Ultra Graphics Settings features

[Vl3d]

I really want to start a conversation with players that have the rigs to max out the graphics and also want very high quality visuals.

What do you want to see in the game from a graphics standpoint? Are you satisfied with what was shown up to this point?

I think the parts currently look good, the planets look good in the show and tell videos.

I'm hoping to see very nice weather visuals.

Can we hope for Ray Tracing? Can we hope for good looking dynamic terrain surface (like tracks in dust and mud and snow)? God Rays? Massive scatter? True volumetric clouds (also on alien worlds)?

What else should we have for maximum immersion and visual pleasure?

These demo videos show what's possible in Unity.

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[Guest]

I have a rig to max out most any game I come across* (at 1440p, 4k doesn't make sense for gaming on a 27" display). 

I want to see "good enough", there are games I'm in for the eye candy (not a lot of them as it's mostly for VR that I went with the hardware I have), KSP isn't one of them.

I want the focus to be more on the optimization and art style than the best visual possible.

Never cared enough for ray-tracing , it's not worthy for the performance tax and the price (my 6800XT, goes toes to toes with a 3080 and I've paid it less than the cheapest 3070, if you exclude Ray Tracing).

Immersion is more a matter of UI and gameplay for me, so I'll say good IVA environments and, maybe, camera parts to attach to rovers, probes and rockets to get their POV (maybe as science experiments/parts?).

 

EDIT: Still it doesn't mean I won't be playing at Ultra, I max everything I can in every game if I'm just aiming for 60 FPS.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Master39

[jastrone]

im fine with the graphix as of now exept that the kerbals look a bit weird. they look less real than ksp 1 somehow

[Vl3d]

14 minutes ago, Master39 said:

...there are games I'm in for the eye candy (not a lot of them as it's mostly for VR that I went with the hardware I have), KSP isn't one of them.

I want the focus to be more on the optimization and art style than the best visual possible. ...

Immersion is more a matter of UI and gameplay for me...

I agree with you that gameplay, UI, IVA are all very important. But I doubt I'm the only person who likes to fly through the clouds at golden hour and visits other celestial bodies mainly to find a tall mountain and watch the alien sunset and sunrise.

Why explore other planets if you can't be immersed in the breathtaking surroundings? If you can't experience what the weather is like?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Why explore other planets if you can't be immersed in the breathtaking surroundings? If you can't experience what the weather is like?

For the challenge of it. And nothing else.

If I wanted a breathtaking sunrise I would just google one on Images.

If I wanted a good story... Well, there's my Kindle for that, and it rarely passes a day with no use.

I play games for the gameplay, the eye-candy is welcomed, but secondary to the experience.

[The Aziz]

That demo, however, doesn't show what's playable in Unity. That's just a preprogrammed camera moving around. If everything your hardware has to process is graphics, sure, no problem. Add the rest of the game underneath and oh boy where did my performance go.

[tstein]

Raytracing does not seem to be a logic dump of resources on KSP like game (since we are NOT going to have a dense environment with lots of different things to reflect and refract anything (remembe that kerbin itself is an exception in the game and one that we  basically do not pay much attention). Even for people wanting very high end graphics, I think other techniques are more than enough  for  kerbal other planes (and certainly for space where ray trace is basically a waste of time sicne 99.9999999999999999% of time where is nothing to reflect or interact in the lightining)

Just now, Master39 said:

For the challenge of it. And nothing else.

If I wanted a breathtaking sunrise I would just google one on Images.

If I wanted a good story... Well, there's my Kindle for that, and it rarely passes a day with no use.

I play games for the gameplay, the eye-candy is welcomed, but secondary to the experience.

I general I agree. My order is setting (is the game about somethign I like? ), gameplay challenge, gameplay depth, interesting unique mechanics, then story, then graphics. Not that I  dislike good visuals, as my main hobby is painting and  I really  like good well developed visual stuff (I even buy books because the cover looks cool ), but games are the place where it affects me the least, i am not sure why.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

That demo, however, doesn't show what's playable in Unity. That's just a preprogrammed camera moving around. If everything your hardware has to process is graphics, sure, no problem. Add the rest of the game underneath and oh boy where did my performance go.

Isn't that why OP mentioned this thread as a graphics setting though? If the computer can't handle it just turn down the settings, most games can do this fine, why not KSP?

[tstein]

11 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Isn't that why OP mentioned this thread as a graphics setting though? If the computer can't handle it just turn down the settings, most games can do this fine, why not KSP?

Because  if you design a feature that only 1% of your costumers will use you made a bad use of your money. You should  first and foremost invest on that   will influence the large base of players. A simple great example is occulus support that some games added but so few   players in their base  had that made no  real effect in their sales. There is an upper limit to the graphics and it is a FINANCIAL PROBLEM foremost. Developign these high end stuff takes time and more than that adds time to  testing and  time is money. They need to use their money wisely so they  must have a HIGH setting that is good, but that is usable for a significant  part of their expected playerbase. They do KNOW the average computer that is running  KSP  trough steam, so  they  probably  have a target that might disapoint you.

[The Aziz]

 

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Isn't that why OP mentioned this thread as a graphics setting though? If the computer can't handle it just turn down the settings, most games can do this fine, why not KSP?

Sure but as developer, you need to draw the line somewhere, unless you want to end up like Forspoken (released couple of weeks ago) where you need a 3070 to run the game on medium settings at 30fps. (And to keep minimal settings at 30fps apparently you'd need to stay at 720p resolution) Even by today's standards those requirements are ridiculous. KSP2 aims to be accessible to as many people as they can, so they can't just go full RTX4090 4K 120fps on ultra because you could only lower the settings so much.

Edited February 3, 2023 by The Aziz

[mcwaffles2003]

@tstein @The Aziz I think there is a middle ground to be struck here.

Again, @Vl3dis asking for a mansion estate with a 30 yd pond with fountains and RGB along the walkway while I feel like most counter points I see seem to be pointing for a wood shed

Personally, I just want a 3 br 2 ba house with a yard... maybe some good water pressure, AC, and a dishwasher

Edited February 3, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[Snafu225]

8 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@tstein @The Aziz I think there is a middle ground to be struck here.

Again, @Vl3dis asking for a mansion estate with a 30 yd pond with fountains and RGB along the walkway while I feel like most counter points I see seem to be pointing for a wood shed

Personally, I just want a 3 br 2 ba house with a yard... maybe some good water pressure, AC, and a dishwasher

The important stuff is the basement and the backyard. It's all about the tech under the hood and how easily it can be expanded and build  upon.

[mcwaffles2003]

@Snafu225 Do you own a bunker or simply a Colin Furze fan?

I forgot to say a garage too, I might be greedy

Edited February 3, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[Snafu225]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@Snafu225 Do you own a bunker or simply a Colin Furze fan?

I forgot to say a garage too, I might be greedy

neither nor, though I've spend a considerable amount in bunkers.

In the end the best house isn't worth much if the foundation isn't solid.
But with a solid, nice and expandable foundation (as in EA) they and we can build a pretty house on it and everybody can decorate it (mod it) how they please.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Snafu225 said:

neither nor, though I've spend a considerable amount in bunkers.

In the end the best house isn't worth much if the foundation isn't solid.
But with a solid, nice and expandable foundation (as in EA) they and we can build a pretty house on it and everybody can decorate it (mod it) how they please.

Oh I agree, its why Im happy that they are doin EA in the iterative fashion they are and in the best order. Still though, foundation alone, a house it does not make.

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:

But with a solid, nice and expandable foundation (as in EA) they and we can build a pretty house on it and everybody can decorate it (mod it) how they please.

Most of the game should already be built. This is not a closed-beta bug hunt. And if you don't want good graphics, why are you in this thread?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[Snafu225]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

Oh I agree, its why Im happy that they are doin EA in the iterative fashion they are and in the best order. Still though, foundation alone, a house it does not make.

Agreed, thank god for that quote here though:
 

Quote

---Continued performance improvements and visual updates

 

[tstein]

22 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@tstein @The Aziz I think there is a middle ground to be struck here.

Again, @Vl3dis asking for a mansion estate with a 30 yd pond with fountains and RGB along the walkway while I feel like most counter points I see seem to be pointing for a wood shed

Personally, I just want a 3 br 2 ba house with a yard... maybe some good water pressure, AC, and a dishwasher

oo no I am not proposing a wood shed only (although for me it would make little difference),  but  my point is, as soon as you reach the middle class suburb house  you should NOT spend money in making a larger one unless you have nothing else to spend your money on. It is exaclty as in real life...   everyone wants a  middle class  suburb house,  but  if you  cannot afford a car after that you are not going to continue investing  even more in your house.

[MechBFP]

Just now, Vl3d said:

And if you don't want good graphics, why are you in this thread?

Probably because they understand the properties of time and money.

[Vl3d]

Just now, tstein said:

oo no I am not proposing a wood shed only (although for me it would make little difference),  but  my point is, as soon as you reach the middle class suburb house  you should NOT spend money in making a larger one unless you have nothing else to spend your money on. It is exaclty as in real life...   everyone wants a  middle class  suburb house,  but  if you  cannot afford a car after that you are not going to continue investing  even more in your house.

No one has showed you details about the game mechanics. We only get screenshots. So that's what we talk about.

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Most of the game should already be built. This is not a closed-beta bug hunt. And if you don't want good graphics, why are you in this thread?

Not a closed beta, no, but it is an open beta bug hunt. 

[LHACK4142]

For all the flak @Vl3d can get about their really quite high, and sometimes a bit preposterous, expectations and desires, I feel like they have a point. Nobody plays KSP specifically for the graphics, but it sure is incredible when you visit Duna, drive up a mountain, and get an stunning vista with beautiful Parallax textures and scattering. That said, considering that KSP2's graphics are decent already, they will probably get upgraded, and that modders will probably make graphics mods that will look even better than a fully modded KSP1 (for a price), I don't really think it's worth discussing.

Edited February 3, 2023 by LHACK4142

[Snafu225]

  

14 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Most of the game should already be built. This is not a closed-beta bug hunt. And if you don't want good graphics, why are you in this thread?

Calm down, please.
 

20 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:

we can build a pretty house on it

---Continued performance improvements and visual updates

I don't know where you got the notion that I don't want good graphics out of this, but all the power to you.
 

Spoiler

11 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

No one has showed you details about the game mechanics. We only get screenshots. So that's what we talk about.

I know this off-topic here now, but wasn't it you some days ago who pretty much confirmed for himself that time travelling mission planning is pretty much a feature that's supposed to be coming and ksp2 will be award winning because of that and started about AI agencies and if it's not coming in EA it's a huge disappointment but will be guaranteed groundwork for future updates. Wonder where you got all that from since we're only discussing graphics as we haven't seen anything else yet.
My mind is just blown but I won't go further into this, as I said it's off-topic here.

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Snafu225

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, LHACK4142 said:

For all the flak @Vl3d can get about their really quite high, and sometimes a bit preposterous, expectations and desires, I feel like they have a point. Nobody plays KSP specifically for the graphics, but it sure is incredible when you visit Duna, drive up a mountain, and get an stunning vista with beautiful Parallax textures and scattering. That said, considering that KSP2's graphics are decent already, they will probably get upgraded, and that modders will probably make graphics mods that will look even better than a fully modded KSP1 (for a price), I don't really think it's worth discussing.

I think the concern is largely just having all the graphical systems in place so mods don't have to make hacky low performance work arounds that bog the game down

[regex]

I'm not expecting the game to seriously tax my 3070ti or my i7-12700KF (given my normal KSP1 playstyle), but if it doesn't at least make good use of them I'm going to be disappointed.