KSACheese

To clarify: are you referring to a technical definition of "volumetric"? I was referring to the more general "volumetric", i.e. having volume. I have absolutely no technical background, so I defaulted to my more general understanding of the word volumetric.

I'm confused how you got to the conclusion that the clouds that we see in the other screenshots aren't volumetric. Looking closely, they have very similar 3D "textures" (for lack of better words). Also, the show and tell, as well as the previous Dev Episode are from a completely different perspective than the screenshots we've been getting more recently. Surprise, surprise, the bottom part of the cloud won't be visible from 40,000 feet. There is no indication from what we have available that the clouds aren't volumetric.

I have the same thought process with career mode - contracts like "build a space station", "build a surface base", or "put a satellite here" push me to play the game in a way that I wouldn't be incentivized to in science mode.

I'm buying day one, but I have been saving all of my KSP playing for next month, not to mention I have sent Kerbals to very few places in the system, so I will be sinking quite a bit of time into it, I hope.

The way I see it, feedback is less about the individual reports from players and more of the consensus of the individuals. We already see that now, with posts such as "add weapons to KSP", mentioned previously, garnering a generally negative response from the community.

I mean, we still use props in modern aviation and even spaceflight. See Ingenuity.

Hello again, everyone, New screenshot from the Intercept Discord… Personally, I’m very impressed with how the shadowing looks in this one!

For anyone not in the Intercept discord... These look pretty sweet :))

I don't see the problem with doing a marketing run on KSP 2 EA, really, as long as they market it as that. Really, I feel like a marketing campaign for the two "releases" would be appropriate, and would generate more attention at the same time. If they market the early access release by saying it's early access, and then market the full release as a full release, I don't see any problem. Why only market one or the other? Heck, Rockstar has limited marketing for every single GTA Online update. Why can't this be the same for the two largest milestones in KSP 2, early access launch and 1.0 release?

Blackrack, are you more focused on having a baseline baseline config, similar to the current version of EVE, and leaving the more complex configs up to the other modmakers out there (see AVP, Spectra, etc.), or do you want to make your own complex config to meet the standards set by mods like AVP or Spectra? I can already see that you're approaching aspects that weren't in the old default EVE config, like the sandstorms on Duna and rain on Kerbin, so I was wondering if you plan on continuing that further at all. Just curious

yea but it cool lookin :))))

Question for blackrack: will the clouds in the upcoming update only be available for celestial bodies with an atmosphere, or all bodies like it is now? I ask this because mist/dust is a feature I've always loved on the Mun and Minmus from other EVE packs, and was curious if this would still be possible. Thanks :))

From what I've seen, it's an early access build through Patreon, but I can't confirm for certain.

Woo! I figured there was something going on with some Steam games. Really appreciate the confirmation!

I honestly don't know if I'm more excited for KSP2 or this... this looks awesome! Great work!

This is also exactly what I'd like. Having a balance of realism and just outright goofiness is definitely what I'm looking for.

Orbital mechanics and aerodynamics are already part of a successful gameplay loop in KSP1. As I have discussed at length, I believe that an advanced aerodynamics model will be harmful to the success of KSP2's gameplay loop and overall success among new players. Really, we're not arguing for the "simplification" of anything, rather to keep the physics in the game simple enough to be enjoyable, while still satisfying.

The KSP2 team is already trying to make tutorials simple and as baseline as possible. A tutorial that needs to explain a multitude of complex aerodynamic characteristics would be quite counter to that, I think. The only way to have simple, accessible tutorials, you need a simple, accessible game. Plus, I think it's fair to say one major goal of the KSP2 team is to open the KSP community to a new audience and getting them interested and excited. As much as I understand why some like playing in advanced, it shouldn't be the default. If you make the skill curve too steep, you can drive a portion of your audience away. It is something that should scare KSP2, since that goes against what they are really trying to do. Not to mention, from a wholly economic point of view, making a game frustrating to play or too boring to learn would definitely not inspire increased sales.

It's not about shying away from teaching them, it's inviting them. Motivation is a huge factor in someone's willingness to learn. If they find they like flying planes, they can find a way to fly them more realistically. But a player shouldn't be frustrated to a point where they have no interest in learning further, and I believe some percentage of the newcomers would by an aero model that's not appropriately designed to introduce them to the concepts. You don't go from elementary to college right away, and why should that be the case with them?

Honestly, I get the argument for having a more advanced aero model. And, in some ways, I kind of agree. Introducing a more advanced model from the start probably wouldn't hurt the intuitiveness of the game for new players, as long as they are willing to learn. However, from my personal experience playing with FAR, it kind of annoys me. Not that I can't play with it installed, it just is kind of a hassle to play with sometimes. As moderately experienced player, if I find FAR annoying to deal with, I imagine it might be a bit more to someone who has no idea what they're doing. To me, the FAR-like flight model had so many factors that it was, at times, hard to keep track of. With the stock flight model, it's appropriate to just measure by the simple characteristics of aircraft - center of mass and lift - which makes it much easier for an inexperienced person to deal with. If it were possible to merge the two, meet somewhere in the middle, I'd be much more willing to agree. But my experiences with FAR push me into believing that a more stock-like aero model would be more appropriate for the (hopefully) thousands of new players. Also, I just have more fun with the stock model, but that's just me :))

Oh, man, that is AWESOME! I was wondering if this would be put to use. This is gonna be amazing. And so much for a dead post, huh?

Finally, a use for my 3080!

Hey, blackrack, quick question about EVE: Volumetrics, do you plan to integrate the behavior of the clouds with the weather present below? I.E. will an appropriate rain cloud develop when there is rainy conditions below? Or will it just be random clouds that present with weather? Just curious. Thanks!

I respectfully disagree to this sentiment. KSP, in its base form, has never been about strict realism. Personally, I think that most of the realist side of things has come from the modding community, with mods like RSS/RO, FAR, Principia, Kerbalism, and so on. I mean, look at the Kerbals. If they aren't a physical embodiment of the goofiness that KSP has in all aspects of the game, I don't know what is. I see your point, but I would say that realism, in some aspects, hinders accessibility. I've struggled quite a lot with FAR as an experienced KSP player myself, so being tossed into a realistic aero experience as a new player may be overwhelming. This isn't black and white, and I thought I made that apparent in my original post. To be clear, I think that advanced aero has a place in KSP. There is a huge portion of the community that plays KSP for realism, and I appreciate that aspect of the community. I just don't think it should be something that is present in the base game. As it is a job for the modders now, I think it should be in KSP2.

I really think these concerns can be alleviated with the development of mods. Sure, it will probably take a while for a comprehensive atmospheric simulation mod to be developed, but it will eventually be released, that I am certain. As much as I respect FAR for being a fantastic, challenging mod, one that I have used in the past, I would agree with some here that having a more realistic flight model (while, again, a great challenge) would be counter to the vision of accessibility that the KSP2 team seems to have. Personally, I have been playing with the stock aerodynamics model for a little while now, and while yes, it is simplified, it is more fun for me to play with. I think it is more than acceptable to use a similar aero model in KSP2 as a baseline. Also, the train bit is also quite funny, but brings up a point - a more advanced aerodynamics model would be prohibitive to the core KSP experience in a way, as, at least to me, KSP has always had a base of goofiness and a "lets see if this thing works" attitude. I think with a stock aero model like FAR, this wouldn't be (as) possible. I do respect that people would want a more advanced aero model, since people have their preferences and their styles of play. I just think that starting at an accessible level and being able to mod it to a more advanced one would be a better way to go about it. I don't think its really anything to be really concerned about, though. Advanced aero will come, one way or another.