is capable of. If it would be me, I'd go 'sure Intercept, I'll be fine' 

If you upgraded in line to what has been shown though, then you Indeed may fall well beneath the published minimum specs.

Edited February 18, 2023 by LoSBoL

[MARL_Mk1]

12 minutes ago, Vortygont said:

Honestly maybe nobody knows why requirements for GPU is so high, but maybe if there is jump from 6 Gb -> 45-60 Gb it can be because of high res textures and models which is not optimized for properly and fast loading. Maybe there is no blur at long distances, or somewhere models are not optimized by polygons, or maybe there are a lot of GPU memory leaks. Someone must check KSP2 for memory leaks and others problems after EA release

I'm pretty sure I've seen textures have LODs on some of the sneak peeks they've shown. But maybe it was just the anisotropic filter doing its work.

[Strawberry]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

My impression is given the quality of the lighting and terrain detail we’re seeing advertised most people don’t understand why the GPU requirements are so high, but a possible explanation is that they’re offloading a lot of the physics calcs onto to the GPU? Is that close?

I hope this isnt the case, GPUs are much more expensive then CPUs and from a consumer standpoint making the CPU do the physics calculations seems much nicer

[Minmus Taster]

T-6, countdown continues despite anomaly

[Alexoff]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Because it hasn't been shown. NDA.

Apparently, this agreement implies a prison sentence for any phrase about KSP2. I know bloggers who received last of us 2 with the same agreement and, although they did not reveal anything about the game, told the viewers that they would not like the plot of the game. Of course, no more games were sent to them for reviews, but no one filed a lawsuit either.

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I'm just amazed on how many people are obsessed with burning the game down before they have seen it.

Actually, we've already seen enough

[Yellowburn10]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I'm surprised by the reactions. With hindsight, I shouldn't be, since the theme of the hype, for a large segment, has been unrealistic expectations. Screenshots that looked absolutely fine to me were burned with comments like "haven't seen it this bad since Doom, worse than KSP1, not of this day and age"

Then there were comments like "there's no specs, what should I buy to run this game" — and when Intercept delivered and said "buy this" there were complaints that, while demanding a game representative of this day and age, Intercept had the sheer audacity to suggest you run it on hardware of this day and age.

And this is not an ivory-tower comment from someone who comfortable exceeds recommended specs. Yes, it's sad that by the looks of it, the game won't even run on my PC but that wasn't entirely unexpected. But specs are usually flexible. We still don't know what the game really looks and feels like. Or how it runs on different hardware. So instead of complaining "even my gaming rig that I bought for $800 5 years ago at Best Buy won't run this, this is insane!" why not just wait and see? We can expect streamer content as early and Monday, and the latest by Friday? Why not reserve the outrage for then, when the game truly is worse than KSP (0.18, I assume), worse than Doom, perhaps even worse than FS4? Or perhaps, when at that point things don't seem to be that bad at all, and emotions have died down, start thinking, if the game seems worth upgrading your hardware, to what extend?

I would just add on top of this that, with how some people are reacting, you would think they were talking about the full release of the game, but we're not. This is still in fact an early access release, with everything subject to change. Things could be buggy. Things might not run too well right now. Stuff won't look as polished. The game currently lacks many of the features promised to us. My PC might need an upgrade or 2 to fully experience the game. My expectations were fully tempered and I have expected or planned for all these things and more. And yet, it still hasn't hampered my excitement for this game to come out next week, or my optimism about the game's future. Is that me just having wishful thinking and being a bit naïve? Perhaps, but frankly at this point I don't care. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Yellowburn10

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Yellowburn10 said:

The game is more or less KSP+ with the amount of features it currently has compared to the first

This wording is terribly suboptimal.