Developer Insights #18 - Graphics of Early Access KSP2

[sfjuocekr]

If you look at the first example "KSC Landing Screen – 11 FPS", the given time spend rendering was 35.83ms, in an ideal world that would equate to 28 FPS. The logic that runs on the CPU in this situation spend about 55ms instead, so in the given example the GPU was not the problem. 

 

The same is true for the other example.

8 hours ago, gekavo said:

How about working with NVIDIA and add DLSS and amd FSR  especially for nvidia 4000 3.0 version would give a lot of fps
and FSR 2.0 and in the future its 3.0 version, could improve performance on all other video cards. As soon as AMD releases fsr3.0, I'm sure that 1060 from this post could draw a more or less acceptable fps

This is just plain wrong, because it essentially runs the game at a lower resolution and evidently from the data shown... running the game in a lower resolution does not solve any of these problems.

[Newgame space program]

On 3/10/2023 at 3:41 PM, PDCWolf said:

Sad to know as well that the current visual style is actually accepted as good. It is vomitive, riddled with excessive bloom, dissonant brightness and overall sickening to the eyes.

I quite like it actually, I think it looks pretty

[Angeloftruth]

14 hours ago, Dantheollie said:

This is the type of statement that gives me confidence the game is in good hands.

Although I can't comment on what external pressures led to KSP2's current release, and I can't imagine the constant stress of enduring the vitriol of a large part of the community, while remaining stoic to continue the long road of work ahead... 

I deeply admire your perseverance, and I tremendously admire the grueling work of everyone involved.

People make games, not machines. I think everyone, regardless of what side of the aisle they are on, can agree with that.

Cheers! I know KSP2 will become the game you envisioned, and which the community has dreamt of these past 4 years 

Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself!

[InterstellarDrifter]

THANK YOU!!!

Regardless of the content of this post, I think I can speak for the community when I say this, but we are deeply appreciative of the openness and obvious effort to give us as much information as possible in order to show us that KSP 2 is not going to be an abandoned project, like some think.  

Though posts/info like this can leave the dev-team feeling vulnerable to judgment by those more technical/skilled, I/we implore you to(pleeeease) keep this kind of info coming, as it restores/bolsters faith in our favorite game's development and bright and awesome future.  Thanks again

[Lord_Dracon]

2 hours ago, sfjuocekr said:

If you look at the first example "KSC Landing Screen – 11 FPS", the given time spend rendering was 35.83ms, in an ideal world that would equate to 28 FPS. The logic that runs on the CPU in this situation spend about 55ms instead, so in the given example the GPU was not the problem. 

 

The same is true for the other example.

This is just plain wrong, because it essentially runs the game at a lower resolution and evidently from the data shown... running the game in a lower resolution does not solve any of these problems.

It wouldn't really solve all these problems, but it would help a lot.

But I think implementing this would not be simple. I remember reading somewhere that the game needs to be developed in DirectX 12 to support DLSS / FSR, and KSP 2 is DirectX 11.

[InterstellarDrifter]

10 hours ago, A Generic Kerbal said:

Rip, the game's dead 

Based on what?

[The Aziz]

46 minutes ago, InterstellarDrifter said:

Based on what?

This

5 pages of death, confirmed since 2019.

[InterstellarDrifter]

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

This

5 pages of death, confirmed since 2019.

Hmm,  this thread reads more like a speculative conspiracy 4chan q-anon thread than a citation of evidence for a rather baseless opinion.

wanna try again?

[RocketRockington]

15 hours ago, Periple said:

Hand on heart, RocketRockington. Do you think those mountains look remotely as crisp, detailed, and "real" as the ones in the KSP2 screenies? Because "fuzzy blob" is pretty much how I'd describe them! 

(This is NOT intended as a slight to the people who made RSS/RO, that's some STELLAR work. But they had to work within the limitations of KSP1!)

Hand on heart - obviously, no I think KSP2's are better.  Hand on heart to you - is it better enough to be worth running many times slower on a beefy rig though?   

Its not to me.

And mountains from LEO are just one aspect of planetary graphics - the Mun looks a little better in KSP2 at a distance - but way better close up in KSP1 mods.  Most planets do.  Landed Kerbin looks better in KSP1 mods.  All of those perform much better than KSP2 does.

I was hoping we'd see something closer to universe sandbox graphics and performance, myself - that doesn't seem like asking for too much since Giant Army (the development studio for US) is 10 people.  And they simulated a whole universe with proc planets and all kinds of additional celestial bodies - not a fixed solar system.

Edited March 12 by RocketRockington

[Periple]

6 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Hand on heart - obviously, no I think KSP2's are better.  Hand on heart to you - is it better enough to be worth running many times slower on a beefy rig though?   

Its not to me.

What a silly question, of course it’s not!

Thank you for conceding your point though, that was very gracious of you!

Since you’re an experienced game developer who’s worked at lots of studios and are talking directly to the C-suite about your own concept, can you share some of your experiences looking at work in progress? In general, in your experience, when a game hits alpha, how does its performance compare to final targets? What type and kind of bugs do you expect to encounter? How does the visual fidelity compare to what you expect to see on release? How is the game balance?

Edited March 12 by Periple

[BonkChoyBrad]

to reduce texture lag, just make textures that blend without blending software, Minecraft did it well and the stone still blends well, check out https://www.digminecraft.com/getting_started/images/biome_stone_shore.png to see how well they blend without blending software, although it would take a while, also you could reduce the resolution of textures when you go far away, make sure the texture resolution matches the screen resolution to avoid backlash from people complaining about the smallest drop in resolution, you may have even implemented the latter in the game already, these are my only suggestions to the game graphically other than minimum being equal to KSP 1's minimum graphics

[ElliotWizerd]

As a person who has been programing games in Unity everything that Nate is saying is true.

[rebel-1]

On 3/11/2023 at 11:46 AM, The Aziz said:

I played MSFS. Still don't know where the "great" was. Looking at terrain, seeing the low res heightmaps with textures taken directly from bing maps that fail to accurately represent anything that's more wild than slight hills... MSFS did right the aircraft and atmosphere. Nothing else.

In a licensed game with connected loading of the earth's surface, the graphics are great.

Edited March 12 by Kerbal101

[The Aziz]

[snip]  I happily spent $1 on 3-month gamepass and used it - and like I said, while the atmosphere and ground from a distance are epic, the details up close are meh, and gods forbid if you're flying over a place that's not a worldwide-popular tourist destination.

At least in KSP every pixel on the planet has the same quality. Aside from poles maybe but that's a consequence of PQS system I assume.

Edited March 12 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[Periple]

8 hours ago, The Aziz said:

[snip]  I happily spent $1 on 3-month gamepass and used it - and like I said, while the atmosphere and ground from a distance are epic, the details up close are meh, and gods forbid if you're flying over a place that's not a worldwide-popular tourist destination.

It is relevant when discussing what the terrain system is capable of. MSFS’s system is really good even if the quality of the assets and terrain geometry piped into it varies. 

I’m really excited about the possibilities of HDRP/CBT for KSP2 because with a system based on them effectively the sky’s the limit for visual fidelity. Even if the initial version doesn’t look any better than what we have now, they can keep pushing it way further!

(Tech demos are tech demos though, always worth keeping that in mind )

Edited March 12 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[LameLefty]

On 3/11/2023 at 4:46 AM, The Aziz said:

I played MSFS. Still don't know where the "great" was. Looking at terrain, seeing the low res heightmaps with textures taken directly from bing maps that fail to accurately represent anything that's more wild than slight hills... MSFS did right the aircraft and atmosphere. Nothing else.

I have 350 hours of flight time in MSFS in planes ranging from the stock Cessna 152 to the PMDG 737-900. The sim is many things but it’s not a rocketry/interplanetary rocket game like KSP. By contrast, MSFS simulates real-world aircraft, systems, and terrain world-wide for thousands of airport, tens of thousands of points of interest, and over the surface of the entire world. There is absolutely no comparison with a Unity-rendered game like KSP.

Nothing to be upset abut MSFS visuals - it’s a FLIGHT simulator, and in that aspect, it excels. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 hours ago, InterstellarDrifter said:

wanna try again

Point. 

Missed. 

[MARL_Mk1]

On 3/11/2023 at 8:34 AM, RocketRockington said:

Then put up some screenshots of KSP2.  And I'll see if I can match them with modded KSP1 screenshots that show that KSP1's engine could do just as well, no need to use this magic PQS+ system that does things that were 'impossoble' before.

Screenshots of Earth aren't meaningful in this discussion.

You are wrong. 

[leedkd]

Isn't this technical explanation just an excuse? KSP2 has much lower frames while showing worse graphics than KSP1+visual mods. Showing good performance rather than hiding behind the shield of early access will be a reward for customers who do not refund.

[Periple]

13 minutes ago, leedkd said:

Showing good performance rather than hiding behind the shield of early access will be a reward for customers who do not refund.

They should just check the “make performance better” box in Unity! 

[leedkd]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

They should just check the “make performance better” box in Unity! 

Your 'make performance better box' means 'Graphic setting: Low', according to this dev diary. isn't it?  They say it is  their highest priority right now.

This is far from what players, including myself, were expecting.

[mattihase]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

They should just check the “make performance better” box in Unity! 

I wouldn't put it past unity to have included something like that, had it default to off, and hid it in a badly named bit of the interface that hasn't been updated in 10 years.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

They should just check the “make performance better” box in Unity! 

<s> Fixing the physics engine is just as simple as flicking a few switches, right????? </s>

[Periple]

Just now, mattihase said:

I wouldn't put it past unity to have included something like that, had it default to off, and hid it in a badly named bit of the interface that hasn't been updated in 10 years.

Oh, didn't you know? It's in the same panel as the "Make it massively multiplayer" checkbox! You have to dig a bit to find them

[mattihase]

Just now, Periple said:

Oh, didn't you know? It's in the same panel as the "Make it massively multiplayer" checkbox! You have to dig a bit to find them

Now that's just unrealistic. Unity's management hasn't bothered to assign any dev resources to fixing the multiplayer support for probably twice as longer than I've been using the engine and a good 5 years longer than unity's even existed.

I don't have the greatest degree of happiness about the state of unity.

Recently they swapped out the old source control system for a new 3rd party one, but never removed the UI for the old one so now there's a big deprecated source control button that can just crash the whole editor if you accidentally press it.