Jump to content

I read somewhere it was confirmed there will not be...


Guest

Recommended Posts

Weather on planets in KSP2??

Could someone point me at this statement/post please? Weather seems like a high value, easy upgrade to the game. Even just wind would add an interesting aspect to landings etc... It struck me as strange when I read this isnt going to be attempted O_o?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dale Christopher said:

Weather on planets in KSP2??

Could someone point me at this statement/post please? Weather seems like a high value, easy upgrade to the game. Even just wind would add an interesting aspect to landings etc... It struck me as strange when I read this isnt going to be attempted O_o?

where did you hear that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

Weather on planets in KSP2??

Could someone point me at this statement/post please?

Likely originating from here:

 

9 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

Weather seems like a high value, easy upgrade to the game. Even just wind would add an interesting aspect to landings etc... It struck me as strange when I read this isnt going to be attempted O_o?

They only mentioned the "what" and didn't go into detail as to the "why".

However, although neither I nor anyone else outside of Star Theory (AFAIK) actually knows, I can hazard a guess. I emphasize that the following is pure unsubstantiated speculation on my part, and not based on any sort of insider knowledge since I haven't got any besides what I already shared from the interview. ;)

As to the "why not": personally, I could imagine two reasons, one of them technical and the other having to do with gameplay.

Technical: I don't expect that adding weather would be super difficult in terms of programming. It would, however, be time-consuming to implement, just because any reasonably complex feature takes time. One overwhelming impression I got of Star Theory is that they're super busy, and absolutely slammed with all the huge amount of work to do, just to get the product out the door in a reasonably timely fashion with the core, must-have, can't-ship-without features of the game.

In an environment like that, adding anything that you don't actually have to have is going to be a schedule slip, and schedule slips are a Bad Thing because that impacts the bottom line. So it's not a question of "would anyone like to have weather in the game", but rather "is it worth slipping the ship date by more than a month in order to add this feature?"

That's the calculus they'd have to do. If the feature in question were a total blockbuster that they thought would massively increase sales of the game, perhaps they might conclude that it would be worth it. On the other hand, if they thought it's just a cosmetic frill that most players wouldn't care about all that much, or (even worse) might actively dislike, then I wouldn't expect it to make the cut.

That's my guess about the technical aspect. As for gameplay:

This is one of those areas that's entirely subjective, because different people like different things. For example, from your post above, I gather that you really like the idea of dynamic weather and would like to see it added to the game. And there's nothing wrong with that. :)

However, not everyone likes the same thing. For example, just speaking personally, I very strongly don't want dynamic weather in the game, not for my own gameplay. I really, really don't want the game to add randomly time-varying flight-impacting dynamics. It would ruin my enjoyment of the game. I like challenges, but to me this would be an obstacle rather than a challenge.

IRL, when it comes to rocket launches, basically any weather at all is bad. The ideal launch conditions are clear skies, no wind, and no unusually extreme temperatures. That's what they want. If the actual conditions deviate too much from that-- for example, there's a thunderstorm, or high winds, or other inclement conditions-- then typically what they do is to delay the launch until those conditions go away, and then go for it.

And if KSP had dynamic weather... that's exactly how I'd play it, too. Oh noes, there's wind, guess I have to timewarp on the pad until it dies down and I can actually launch.

It would be an uninteresting, un-fun irritant to me that would get in the way of my enjoyment. It would simply mean that I can't just launch whenever I want, but instead I randomly have to wait to take off, which to me would be pointless.

Like I said, it's subjective, which means there's no right or wrong answer, there. I would hate it, you would love it, and we're both "right", because everyone likes what they like. :)

It does, however, raise the question of statistics, which brings me back to the question of "why would they or wouldn't they add this feature to the game". For them, the important question isn't "would anyone like it" (because the answer to that question is obviously yes). Rather, what they have to care about is how many people would like it, versus how many wouldn't care or would actively dislike it. If they conclude that it would be popular only for a relatively small fraction of the user base, and/or would be unpopular with a large fraction, then it wouldn't be worth it to them to add-- especially given that, as discussed above, it would mean substantial additional development cost and slipping the ship date.

Anyway, just my two cents, based on no special inside info whatsoever, but informed by my experience of how things generally work in the software biz (which is what I've done for a living for a pretty long while). FWIW. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

@Snark

Could we by any chance get a sticky with direct links to the various KSP2 interviews? Some are rather difficult to track down; like the PC gamer interviews. It would be nice to have links to as many of them as possible located in one place for easy citation.

I tried to make a thread like that but no one added to it and it got buried on pg 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Yeah; iv'e gone thru it.

I was more thinking like literally just a link dump; new posts locked. Mods would update it whenever new info hits.

making a new thread ATM, hopefully if its of good quality it can get pinned and help any new people entering the forum find relevant info. Don't know if the mods do requests but i feel this request might be fair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Indeed; though i would've put the videos in spoilers along with a description above saying which one they are. But i figure that's from it being a rough draft more than anything.

Better? :P

thanks for the criticism, I'd like the post to be organized and as helpful as possible :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Mods would update it whenever new info hits.

Everything else about the suggestion is pretty good (and I really like the thread that mcwaffles2003 made) :)... but this particular bit could be problematic. Bear in mind that the mods are part-time volunteers who do this as a hobby, not full-time paid employees, and there aren't that many of us. Our bandwidth tends to get pretty much taken up by riding herd on the forums, and we're not necessarily any more informed than anyone else about any new info being released. So we're not in any better position than Random Forum User (or, more to the point, mcwaffles2003 in this case) to update/maintain this type of thread-- probably less suited, in fact.

In short: you guys know as much as we do about this sort of thing, and likely have more time available to keep track of it than we would. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snark said:

Everything else about the suggestion is pretty good (and I really like the thread that mcwaffles2003 made) :)... but this particular bit could be problematic. Bear in mind that the mods are part-time volunteers who do this as a hobby, not full-time paid employees, and there aren't that many of us. Our bandwidth tends to get pretty much taken up by riding herd on the forums, and we're not necessarily any more informed than anyone else about any new info being released. So we're not in any better position than Random Forum User (or, more to the point, mcwaffles2003 in this case) to update/maintain this type of thread-- probably less suited, in fact.

In short: you guys know as much as we do about this sort of thing, and likely have more time available to keep track of it than we would. ;)

 

I was hoping it would be user updated as opposed to mod updated and hopefully with the example format set it can stay organised. Just would hope some mods could keep it clean (delete non data dump material) over time to prevent discussion popping up in the thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So strange to me. I understand they have a complex project and there are probably deadlines and funding constraints but I have to say... It’s not giving me hope that KSP2 will be a worthy successor if the only upgrades to the fidelity of planets are graphical. Of course the most important thing is the engine and optimisation but ultimately planetary environments are the carrot dangling out there that draws players into space, if they are boring and superficial then I can see KSP2 being an anticlimax... winds, dust storms, clouds, rain, changing visibility... that is what makes an environment alive rather than just being a ball with a texture over it :(

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

It’s not giving me hope that KSP2 will be a worthy successor if the only upgrades to the fidelity of planets are graphical.

I dont see why the lack of putting wind into the game means the only updates are graphical. They have been shouting performance gains, urging everyone to explore, have added interstellar travel with near future tech, added colonization mechanics and orbital shipyards, and multiplayer. Oh and the graphics will be better too.

What worries me though is the severe lack of communication since launch. I understand if they dont want every little facet of the game they're designing to be over scrutinized and start giant arguments with a bunch of backseat programmers.... But something outside of total silence would be nice and reinvigorate confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

So strange to me. I understand they have a complex project and there are probably deadlines and funding constraints but I have to say... It’s not giving me hope that KSP2 will be a worthy successor if the only upgrades to the fidelity of planets are graphical. Of course the most important thing is the engine and optimisation but ultimately planetary environments are the carrot dangling out there that draws players into space, if they are boring and superficial then I can see KSP2 being an anticlimax... winds, dust storms, clouds, rain, changing visibility... that is what makes an environment alive rather than just being a ball with a texture over it :(

I think it's a gameplay thing, as Snark correctly said noone likes random, uncontrollable events putting an end to missions.

On Kerbin weather would just be a "wait untill it's better" thing on planets it would just be a random "game over" screen thrown at you occasionally.

It wouldn't be funny to have your perfectly calculated 20 years long probe mission to another star ending because a hidden dice roll decided for a gush of wind on the parachute or a lightning on the antenna in the last 30 seconds before touchdown.

That said I think that environmental hazards should be there, themperature, radiation, atmospheric pressure and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

So strange to me. I understand they have a complex project and there are probably deadlines and funding constraints but I have to say... It’s not giving me hope that KSP2 will be a worthy successor if the only upgrades to the fidelity of planets are graphical. Of course the most important thing is the engine and optimisation but ultimately planetary environments are the carrot dangling out there that draws players into space, if they are boring and superficial then I can see KSP2 being an anticlimax... winds, dust storms, clouds, rain, changing visibility... that is what makes an environment alive rather than just being a ball with a texture over it :(

I mean the thing is you're basically asking for a procedural weather simulation, and the thing is that would require a very specialized skillset to create and implement unless you wanted it to be nothing more than textures. Like Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy launches have been canceled in clear skies because the upper level winds were not favorable. Atmospheres have layers, and you'd have to simulate them all to get anything even approximating a realistic result. Now the NWS and other forecast originazations get around this by doing what's essentially a 3D matrix. Where they take the tempature, pressure, winds , direction etc and plot them to points at specific heights and positions; then run them foward in time.

No one of these simulations are entirely accurate; no one point ever comes out to be exactly correct. But the average of many simulations over time begin to converge, and from this we can predict the weather fairly reliably into the week beforehand. More stable and larger patterns can be predicted accuretly for much longer (Sometimes decades).

But these are ran on literal supercomputers with highly specialized people actually programming the simulations; many have both a CS and Meteorology background. It's definetitly not impossible, but......i'll let this speak for it's self.

Last post from the creator was in SEPT 2017, and he did some fantastic work. But it appears that the lack of various skilsets eventually doomed the project; or he lost motivation to work further because burn-out is a beast.

Only way i could see weather happening in KSP2 is as a DLC, and only if the NWS or similar agency agrees to assist them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual simulated weather and winds I think not.  Lots of work to get it acceptably 'right' for relatively small reward or gameplay value IMHO.  And I am not a fan of what could be effectively random failures either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

I have no problem with weather as long as it is ONLY graphical. Ground-scatter blowing in the wind would be okay (if it's feasible), but no lightning destroying your care-fully planned missions.

What about on another planet outside the kerbin system? I don't like the idea of weather on kerbin for lift off reasons, but if it were an obstacle to landing or remaining on the surface of some planets I think that would be fun. Like dust storms covering solar panels/making sinking sand terrain or even wind storm obstacles akin to landing on neptune would add optional extra challenges for us to overcome and think ahead for.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What about on another planet outside the kerbin system? I don't like the idea of weather on kerbin for lift off reasons, but if it were an obstacle to landing or remaining on the surface of some planets I think that would be fun. Like dust storms covering solar panels/making sinking sand terrain or even wind storm obstacles akin to landing on neptune would add optional extra challenges for us to overcome and think ahead for.

Scatterer does something like this procedurally; adding fog/dust effects. If you just wanted something like that then it could be reasonably done, but i'm not sure how. You'd need some kind of particle system to represent the "Dust", and then calculate how it would accumulate over time on a surface.

Perhaps modify FAR to handle it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...