Jump to content

KSP2 Social Posts


Ghostii_Space

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Astr0Guy5 said:

I fully expect there to be a launch sequence where the tower is moved away from the rocket before a countdown begins, etc.  I think it's reasonable to think this will be the case.

Nah, that'd slow down the pace of gameplay for no real gain. Rocket go boom when you press space bar, that'll never not make you smile, and no reason to put anything between you and it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Profugo Barbatus said:

Nah, that'd slow down the pace of gameplay for no real gain. Rocket go boom when you press space bar, that'll never not make you smile, and no reason to put anything between you and it.

Nate said they're making launches more interesting so there's no doubt going to be a launch sequence (he might of even used "launch sequence" I just can't find the quote).  I agree with you though and wonder how they'll do a launch sequence for a doomed rocket (if one at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, WelshSteW said:

The tower may have had cables and stuff connected to whatever ship was there, which detach on launch? Hard to say given we haven't seen a launch.

We have, episode 6.

22 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

If you can attach things to it, it would still be acceptable. But then, to my knowledge, Robotics will not be including (making arms sliding/swinging out of the way a challenge) and if the tower is not accessible in the VAB it will be impossible to do that.

Nothing is impossible if it moves fast enough. And yes I know Saturn V had clamps at the bottom, but those on the tower provided additional stability.

People have been talking about procedural lightning tower, I'm talking about arms that change their length accordingly to the distance from the rocket. No robotics needed, just animation.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Astr0Guy5 said:

Nate said they're making launches more interesting so there's no doubt going to be a launch sequence

I think "Orbital and Extraplanetary Launches" could just as easily qualify as 'More interesting'. There's more to them than flare and show, interesting comes from gameplay too. I would imagine you don't want to take a ship out of the shipyard on full 100% torch drives, unless you consider the colony a consumable launch asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Profugo Barbatus said:

I think "Orbital and Extraplanetary Launches" could just as easily qualify as 'More interesting'. There's more to them than flare and show, interesting comes from gameplay too. I would imagine you don't want to take a ship out of the shipyard on full 100% torch drives, unless you consider the colony a consumable launch asset.

For sure, but I was referencing launch cinematics as opposed to gameplay involved in the launch of a craft.  My original point was that there is going to be a launch cinematic that adds significance to the launch (confirmed by Nate).  I was commenting on how the launch tower might be integrated into the cinematic (if at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Astr0Guy5 said:

where the tower is moved away from the rocket before a countdown begins

Im not so sure. In KSP 1, you could launch whenever you wanted to, admittedly, there was no tower to hinder you. Maybe there might be a button or something, but it might just sit there, maybe with some fuel lines swinging away as soon as you press Z. 

Good idea, but probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to point out a small detail that triggered me a tiny little bit: 

When the "bow" separates, the camera focus makes an instant snap to the new CoM of the vehicle, instead of a smooth transition like KSP1 does.

That's a relatively easy thing to fix, but I'd hate to see it on EA release build.

Other than that, this game looks GORGEOUS.

Edited by MARL_Mk1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

When te "bow" separates, the camera focus makes an instant snap to the new CoM of the vehicle, instead of a smooth transition like KSP1 does.

This bugged me too, but tbh I thought it was a cut, meant to hide maybe a stutter when the staging was activated, like happens in KSP1. Maybe that's too cynical, though, and it really is just a camera issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Domonian said:

Looks fantastic. We got a higher quality version in the discord. Sounds are incredible, Mk2 nose cone (my beloved) makes another scene. Cannot wait to get my hands on those shiny parts and the paint tool. VERY EXCITED!

Is that a procedural length tank?!

And I love that the hold-down clamps finally fully retract out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Domonian said:

It looks like 4 stacked tanks rather than a single one. You can see 4 equally lengthed rails/grab bars(?)  and repeating textures/features.

It's likely it's 4 tanks, but then again repeating model details could just be a preferable alternative to stretching models or easier than stretching parts of the model but keeping others at the same scale so it doesn't warp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Domonian said:

Looks fantastic. We got a higher quality version in the discord. Sounds are incredible, Mk2 nose cone (my beloved) makes another scene. Cannot wait to get my hands on those shiny parts and the paint tool. VERY EXCITED!

Also look at these framerates!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

also all of them still are avoiding any showing of going past sonic+ plasma etc.

It is worth noting here that KSP1's visual effect rule of 'above ~1000m/s = plasma' isn't technically correct. The plasma you get during re-entry of IRL spacecraft is a result of compression heating, essentially the air in front of the vehicle being unable to move out of the way fast enough and so heating up and ionising through various thermodynamic processes.

During launch a vehicle moves out of the lower atmosphere rather quickly, so by the time it's moving fast enough for serious heating to occur, it's high enough that there's practically no air. Launch vehicles do get some heating, but it's all direct frictional heating between the air and the vehicle's skin, so no plasma is produced. In contrast, a re-entry vehicle continues to accelerate as it falls toward the planet, meaning that by the time the air is dense enough to cause compression heating, it's moving extremely fast.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk :P Really though, we get our hands on KSP2 in under 2 weeks now and if they don't show us anything before then, there'll be nothing stopping you from discovering it for yourself on launch day, as Aziz has already said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 5:12 PM, xXIndestructibleEVAXx said:

I can't think of a single video game, ever, that has actually volumetric explosions. I'm sure some exist, but I genuinely can't think of any.

I'm pretty sure you're right as far as AAA games are concerned (there may be glorified tech demos out there somewhere with 3D explosions). Even JC3, a game which is built around massive explosions, uses well-blended 2D animations rather than 3D volumetrics. The effects look quite good in motion, so they are appropriately cool and spectacular when you're actually playing the game.

I think there's a temptation to think "2D < 3D, therefore 2D explosions < 3D explosions!" However, we're not living in a post-scarcity world, so ordinary gaming PCs don't have the processing power to simulate 3D explosions in the detail that people expect (to borrow wording from another cool developer). Clever lighting tricks like increasing the brightness and light in a scene for a few frames of an explosion will hide any clipping through the ground while it occurs, while allowing artists to create lots of variation and complexity in a performant way.

As others have said, long-lasting, visually impressive explosions are what's important, and I trust the devs at Intercept to take the best approach for this :) 

Edited by TROPtastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TROPtastic said:

I'm pretty sure you're right as far as AAA games are concerned (there may be glorified tech demos out there somewhere with 3D explosions). Even JC3, a game which is built around massive explosions, uses well-blended 2D animations rather than 3D volumetrics. The effects look quite good in motion, so they are appropriately cool and spectacular when you're actually playing the game.

I think there's a temptation to think "2D < 3D, therefore 2D explosions < 3D explosions!" However, we're not living in a post-scarcity world, so ordinary gaming PCs don't have the processing power to simulate 3D explosions in the detail that people expect (to borrow wording from another cool developer). Clever lighting tricks like increasing the brightness and light in a scene for a few frames of an explosion will hide any clipping through the ground while it occurs, while allowing artists to create lots of variation and complexity in a performant way.

As others have said, long-lasting, visually impressive explosions are what's important, and I trust the devs at Intercept to take the best approach for this :) 

I agree with everything you said, except that the explosion video you linked just looks silly, why is it totally overexposed and blinking like a strobe light lol

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.

×
×
  • Create New...