How does Starfield compare to KSP2 (ship & base building, environment, IVA, HUD)?

[Pthigrivi]

I'll also say Im just personally way less interested in how a game looks than how it plays. I could care less if there are visual weather effects beyond clouds, but I care quite a bit if there's a thoughtful approach to life support. We'll have to wait and see of course and maybe the solution they've come up with is great but Im a little worried about how Nertea framed the way they're thinking about habitation modules. As we're talking about comparisons to other games KSP is digging into new territory with colony mechanics and there's a lot of pretty solid precedent for how one might handle that. 

[Vl3d]

25 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im a little worried about how Nertea framed the way they're thinking about habitation modules

What do you mean?

[Pthigrivi]

Well he was cleverly vague, Im sure not wanting to step on the heals of future colonization reveals, but the gist I got was that some habitation modules wont have a function and will be primarily there for aesthetics, and that others would have specific purposes. I think all by itself that could be okay depending on how colonies operate, but it is a bit unlike other parts in KSP. For instance unless you're doing something weird you're probably not spamming fuel tanks around to make your vessel look cool, you're using the number of tanks you need to fulfill a specific task. To me its certainly okay if crew tubes and other vessel components don't carry any kind of game buff,  but I would expect the majority of "habitation modules" to have some purpose within the game and not just be decoration. Based on other base builders and city builders you'd expect habitation modules to increase the number personnel a given colony or station could house, or serve some other function that you were optimizing for. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[shdwlrd]

16 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

the gist I got was that some habitation modules wont have a function and will be primarily there for aesthetics, and that others would have specific purposes.

Nate basically confirmed that when the first colony modules were revealed. At the time, nothing for greebling colony buildings was in the works, but planned for the future. So it makes sense to have colony parts/buildings that would have no stock function.

[Vl3d]

Someone should write a suggestions post about the habitation modules and also mention that we want most parts to actually be useful.

[Pthigrivi]

11 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Nate basically confirmed that when the first colony modules were revealed. At the time, nothing for greebling colony buildings was in the works, but planned for the future. So it makes sense to have colony parts/buildings that would have no stock function.

That would kind of be a shame, but I guess we'll see where that line lands. You might remember when things like experiments and dishes had no real function and were then stitched together into something useful after the fact. I worry that the results might be better if the mechanics were considered first and the modules tailored around them, but we'll just have to see what happens down the road. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

Just ignore my posts if you think I don't bring interesting ideas to the table.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Someone should write a suggestions post about the habitation modules and also mention that we want most parts to actually be useful.

Oh it's been brought up several times over the years. If they decided against it they must have a reason, either because of the time required for developing a whole other system or because they have some other solution. It's not as if a post now would make them suddenly say "Oh yeah we should have thought of that!" Nertea did say some modules will have a purpose and we'll just have to wait and see how all that plays out. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Just ignore my posts if you think I don't bring interesting ideas to the table.

Maybe I should rephrase my point - posts that serve only to raise unrealistic expectations for KSP 2 can be harmful, and they do not add much to the discussion. If you want to discuss about how amazing MFS2020's graphics and sound design is, then the best place for that is the Microsoft Flight Simulator forums. Same for other games with little bearing on what KSP 2 focuses on: simulation of rockets and how interplanetary colonies interact.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Vanamonde]

Discussions have been getting very personal and heated lately. Please don't try to tell others what they should and shouldn't say. 

Some comments removed. 

[jost]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Just ignore my posts if you think I don't bring interesting ideas to the table.

I think the problem is not whether your ideas are interesting (they are) but whether they are realistic and might be implemented. 
To be honest: I'm quite sceptical in this regard.

In a former job I worked in a software project for a car manufacturer (no not the software behind Dieselgate   ). Although I wasn't a developer (I was a part of the infrastructure guys and gals to provide the developers with the tools to actually be able to do their job) I got some insights how software development projects might have problems (and they have always problems). For example the developers struggled a lot to get the software stable (you don't want a crash in your navigation system during a long journey) thus they coudn't  focus on the cool new features which were also planned. So it was decided by the management of our company and the customers management that not necessary features woudn't be included but be implemented in later Updates.  This was done after several project delays and still with that we struggled to finish without further delays and implement at least some of the planned new features.

So: What do we know about KSP2 development? Not a lot since (like every company Intercept and TakeTwo keep their mouth shut about their problems)  but the project was delayed several times. So based on my experiences I would except that they also decided to just implement the thinks which are considered as essential for the project. A full blown weather simulation propably isn't part even if it was considered at the beginning of the project. If it wasn't considered before it's unlikely that they will develop it in the remaining time to the release next year.  Most likely they will focus on bug fixing/testing/other quality assurance and finishing the essential game.  Everything else woudn't be in the interest of the investors (aka TakeTwo) since they want to get their return of investment. More delays means a later and (with bad luck less due do the current economic situation) cashflow. Thus: Don't expect that any shiny ideas which were not planned right from the beginning or suggested before the first delays will be present in the games stock version.
What I can imagine: Depending on the sales some of these non-essential things (e.G. Weather simulation) might be part of a DLC if they think there is an audience for it. Since the community here is quite devided on this idea I'm not even sure that this will be happening (again due to economic reasons not because people hate weather simulations). But it's more likely than your ideal weather simulation as part of KSP2s stock. 

Sorry for playing cassandra, this is NOT mean't as a personal insult or something like this. I'm just sceptical and doubt that the team will be able to implement your ideas in the remaining time till release. DLCs or updates are another beast though

Edited June 29, 2022 by jost

[Vl3d]

1. KSP weather simulation is already implemented in a mod:

2. I have not talked about simulating weather recently, only about local environment visuals like storms / rain / lightning etc.:

 3. No one but the KSP team really knows the feature set and the road map, unfortunately.

4. Everybody wants wind.

And I will tell you this.. Gurdamma is supposed to have a thick atmosphere, right? Well, have you seen it? Kerbin had an actual hurricane in earlier renders. Surely Gurdamma would also have visible weather effects, as seen from orbit.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Vl3d

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

That would kind of be a shame, but I guess we'll see where that line lands. You might remember when things like experiments and dishes had no real function and were then stitched together into something useful after the fact. I worry that the results might be better if the mechanics were considered first and the modules tailored around them, but we'll just have to see what happens down the road. 

Ahh, ok, I see what your concern is. Functional greebling like antennas, dishes, ladders, lighting was implied that they work as expected. I was thinking about greebling like external ductwork, conduits, tunnels, spacers would be non-functional.

[jost]

21 hours ago, Vl3d said:

1. KSP weather simulation is already implemented in a mod:

2. I have not talked about simulating weather recently, only about local environment visuals like storms / rain / lightning etc.:

 

KWP is a great project but it's NOT a simulation like the one you are talking about. First: It uses precalculated data (depending on the used data for one or ten years). Seconds: It doesn't contain a visual representation (e.G. effects of weather on buildings, mud after rain storms etc).
As said in it's description: 
 

Quote

At present, KWP does not add any parts or new visual effects to the game. KWP provides a framework for understanding what the weather on a planet with Kerbin's geography and orbital characteristics might look like. The results of the MPAS simulations (detailed on the mod webpage) could provide inspiration for fellow modders to create more realistic cloud cover and visual effects for Kerbin. 
KWP does not include orographic circulations or other small-scale circulations (e.g. thunderstorm cells). This is a limitation of the coarse resolution MPAS simulations from which KWP was derived. In KWP vertical wind speeds are typically very small (< 1 m/s) so unfortunately, aspiring glider pilots will not be able to stay aloft indefinitely by riding the wind.
 

 

Quote

 3. No one but the KSP team really knows the feature set and the road map, unfortunately.

Of course but one can guess: What's more likely? That the developers will develop a new future they never mentioned before in the remaining time till release or the final quality assurance/bugfixing/implementation of the essential gameplay?  Due to my own experience in a large software project (which had way more developers than KSP2) I expect the latter. Do you have a good argument why the first one is more plausible and why it's weather instead of some other cool feature they never talked before?

 

Quote

4. Everybody wants wind.

Well I'm not everybody then since as I said in another thread (I think I even got some likes) I prefer a finished game still playable on older machines to further delays and a game which only runs on high end gaming rigs. I also thinks that any weather effect just make sense if it's realistic enough to make game play more interesting without getting too complex (in terms of gameplay and needed hardware).
 

Quote

And I will tell you this.. Gurdamma is supposed to have a thick atmosphere, right? Well, have you seen it? Kerbin had an actual hurricane in earlier renders. Surely Gurdamma would also have visible weather effects, as seen from orbit.

Tbh I'm quite sceptical about "earlier renders" or other footage as a proof. It  might have been a kind of concept study which was later thrown away (e.G because it turned out that weather/storm/different visual weather effects are to complex with the given time constraints so the focus shifted to things which were considered to be more important).
And a lot of planet mods for KSP1 not to forget Jool or Eve have a thick atmosphere too. But we don't have visisble weather effects in KSP1 (not even with the weather mod!). 
 

Edited June 30, 2022 by jost

[Vl3d]

20 minutes ago, jost said:

Do you have a good argument why the first one is more plausible and why it's weather instead of some other cool feature they never talked before?

I don't think they are going to start implementing anything new now because they're hiring console developers for the XBOX / PS ports.

But there is a possibility that weather visual effects have been worked on but not revealed. Or maybe it will be a DLC someday - but that means KSP2 will not be competitive regarding graphics on the current space games market.

[t_v]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I don't think they are going to start implementing anything new now because they're hiring console developers for the XBOX / PS ports.

But there is a possibility that weather visual effects have been worked on but not revealed. Or maybe it will be a DLC someday - but that means KSP2 will not be competitive regarding graphics on the current space games market.

What do you mean by that? Lots of space games don't even allow you to interact with planets whatsoever, let alone land on them and experience their atmospheric effect. KSP 2 is already ahead of most space games. Just look at some of the screenshots displayed!

KSP 2 has a nice looking lighting system, wayyy better than that of KSP 1 and definitely on-par with other games. Not in any way uncompetitive. Other games sometimes don't even simulate light reflecting off of planets! How about in the atmosphere...

Look at those clouds... That looks better than, say, No Man's Sky clouds, and despite the cartoony aesthetic, I'd say NMS is graphics competitive...

So, on the technical side, I think KSP 2 is competitive. There we go, comparing KSP 2 to other games, KSP 2 holds its own. And before you point out that Starfield has better clouds than what I've shown here, know that you are comparing one of the most graphically advanced games to one that deals a lot more with physics simulations. KSP 2 fits nicely in the middle of other modern space games, which is honestly more than we could expect from it. 

I think that you are setting your expectations far too high - and it is harmful both now and when the game releases. If you look around, you will see that there are lots of great games that aren't the absolute best in the world at doing clouds, wind and weather, and that does not make them "not graphically competitive."

Thanks @The Aziz for the screenshots

[Vl3d]

7 hours ago, Vl3d said:

But there is a possibility that weather visual effects have been worked on but not revealed. Or maybe it will be a DLC someday - but that means KSP2 will not be competitive regarding graphics on the current space games market.

I just said that if they do not ship with effects like rain and snow, it will be an incomplete game.

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I just said that if they do not ship with effects like rain and snow, it will be an incomplete game.

That is just outright false.

[t_v]

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I just said that if they do not ship with effects like rain and snow, it will be an incomplete game.

And I am saying that the statement you made is incorrect and promotes toxic thinking about games. Both the original statement and the paraphrased version. To start with the incorrectness, as I have shown above, KSP is already “graphically competitive” without rain and snow, and there are tons of games without weather systems that are complete. If you really want to go down that route, KSP 2 will never ever be complete because there will always be aspects of space exploration that are “missing” from the game. I’ll personally say that the game is terrible and incomplete if it does not include a power washing system to get dust off of suits. Those kind of arguments are silly, you see?

And for the toxic thinking, I really thought that you were posting these really good looking screenshots because you were just excited about KSP 2 and you weren’t expecting things to be implemented. Just like the information releases, where the best mentality to take is to anticipate them but not expect them, so that you are not disappointed when they do not come. Setting a high goal for the game is fine; sometimes it helps to just imagine what KSP 2 could be in an impossible perfect world. But making those lofty visions into your expectations is not okay and will result in disappointment down the line. It is toxic; setting impossibly high expectations for a game to even be “complete” didn’t come from the devs or anyone else, and that line of thinking that you have put yourself into is just going to generate frustration. If you want to enjoy KSP 2, keep dreaming about what it could be, but drop the expectations. 

[MechBFP]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That is just outright false.

It does sound like something an out of touch executive would say though.

[Pthigrivi]

35 minutes ago, t_v said:

And for the toxic thinking, I really thought that you were posting these really good looking screenshots because you were just excited about KSP 2 and you weren’t expecting things to be implemented. Just like the information releases, where the best mentality to take is to anticipate them but not expect them, so that you are not disappointed when they do not come. Setting a high goal for the game is fine; sometimes it helps to just imagine what KSP 2 could be in an impossible perfect world. But making those lofty visions into your expectations is not okay and will result in disappointment down the line. It is toxic; setting impossibly high expectations for a game to even be “complete” didn’t come from the devs or anyone else, and that line of thinking that you have put yourself into is just going to generate frustration. If you want to enjoy KSP 2, keep dreaming about what it could be, but drop the expectations. 

This is exactly how I feel about all this stuff. Im really hoping for a really robust approach to life support and habitation (which are arguably much more important to gameplay than weather and other visual fluff) but I fully expect those systems to be much more simplified than I'd wish at launch. Maybe mods or an expansion will fill in the gaps down the road. Or maybe I'll be surprised and they've got something really unexpected and cool lined up. We'll see!

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

I’ll personally say that the game is terrible and incomplete if it does not include a power washing system to get dust off of suits.

The comparison is silly. There are no planets with atmosphere without weather. It's simple, it's not "toxic". For me not having weather is like not having a day/night cycle.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

9 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

1 hour ago, t_v said:

I’ll personally say that the game is terrible and incomplete if it does not include a power washing system to get dust off of suits.

The comparison is silly. There are no planets with atmosphere without weather. It's simple, it's not "toxic". For me not having weather is like not having a day/night cycle.

I think the general message being conveyed is quite clear. The game you are wanting is not what KSP 2 is trying to be, and making constant comparisons to other games that have more time to focus on the things you have spent your time on the forums wishing for is gonna lead to disappointment. If you want my advice, you should just stop lamenting about what KSP 2 will not have and start talking about what KSP 2 already has. No more "KSP 2 needs weather because other games with much bigger teams have it", no more "How does Starfield compare?", try instead saying "The new parts for KSP 2 have been modelled very well and I look forward to using them myself", or maybe asking "What will the colony parts be used for and how does the player interact with them?". Just anything that actually focuses on what KSP 2 can have or will have, instead of setting yourself up to create backlash when KSP 2 doesn't launch with such luxuries as weather, intricate vessel interior exploration and power washing suits.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[t_v]

18 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

The comparison is silly. There are no planets with atmosphere without weather. It's simple, it's not "toxic". For me not having weather is like not having a day/night cycle.

And there are no rocky planets that magically do not have any dust whatsoever. Not having power washing is like not having ground on planets. The toxic part isn't in the features themselves, but the very harsh expectation for these features to be in the game. It just sets people up for disappointment and a bad experience in what will be a good game. 

[Vl3d]

As long as there is no official communication about what will be in the game, we are free to expect anything.