Concodroid

it's all well and good saying you'll make the first mod, but the problem is the only thing that's been known is PBR textures. Starting work on it now is futile, even if the game's built in unity, the only things you can do now is come up with the models and the sounds. All the same, best of luck!

Good point

You expected a verbal communication, but it was me, DIO!

I am a developer at star theory, and I would never, ever, EVER post anything like that! In fact, I AM STAR THEORY! It's a one Kerbal show! HAHAHAHAHA! All those other people in the dev story are... Non-existent! "And that's exactly what somebody who isn't working at star theory would post!"

I have 16 gigs ram and a Ryzen 1500x, the game typically runs at 1:1, (if we're talking about the same thing; green time text means that it's 1:1, right?)

Nope. It isn't. It's graphical. We have problems with the computational part, the GPU isn't actually being used all that much. Also, what are your computer specs?

Oh, no, not for the whole of unity; just for KSP not being optimized.

Honestly, this person just posts things about unity with no regard to any of the evidence that you guys put forth, and this cycle will continue until the KSP 2 release. If it turns out it's badly optimized, we'll concede defeat (at least, for the "KSP 2 will be badly optimized" argument.* If it turns out it's optimized well, which it will be, this person will probably go quiet.... for some reason. @ronson49, please don't continue this cycle, read what they have to say and put out a thread respectfully refuting each claim they have; WITH EVIDENCE, and I'll be the first to agree with you, if it checks out. But right now it seems that you post things, allow people to prove you wrong, then call them out individually, and then go quiet when they prove you wrong again. C'mon, man, we're getting tired of it.

Vignetting is useless, unless you're trying to simulate old-film style, which KSP2 probably won't. Maybe add an asterisk and put threshold on the original list for everything that needs it

Well, publicity is publicity! If IGN doesn't know about this stuff, it doesn't really matter, as I'll bet most of their watchers don't care about metallic hydrogen anyway...

@sal_vagerif there's somehow somebody who doesn't know about KSP 2 and is still on the forum, could you update this post

Yeah, also, there was a free upgrade, people who didn't take it I honestly don't understand. Other than programs not working. Flight Simulator X was a big one, but even that's been fixed ( sorta)

Depends on the level of difficulty, and honestly, it's not worth it if it's a script. Blocks would be best.

How'd you do that?

Just make em options, right? I mean, there's a very, very easy way to make bloom appear only in very bright objects, just change the threshold. Make it really high, so basically planets / the sun on a near-black (or black) background shows bloom, not every single object. I think that satisfies both of us.

I think this sums it up pretty well. THIS is what I want my game to look like. Oh, no, that's not what the real world looks like. If we take away bloom and the like, we're left with this. Or a kerbin that looks like this, you'll have to add in the ground in your imagination. 5 The atmosphere's nonexistent! It's just gray! Just a tad bit of bloom and... This seems a little bit better. Remember, that's not supposed to be realistic, just to slightly improve it. I'll edit kerbin soon to show my point. Bloom is actually visible by the naked eye, just on bright objects with a very dark background. To see this, go out and look at a streetlight (at night) . Do you see ...or just a streetlight with NO glow/halo? Heck, the SUN has bloom. That's how Solar eclipses work. The Corona's basically bloom... ish. What we're calling "bloom" isn't actually bloom, per se. It's called bloom but differs in cameras and human eyes. It's due to the "dynamic range" of our eyes, and the short-range light source being outside it. People without glasses see it, people with glasses see it, not just 80-something people. Excessive bloom is annoying. Excessive anything is annoying, save for savings, performance and value.

lol we need many, many more mods to get actual physics.

Quite correct, well said! Although we do have to give the KSP devs a break, I mean, it is a game, after all, not a NASA super-high-budget simulator requiring 50 petaFLOPS! In all seriousness, If we wanted an accurate simulation, first we'd need KJR and FAR, I think, to get at least atmospheric simulations correct. Then we'd need n-body physics, and a whole host of other features that some people want in KSP 2, and some people don't.

Yeah, quite a friendly place!

It's probably network-side, sorry. Check the firewall, specifically from downloads from... where is it, s3.amazonaws.com? Try downloading it (USING A VPN) on a public network to a USB drive. Or use a vpn to download it on your home network.

The best? Manely. The one who got me into KSP? Actually, " 'tis was" Jacksepticeye.

Dude, calm down! Seriously, just make it an option in settings whether or not to have it, I think we can all agree on that, right? Personally, I don't mind camera shake, but bloom can be annoying if overused. However, when it isn't, it's beautiful. Take these two pictures I rendered quickly. Which looks nicer, and higher quality? IMHO, the second (depends on usage scenario, though). On pure black, the bloom makes it look great*! To see what I'm on about, take your hand and cover just slightly more than half the image, leaving just a sliver of the original blue bar and all of the atmosphere-like glow-y bits on that half. Now, bloom should be turned OFF for ground usage, and turned ON when looking at planets. But that's automatic when bloom is turned on, and make the default ON. As for the others, chromatic aberration is USELESS. Make it an option, default OFF. Lens distortion, again, option, default OFF. Etc. Honestly, that game example @sturmhaukeprovided was terrible, nice job! That's what we're trying to AVOID. Listen, there isn't much to talk about, just make it an option for all these things. Even if they have it there, and not changeable, it's not gonna be a "visual disaster", as modders can easily take it out, and the devs listen. They're among us now, anyway! *If you really, really hate it, then I get that, to each to his own and all that.

They're gonna have pretty powerful engines, tho

I'm new to the Dakar, how do we verify this?

Did you check the game files or the game itself?