Jump to content

Graphical Improvements to KSP


Recommended Posts

Just wanna gather some thoughts here. I think it's obvious that pretty much every one of us cares about mechanics/performance in this game above all else and graphics are on the low end of priorities. But I also believe we all know kerbal is heavily lacking in the graphics department and at least for me it hurts the immersive feeling and makes exploring less desirable. Today I got to Duna for the first time since 1.8 launched and wow is it beautiful... Thinking that KSP 2 will be even more beautiful has me even more excited.

So I want to ask, what kind of graphical/atmospheric improvements are people looking forward to or wish there would be? I was going to add a poll but I think I will wait until I see some examples of answers first to properly flesh out the list before making it. So tell me, what do you guys hope to see?

 

Some of the things I, personally, would like to see:

  • Grass, flowers, volumetric cities (not painted in low res on the ground), and volumetric trees on kerbin
  • Clouds (obviously, I think every single person here has that as their number 1)
  • Planetary rings (hopefully volumetric and interactable)
  • High res skybox
  • Seasons, though obviously not on Kerbin as it has no axial tilt
  • Weather, not necessarily the kind that physically interacts physically (rain and thunderstorms, sandstorms, snow, and maybe even hurricanes)
  • Wheel tracks from rovers in dusty/sandy/muddy terrain
  • Inside of cockpits and other manned vehicle sections more fleshed out and detailed
  • Better stock water and maybe even waves
  • Stars not going dim when something tiny occludes the very center but the rest is still visible

Add new suggestions if you've got them... whats missing in KSP?

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, prestja said:

Well you'll be happy to know that clouds on Kerbin and volumetric rings are both a thing. As far as the others, I gotta say wheel tracks and footprints are my most desired visual upgrades.

Clouds I thought were still up for debate and I know we'll have rings but is volumetric confirmed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Clouds I thought were still up for debate and I know we'll have rings but is volumetric confirmed?

You can see clouds in the Steam screenshots and in what little gameplay we have on YouTube.

Volumetric rings were described by Scott Manley after his meetup with Star Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, prestja said:

Clouds at 3:20

As seen from space, There are currently no released screenshots or videos showing clouds from within the atmosphere.

Last I heard, the devs where still undecided on whether Kerbin will have clouds. That was a few months ago, but we haven't gotten any new information since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShawnPhillips said:

but we haven't gotten any new information since then.

It's funny that in every topic we end up with this same conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Just wanna gather some thoughts here. I think it's obvious that pretty much every one of us cares about mechanics/performance in this game above all else and graphics are on the low end of priorities. But I also believe we all know kerbal is heavily lacking in the graphics department and at least for me it hurts the immersive feeling and makes exploring less desirable. Today I got to Duna for the first time since 1.8 launched and wow is it beautiful... Thinking that KSP 2 will be even more beautiful has me even more excited.

So I want to ask, what kind of graphical/atmospheric improvements are people looking forward to or wish there would be? I was going to add a poll but I think I will wait until I see some examples of answers first to properly flesh out the list before making it. So tell me, what do you guys hope to see?

 

Some of the things I, personally, would like to see:

  • Grass, flowers, volumetric cities (not painted in low res on the ground), and volumetric trees on kerbin
  • Clouds (obviously, I think every single person here has that as their number 1)
  • Planetary rings (hopefully volumetric and interactable)
  • High res skybox
  • Seasons, though obviously not on Kerbin as it has no axial tilt
  • Weather, not necessarily the kind that physically interacts physically (rain and thunderstorms, sandstorms, snow, and maybe even hurricanes)
  • Wheel tracks from rovers in dusty/sandy/muddy terrain
  • Inside of cockpits and other manned vehicle sections more fleshed out and detailed
  • Better stock water and maybe even waves
  • Stars not going dim when something tiny occludes the very center but the rest is still visible

Add new suggestions if you've got them... whats missing in KSP?

I'm actually not looking forward to any of those.

And hope that if they are added they can be turned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Curveball Anders said:

I'm actually not looking forward to any of those.

And hope that if they are added they can be turned off.

To make the game lighter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

yup

 

Even if base game performance is already greatly improved? :huh: Not even rings?

Nate Simpson already said that part count limit should be way higher now and surely flying around something more interesting looking than a potato would be nice. I mean look at the 1.8 update, planetary surfaces were greatly improved along with performance

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Even if base game performance is already greatly improved? :huh: Not even rings?

Nate Simpson already said that part count limit should be way higher now and surely flying around something more interesting looking than a potato would be nice. I mean look at the 1.8 update, planetary surfaces were greatly improved along with performance

No.
I like the game as it is, I play with graphics at minimum, and I'm going to continue at that.
Pretty graphics doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

yup

 

I sort of but maybe wrongly assumed the LOD system would have a rating of how important visuals are and drop them out automatically if it wasn't hitting a certain performance target.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curveball Anders said:

No.
I like the game as it is, I play with graphics at minimum, and I'm going to continue at that.
Pretty graphics doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Is it because of performance or do you just enjoy low res? Most stock graphics don't hinder the cpu and the gpu for anyone not on a 10 year old computer won't be the bottleneck so it's not doing much to help your frame rate anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Is it because of performance or do you just enjoy low res? Most stock graphics don't hinder the cpu and the gpu for anyone not on a 10 year old computer won't be the bottleneck so it's not doing much to help your frame rate anyway

Performance mainly but at the same time I don't bother about shiny graphics.

Function first, the rest doesn't really matter for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they also said that plume expansion at lower atmospheric pressure (aka real plume) is going to be a thing in stock as well. If we could get plume-plume interaction on vessels with multiple engines, that would be pretty great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, pandaman said:

I am (sort of) with @Curveball Anders here.

My enjoyment pf KSP comes mainly from the 'doing stuff' aspect.  Pretty graphics are a very welcome bonus, and certainly enhance the overall experience, but not the main appeal for me.

 

20 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

Performance mainly but at the same time I don't bother about shiny graphics.

Function first, the rest doesn't really matter for me.

 

Ok... I even caveated the thread with this:

On 1/30/2020 at 12:45 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I think it's obvious that pretty much every one of us cares about mechanics/performance in this game above all else and graphics are on the low end of priorities.

So why are people who have no interest in graphics bothering to post their lack of caring for graphics in a thread about what people are hoping for graphically. I get that you guys want performance, we all do, but poo-pooing graphics is not what this thread is about and I see no reason to 1337 g4m3r signal how graphics dont matter and only mechanics do in a thread about graphical improvements.

 

19 minutes ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

When in Centrifuges, Kerbals should experience G-forces

And what does this have to do with graphics... I'm so confused, unless you mean we see their skin folding back under acceleration, to which I now know I need this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...