Jump to content

KSP2 Artemis Recreation


Ghostii_Space
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

220 mb video. I have to wait 25 minutes for it to finish downloading. I gave up streaming it.

That is a rough internet you have there. I downloaded it in less than one minute. However, don't fret. Search the official Twitter acount of Kerbal Space Program. All videos on Twitter are smaller in size than the one posted here. And to be fair, as pretty as the game looks, the pre-alpha textures makes the loss of bitrate meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Anth12 said:

Maybe you live in the city where the lights are able to block out the stars at night?

City lights even from within a suburb can be enough to do that to some degree.

Go out into the country away from the city on a clear night. Its a different experience

You’re assuming there is no sun. Unless the sun is being blocked by something (like a planet), you’re eyes or camera would adjust to where you wouldn’t be able to see the stars. They’re too dim. You may go to the article that @JoeSchmuckatelli provided, but it states that Al Worden saw the stars on the dark side of the moon, not the bright, which makes sense since the sun wouldn’t force his eyes to adjust.

Also, @whatsEJstandfor I noticed that after I posted. After writing nothing but emails for weeks you kinda forget how easy it is to sound like a buzzkill. Thanks for letting me know :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

You’re assuming there is no sun.

True, though I would be interested to see if the stars show up if the craft/capsule is facing away from the sun because there's no atmosphere to catch the light from the sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anth12 said:

True, though I would be interested to see if the stars show up if the craft/capsule is facing away from the sun because there's no atmosphere to catch the light from the sun

For sure, all you need to do is block the sun from your field of view and ensure there are no reflective surfaces within that field, and viola, you will see plenty of stars once your eyes adjust to the darkness. 
However that is quite simply not a practical thing to implement because everything is being viewed externally and the player will near constantly be looking at things that reflect star light or even at the star itself. 

Who wants to see a pitch black sky for a large percentage of gameplay because we want to emulate some disembodied eyes floating in space. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

You’re assuming there is no sun. Unless the sun is being blocked by something (like a planet), you’re eyes or camera would adjust to where you wouldn’t be able to see the stars. They’re too dim. You may go to the article that @JoeSchmuckatelli provided, but it states that Al Worden saw the stars on the dark side of the moon, not the bright, which makes sense since the sun wouldn’t force his eyes to adjust.

Also, @whatsEJstandfor I noticed that after I posted. After writing nothing but emails for weeks you kinda forget how easy it is to sound like a buzzkill. Thanks for letting me know :).

 

1 hour ago, Anth12 said:

True, though I would be interested to see if the stars show up if the craft/capsule is facing away from the sun because there's no atmosphere to catch the light from the sun

 

15 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

For sure, all you need to do is block the sun from your field of view and ensure there are no reflective surfaces within that field, and viola, you will see plenty of stars once your eyes adjust to the darkness. 
However that is quite simply not a practical thing to implement because everything is being viewed externally and the player will near constantly be looking at things that reflect star light or even at the star itself. 

Who wants to see a pitch black sky for a large percentage of gameplay because we want to emulate some disembodied eyes floating in space. 

There was a lengthy argument in another thread a while back about all this (assuming everyone's aware...)

The thing I get from the articles is that if you are standing on the surface of an airless body during daylight; there's likely enough reflective energy to wash out most of what you'd see.  At night; it will be a better show than standing in the Atacama Desert.  For folks on a space station; during daylight you're between the sun and planet-sized reflective body; maybe that's enough to get your eyes adjusted so much that you don't see stars... maybe not; I don't remember that being mentioned.  Probably could see stars if you look perpendicular to the sun/planet line.

The question becomes; what do you want from the game?  To simulate the problems with using an electric camera when looking at your ship?  (I like seeing the stars when I'm looking at my crafts.)  Having the view glare out, then slowly resolve (simulating pupils contracting) might be cool the first time; but is it really necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I am genuinely curious about though is that frame rate.  It's mentioned in the comments pretty much every in game footage sneek peak we get.  When you download the source video, the properties say that the render is 59fps.  Now the capture could have been in 30fps and that's why it appears jumpy.  The game could very well be running 60fps or greater smoothly.  We are just perhaps not seeing this after the layers of capture, import, edit, render, upload...  definitely a possibility!  If this is not the case and what we are seeing is representative of what was shown on their screen, I still have hesitations to believe there is need for worry.  This gameplay footage, like all past ones, is stamped with pre-alpha.  Typically, as I understand it, these builds would not have any implemented optimizations.  They are simply raw builds of the game.  Given that the last dev diary spoke on the active status of localizing all of the text for language translation, I believe they are way beyond pre-alpha status.  We just simply have not been shown the more optimized versions as everything is still in flux build to build.  Would be nice though to get a comment from the devs confirming this and putting minds at ease.  I seriously have a hard time believing that this is the performance level to expect with what appears to be ~30 parts craft.  Not even ksp1 on a modest pc would really have an issue with that.  Just wouldn't make sense knowing all they have done to make improvements on the part based physics system.  Just my .02 :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was part of the development of a game years ago (pre 2010)

I did some minor contribution in regards to quests (programmed in a dumbed down version of C)

I got access to the game about 8 months ahead of release. The frame rate was definitely a problem 8 months before release but was optimized well enough for release.

We are still 6 months out (I am estimating a late February release). I wouldn't worry about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

That is a rough internet you have there. I downloaded it in less than one minute.

Might not even be the internet. I have 100 mbit internet, but yet it takes a lot of time to download the video as well. Maybe it's related to a server that we are connecting to, it may be different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 

 

There was a lengthy argument in another thread a while back about all this (assuming everyone's aware...)

The thing I get from the articles is that if you are standing on the surface of an airless body during daylight; there's likely enough reflective energy to wash out most of what you'd see.  At night; it will be a better show than standing in the Atacama Desert.  For folks on a space station; during daylight you're between the sun and planet-sized reflective body; maybe that's enough to get your eyes adjusted so much that you don't see stars... maybe not; I don't remember that being mentioned.  Probably could see stars if you look perpendicular to the sun/planet line.

The question becomes; what do you want from the game?  To simulate the problems with using an electric camera when looking at your ship?  (I like seeing the stars when I'm looking at my crafts.)  Having the view glare out, then slowly resolve (simulating pupils contracting) might be cool the first time; but is it really necessary?

It’d probably be best as a graphics setting, where you could adjust the brightness of the backround. Even if it is realistic to have the stars I don’t really like the look of it. Like, you can even see them when looking directly at kerbol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dok_377 said:
10 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

That is a rough internet you have there. I downloaded it in less than one minute.

Might not even be the internet. I have 100 mbit internet, but yet it takes a lot of time to download the video as well. Maybe it's related to a server that we are connecting to, it may be different.

I had it downloaded in less than 15 seconds but that was within 20-25 minutes of the post. Maybe a lot of people were trying to download it at the same time afterwards so the available bandwidth was overwhelmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Maybe not in this specific build?

Edit: you can see trees in the very first shot, and clouds whenever Kerbin is visible from space.

Apparently the trees are either part of the space center, or the beginning was filmed on another build. Clouds from space are not so interesting. Perhaps they stayed on another build too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Or the sky was clear that evening. It happens you know.

You would think that they would want to show off the volumetric clouds right? Plus, at least where I live there are almost always clouds in the sky, even if they’re small. I think they just turned them off to improve the frame rate due to the game not being completely finished for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, NoMrBond said:

Except that bit at the bottom which still says pre-alpha

That bit worries me

Yes because it wasn't told over and over that this text means it's not a product that would be shipped or a currently most complete build... You expect feature complete software 4+ months from release window?

  

52 minutes ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

You would think that they would want to show off the volumetric clouds right? Plus, at least where I live there are almost always clouds in the sky, even if they’re small. I think they just turned them off to improve the frame rate due to the game not being completely finished for the time being.

They have already shown them, multiple times. The footage here is most likely whatever they had at hand at the time.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

Yes because it wasn't told over and over that this text means it's not a product that would be shipped or a currently most complete build... You expect feature complete software 4+ months from release window?

Because pre-alpha (usually) means they're still in the research phase and have not settled on what features they want to implement, or feel they can implement

Maybe pre-alpha means something different for the IG team, but the idea that there is still not a firm-ish set of features and game scope just has me scratching my head is all

A rough outline of what Intercept considers the pre-alpha/alpha/beta stages would be helpful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

Because pre-alpha (usually) means they're still in the research phase and have not settled on what features they want to implement, or feel they can implement

I don't think that's correct. Don't most devs consider anything right up until it's time to start testing/bugfixing pre-alpha? In other words, pre-alpha could be almost feature-complete but minor bugfixing hasn't yet been a priority, right?

Edited by whatsEJstandfor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

I don't think that's correct. Don't most devs consider anything right up until it's time to start testing/bugfixing pre-alpha? In other words, pre-alpha could be almost feature-complete but minor bugfixing hasn't yet been a priority, right?

No that is wrong. You are thinking beta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

during my goofy, over analytics of a video, i was wondering how long the run way was, just due to, idk wanting to guess... due to some of the lights are behind the rocket i cannot be sure that the number is correct, however, if they are doing spacing of of the side runway lights at 50ft intervals, converting 50ft to m, 15.24m and putting the estimated number of 189~ lights just by what i can see, and some estimate work, we might be seeing a 2.8km runway in that video, (max runway of ksp 1 is 2.5km) and i could suggest we might be getting a 3km or 3.5km runways...

 

if some people are smart enough with high iq's, we can get an est of how large the kerbal space center will be, well what is in frame, but at least 2.8km~ is a suggested length on the runway... but that is IF they are doing 50ft per light

 

i wonder if that is the maxed sized base aswell, or when we do the "career mode" (yes i know they are changing the idea of carrier mode) but its the subject of will we be still upgrading our bases to get better and better.

 

i wonder if we will watch our ships being "towed in or out", many interesting prospects this video has shown, again giving more questions than answers..

doesn't really matter still just happy we got the video...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...