Stock visual improvements poll

[swjr-swis]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

On the KSP 2 subforum?

It was mod-moved after OP.

[Entropian]

Yeah, it got moved.

22 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

I've moved this to the KSP2 sub, since you asked, but keep in mind that Squad is not making KSP2. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Entropian
quote

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

On the KSP 2 subforum?

Dude a mod literally moved it from the KSP1 suggestions section xD

[Incarnation of Chaos]

15 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I chose:

Because I want something for my graphics card to do finally...

More so though, I would like to actually enjoy visiting and exploring other celestial bodies and the vistas they may offer. I would like lots of collidable ground scatter, make my rover work... make me have to find a safe landing site! Give clouds some real texture and depth! When I fly over a storm system in the evening I should see shadows on the surface of clouds and be able to grasp. Make my kerbal and my lander leave tracks. Show me some real geological formations cliffsides, canyons with strata, realistic mountains, forest regions, rain and puddles..... Also, include optional ray tracing at least in some minimal form... I can't use it, I dont have RTX but if this game is going to last 10 years... not preparing to include raytracing would seem like a huge misstep as I have no doubt that is where games are moving visually, it is an undercooked technology currently but its adoption is increasing and its capabilities are expanding.

And for those that cant handle such settings... turn down the graphics and don't play on ultra. This game is and always has been about the gameplay and the mechanics surrounding it, but to dismiss graphics as something frivolous or unimportant, to me, seems callous and short sighted. Especially if their CPU  usage is minimal.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If this can be made by a single modder with minimal reliance on the CPU and played with 30-60 frames at 1080 on a GTX 1060 then a professional team with experience should be capable of exponentially more.

So I'm just going to state this first; this in no way is to take away from what GamesLinx has done. Because it's much, much more than I'd honestly be willing to do, and honestly it's probably easier to just roll your own game once you get this far.

But, all he did was use APIs and DX11 features Unity had exposed that Squad neglected to use. He did SQUAD's job FOR them; which SQUAD should be ashamed of. Dude deserves a check from SQUAD in my opinion once it comes out of beta.. (60-80 hours of pay at a comp rate for a CS dev at the least; if not some extra).

KSP has always had the potential to look much better, but the lack of staff at SQUAD, and other factors have prevented it from doing so. But KSP has always been a massively CPU bound game, and there's always been massive headroom for graphics.

But i see so many people here talking about terrain, and the thing is that KSP2 is still using a single layer for it like KSP. And it's been in development for several years at least, so while there's the potential for statically placed models/objects/scatters. Everyone needs to really, really temper their expectations for terrain; because this isn't something they're just going to be able to patch in later. It's pretty much locked in, and changing it later would break so many things that it's incredibly unlikely they would.

Raytracing however is dirt easy to patch in, along with most other graphical effects. So that's why some people tend to "Dismiss" them. They're not worth chasing if it means other features have to hit the chopping block floor because of it, and to be honest most are still on 1000 series and RX 400 series cards....that launched over 3 years ago. Raytracing won't be mainstream for at least that long, and when it does become mainstream it won't be too hard to patch in. There are core features, gameplay loops and systems that all deserve far more attention.

But KSP2 isn't going to be whatever you have in your head, that's pretty clear at this point. I'd love Spore: KSP edition just as much as the next guy, but we HAVE to be realistic about what we're getting here. We're not getting a massively budgeted, moonshot project from a massive studio with incredible experience and deep pockets. We're getting a Decently optimized, Marginal increased scope KSP1 with most of the jank cut out by a Development Team that's been poached by a massive publisher and was likely in Development Hell well before then. If KSP2 functions well AT ALL on release and doesn't have MULTIPLE showstopper bugs, then I'll consider that a win.

 

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

On the KSP 2 subforum?

It was mod-moved after OP.

Ok

2 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

On the KSP 2 subforum?

Dude a mod literally moved it from the KSP1 suggestions section xD

I figured that out already

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But KSP2 isn't going to be whatever you have in your head, that's pretty clear at this point. I'd love Spore: KSP edition just as much as the next guy, but we HAVE to be realistic about what we're getting here. We're not getting a massively budgeted, moonshot project from a massive studio with incredible experience and deep pockets. We're getting a Decently optimized, Marginal increased scope KSP1 with most of the jank cut out by a Development Team that's been poached by a massive publisher and was likely in Development Hell well before then. If KSP2 functions well AT ALL on release and doesn't have MULTIPLE showstopper bugs, then I'll consider that a win.

Having professional take a look into the spaghetti mess and being able to rewrite huge portions of it without caring about compatibility with the previous game while having the time/budget to put some optimization in there can go a long way and you don't need that much headroom over KSP to add something relevant, KSP completely ignores bases and stations probably due to instability while loading/interacting (we have way more ailerons than station parts and basically no parts at all for surface bases).

Once you add a way to anchor bases to the ground (the pylons we've seen) a way to build bases instead of launching them preassembled from Kerbin (the BAE) and something to do with them (offloading some R&D, colonization, mining, extraplanetary launchpads) you've already massively increased the scope of KSP.

Add some polish, the fact that the game is not built over a code that's a decade old, the fact that you can have a consistent art direction (something that's a completely unknown science at Squad) and some random QOL features (animated tutorials, the automation system, the editor improvements) and this game would be 10 times better than KSP without doing much.

Yes, you can have all of that in KSP 1 through modding, but for KSP2 that will be the standard starting point for everyone, it makes all the difference in sharing crafts and challenges and for modding too.

It won't be a massive budget moonshot project, but you don't need that to make a better and bigger version of KSP.

 

 

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

14 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Having professional take a look into the spaghetti mess and being able to rewrite huge portions of it without caring about compatibility with the previous game while having the time/budget to put some optimization in there can go a long way and you don't need that much headroom over KSP to add something relevant, KSP completely ignores bases and stations probably due to instability while loading/interacting (we have way more ailerons than station parts and basically no parts at all for surface bases).

Once you add a way to anchor bases to the ground (the pylons we've seen) a way to build bases instead of launching them preassembled from Kerbin (the BAE) and something to do with them (offloading some R&D, colonization, mining, extraplanetary launchpads) you've already massively increased the scope of KSP.

Add some polish, the fact that the game is not built over a code that's a decade old, the fact that you can have a consistent art direction (something that's a completely unknown science at Squad) and some random QOL features (animated tutorials, the automation system, the editor improvements) and this game would be 10 times better than KSP without doing much.

Yes, you can have all of that in KSP 1 through modding, but for KSP2 that will be the standard starting point for everyone, it makes all the difference in sharing crafts and challenges and for modding too.

It won't be a massive budget moonshot project, but you don't need that to make a better and bigger version of KSP.

 

I'm aware, believe me. But we're past the point of people wanting just "Bigger and better", and been past it since the beginning.

I just wanted to being some reason back to the discussion, not dismiss the effort entirely. KSP2 will very much be a better game than KSP1 given time, but that also comes with some pretty hard limits.

Some things are easy to add in later, like graphics. But some things literally force you into a single avenue from that moment forward, like the usage of only one terrain layer. Knowing the difference is what helps separate reasonable expectations from essentially fan fiction.  That's really what i was trying to drive home.

KSP2 will also likely perform much better, and will be built from the ground up to support multiple systems. Thus the performance of any mods using multiple systems will be increased, unburdened by the compromises and workarounds KSP requires. There's a lot of good things to look forward too, but that's if they deliver. I haven't seen anything close to a Zero Bug Release in years, and that's from any game. So perhaps i was a bit harsh, but i cant imagine KSP2 being anything close to stable on release.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I'm aware, believe me. But we're past the point of people wanting just "Bigger and better", and been past it since the beginning.

I just wanted to being some reason back to the discussion, not dismiss the effort entirely. KSP2 will very much be a better game than KSP1 given time, but that also comes with some pretty hard limits.

It makes sense I guess, let's say that that we have to take KSP1 in consideration when reading that "bigger scope" statement.

I don't expect a "no bug release" either, but even of that the bar set by KSP1 is not that high.

 

PS I also don't want my comments to be read as "Squad bad KSP1 sucks", KSP1 is the prototype, and it's remarkably good given who it was created (more organically grown with the help of the community than traditionally developed). But now that we have the blueprint of the game we need someone to make an actual product out of it.

 

[Mikenike]

I want bug fixes, graphics good now.

[mcwaffles2003]

19 hours ago, Mikenike said:

I want bug fixes, graphics good now.

You realize that KSP 2 isn't built on KSP 1, right?

[Mitchz95]

I think some basic clouds are a no-brainer (I'm still amazed that we don't have them in KSP1!), but they should be a a setting players can toggle on and off if they choose.  Ideally the options would be "no clouds", "simple clouds", and "complex clouds".

Stuff like weather and light scattering can probably wait for modders, or perhaps for a post-launch patch.

[mcwaffles2003]

13 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Stuff like weather and light scattering can probably wait for modders, or perhaps for a post-launch patch.

I disagree about leaving things up to the modders for matters that do not shape gameplay.

Modders will fill in gaps but its not right to one: expect it of them, and two: leaving things up to modders leaves more room for incompatibilities to form. Now the effects of weather, I understand that not being stock if it may hurt gameplay/accessibility and something like that should be open to the modders out there who want to bring weather to the game to add nuance for players looking for it. But in general I think the graphics of this game shouldn't be held back at all. We're paying $60 for this game and in return we should expect the graphical fidelity of a $60 game. If modders want to take it further then please do so, but to rely on them to get the game to par is IMO a very poor decision.

[Mikenike]

On 9/26/2020 at 3:53 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

You realize that KSP 2 isn't built on KSP 1, right?

Yes. But there will be bugs.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Mikenike said:

Yes. But there will be bugs.

True, buts a case with any game launch anyways. Perhaps we just disagree then as I would like them to continue to improve the terrain and atmosphere graphics. Also, I don't believe the game is at a bug fixing stage yet as they seem to still be adding and fleshing out features currently.

Edited September 29, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Mikenike]

52 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

True, buts a case with any game launch anyways. Perhaps we just disagree then as I would like them to continue to improve the terrain and atmosphere graphics. Also, I don't believe the game is at a bug fixing stage yet as they seem to still be adding and fleshing out features currently.

I posted this before it had been moved to KSP2. So I thoughs its was KSPs1

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, Mikenike said:

I posted this before it had been moved to KSP2. So I thoughs its was KSPs1

Uhh? It was brought to the KSP 2 sub-forum on Wednesday

On 9/23/2020 at 1:22 PM, Vanamonde said:

I've moved this to the KSP2 sub, since you asked, but keep in mind that Squad is not making KSP2. 

And you posted this on Friday...

On 9/25/2020 at 8:59 AM, Mikenike said:

I want bug fixes, graphics good now.

 

[Mikenike]

On 9/29/2020 at 9:50 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Uhh? It was brought to the KSP 2 sub-forum on Wednesday

And you posted this on Friday...

 

It was showning it still in KSP discussion for some reason..... I don't know why