Jump to content

PDCWolf

Members
  • Posts

    1,927
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PDCWolf

  1. Already gave you the like but that's not enough. Playing NMS, Sims 4, Cyberpunk, etc. you learn to appreciate deep puddles much more over shallow oceans. A couple of well intertwined, interdependent, deep systems, will trump loosely tied, individually canned "mechanics" any day. Multiplayer was promised for the original KSP. Still waiting on that,
  2. Price optimization is not something consumers can tackle, simply because of bias. $100 might be "worth" if you balance against playing the game for 10 years, but you've effectively alienated 90% of possible customers, as $100 is only a standard for collectors editions and other, bigger deals. Initial price is a barrier of entry, the very first one, no matter what pretty name people might want to put on it. I bought FS2020's Premium Deluxe because I know it's a product that won't have competition or a sequel for at least a decade, and it's going to give me thousands of hours, until a foreseeable alternative comes out, plus it carries an entire second market of payware/freeware addonds that will follow in its steps and abandon previous products. On the other hand, KSP2 right now looks mostly like a graphical update with some mods integrated into it, right after being bought out by a AAA publisher that gladly participated in poaching and cutthroat politics to sink the original studio in charge of the sequel. Further on, it now has a sea of competitors at indie price ranges that whilst not exactly filling the very specific niche, come damn close. Lastly, the original game was $15, bumped to $40 years down the line when the "release" came. Whilst their greed might be high enough for $60+, purchasing intent for this price range* [i believe] is very low outside of easily recognizable loyalists. *edit, this part is important.
  3. There used to be a couple of Argies chatting around in the Spanish subforum. Plus Ezequiel (Ayarza, from Squad) is also Argentinian. Argentum = Silver, Argentina = Made out of silver. Oof, I purchased on release, it's been like 2 years and 100+ hours later and I still regret my purchase.
  4. Thankfully, Steam is based and holds a complete record of my purchases: Back when I purchased the game for myself, 1 USD = 5.15 ARS back then, so ARS 72 for the game, when monthly wage was 3300 ARS (these numbers are about to go crazy, welcome to inflation) I then purchased the first DLC 5 years later, ARS 180 at 1 USD = 38 ARS (would be USD 4.7 converted back). Monthly average wage back then was 11300 ARS Also at the same time gifted the base game to a friend, notice how the now converted and regionalized price on a sale was less than the DLC, and about a third the price of my original purchase. Finally, BG released 2019, when 1 USD = 44.7 ARS, so converted would be 6 USD. Monthly wage at this point would be 12500 ARS. Now, if we assume KSP2 releases at a non regionalized 60 USD, I'd be paying 9900 (conversion + taxes), at a final price of 1 USD = 190 ARS, with a monthly wage of 33000 ARS. That's a huge jump, directly into non-affordability. Also yes, this retrospective depicts a 100% inflation in 6 years if you look at wages, but %3700 if you look at the Dollar.
  5. it'd be 6000 ARS + 65% in taxes (21% local VAT, 8% "solidarity" tax, 35% for a dollar transaction to a foreign party), not only does that make the game completely inaccesible (almost a third of the average monthly income), it also misses the point of regionalizing prices at all which is: Price regionalization was brought forward to equalize markets and ensure everyone has equal access to games, this is why games are exceedingly expensive in places like switzerland for example, but South American and Russian markets tend to be the "cheapest". I on principle refuse to support companies that fail to see this point. For you, 50 dollars might be chump change, here it's about half a month's wage, pre taxes, which means (and this still applies) that greedy AAA companies that convert their prices without regionalizing them have zero sales in our market and sailing remains very high.
  6. Those are all people that have KSP as a secondary theme of their channel, not their primary. Scott, shadowzone, etc never made content where they played KSP recreationally, it's always related to a concept they want to talk about. Matt has transitioned into news but the hit to views is clear, with real life videos having about half the views as his Kerbal videos. Stratzenblitz and VAOS, for example, are people that only make KSP content. Whilst I don't think either of them will have a conflict of interest, they are to lose a lot if they're forced to diversify. My preorder/purchase actions will heavily depend on how they regionalize pricing. If they go the AAA route thinking USD 60 = ARS 6000, that's a never buy, because not even on sale will it be worth it. Currency equivalence is not regionalization, and I don't support that practice out of principle.
  7. You seem to be the one most interested in an actual mathematical approximation. Yeah, Space Engine's HDR setting has its limits, plus it's either on or off. However, other settings like magnitude limitations take priority, as they directly hide objects below X magnitude. If you bring all the magnitude limits to max value, you'll see the entire universe, to the absolute peril of your computer. [snip]
  8. Never took it personal, that's why I said "ridiculing the argument", not me. Night at Callisto, no Jupiter to be seen, with same both settings as the previous post > Exposure "0" and Exposure "-9.5" (yes, it's all completely black). A very light colored ship in space - Here's the famous IXS Enterprise (She's bright white almost all over) , on a random patch of the Milky Way, with the galactic centre visible. Exposure "0" and Exposure "-9.5" Space Engine does not have a "dynamic range" setting, it's either normal or HDR. I'll give you some bonus shots of multiple settings on that second situation. Expanded magnitude limit, normal exposure, HDR: Heavily over exposed, with artificial ambient lighting, and HDR: Custom non HDR setting to bring out nebulas and clear some stars
  9. As much as you might want to ridicule the argument you forget that, since we're speaking of a camera, the math is all there to be calculated. Whilst we might have differing opinions on what is better and what isn't, the objective truth of what would a camera see in the interstellar medium is easy to find. Human eyesight is also pretty much calculable as well, which is what my first mathematical argument pointed to. I took a camera to the surface of Callisto, and adjusted exposure such that I'm not blinded by anything. Stars disappear from the sky, though the other moons are bright enough to remain as point sources. I kept the settings visible in the lower right corner. https://i.imgur.com/ebTwMhf.jpg Now, with those same settings, I moved the camera to random interstellar space midway from the core of the Milky Way. Welcome to the void. https://i.imgur.com/HwrZABn.jpg Since I'm not a fan of this either, I suggested in another thread that the camera should adapt its exposure. Here's a setting that allows us to see stars, the galactic centre, nebula, and even Andromeda back there. This is superhuman, but a camera with enough aperture and exposure can do it. https://i.imgur.com/Vz18xvQ.jpg This is what happens when you go back to Callisto's surface with those same settings: https://i.imgur.com/KTEt2Dx.jpg If you can see the green magic cloud, you can see stars as well (though still not the ship). You can't have one or the other, you either have both or nothing (this is exactly what your picture hints at). Further on, human eyesight has much better dynamic range than a camera, which is why astronauts can attest to such a full sky of stars when in space.
  10. What are the scope and camera settings for that? Because if you used those exposure settings anywhere else, you'd go blind in white as soon as anything brighter showed up. Bright stuff definitely hides anything nearby that's less bright. That's pretty much the point of the other thread. From that thread we also know that astronauts at night, what'd be the shadow of the Earth can see uncountable stars more than being on Earth. Even at night atmospheric extinction and pollution are still a thing here. Whilst the Rocinante image is exaggerated, the only thing that'd change is you'd see less stars total. I'll boot up space engine in a while and just take a couple shots, the objective side of this topic is clearly lacking some finalizing closure for some. Yep, point of this and the other thread: Exposure should adjust to the situation, so if super bright nearby stuff is in the frame, you don't see stars. If nothing bright is nearby because you're in interstellar space, you see almost all the stars. [snip]
  11. That's why I searched the mathematical answer. When looking at the ship you'd have no color vision, no capacity to discern details, and completely unable to do any sort of work if you don't have your own lighting. That's why the background being filled with stars is so poetic. You'd have a background filled with stars, incredibly more than we see on Earth, yet out of those millions of light sources, not a single one or the combination of all of them is enough for you to see something that's right in front of you. That's pretty much unique to dark space, yet "designers" insists that their solution of making everything pitch black, or put magic color clouds in space is "better". A bunch of bull feces.
  12. I should be asking you at this point, since you've been pretty much pushed the goalposts a whole marathon: "Yes [there's a light source] depending on exposure" > Mathematically disproven. Even with a whole lot exposure to see nebulae you'd still only see the black silhouette of your ship. "Gameplay over graphics" "Not an engaging gameplay feature" (over multiple posts, only bothered linking the first couple) > Yet you gladly never mentioned this again when reminded that lighting was part of the design [1] and gameplay [2] for the first game. "the player shouldn't need lights to interact with parts in the same manner." (another one with different wording) > Again, dodged when it was made clear that lights, even in complete darkness, aren't necessary pretty much by design with all the extra tools the game provides. Lights are rather just another solution on the list [1] [2]. "lights would probably erode on an interstellar vessel" (another repeat)> Simple stuff you're missing just to try and have a point, and then completely ignoring and jumping onto the next argument when called out. At relativistic speeds, damage wouldn't stop at lights, but the entire vessel. At FTL, dust and even gas atoms could be fatal to a spacecraft. Since you're ignoring my points anyway, here's Dr. Sten Odenwald explaining it in his blog. Now I gave you an image that is 99% pitch black image from KSP1, to the point the only parts you can barely distinguish are bright white, and suddenly that condition seems good enough for you to fumble around with parts. Even the weather is more consistent. I made this post recalling all previous points to see either what tidbit you nitpick to run off with, or how you'd dodge the entirety of the thread and come up with a different point. This is an opinion, and so happens to be different from mine.
  13. Lmao it's like really we haven't played KSP1 have we. Have some screenies, all from inside the solar system, on the shadow of planets: https://i.imgur.com/ygsRMJm.png and https://i.imgur.com/8pj1xqK.png Sure, you're not blinded, but unless you crank everything up, you still need lights. As for not using lights, laughable prediction at best. Even with super night vision, there'd still be not enough light to work. How they made it: How it could look with a bit more exposure if they'd gone for realism instead of random magic color clouds: That's what we're all gonna do, hopefully.
  14. Says, after a lot of participants in the thread clearly lack the ingenuity to put a light on their ships, or to use the extensive set of features designed specifically to operate under dark environments (all of which already exist in the first game). (all of which already exist in the first game). It's like we're discussing KSP2 but no one has played KSP1. Pitch dark environments exist in KSP1, and it already has a whole suit of tools to deal with it.
  15. I understand progression, but we're not talking about jumping from High TRW low ISP engines to a Nerva, we're talking about complete invalidation of a technology as soon as you unlock the next. In real life, gas lamps are still in use, widely, as we live in a world and society that's varied enough that people still have to give them active use, whether by circumstance, need or obligation. Plus, as you've said many times before, this is a game, and there's gotta be a balance around gameplay. If we've to throw an entire section of gameplay out the window, why even have it in the fist place? This makes sense, and is an attractive idea, but only solves the dilemma partially. Sorry 4 the massive off-topic, back to why we're here: The cold, dark, lonely vacuum between the stars is a unique setting, and the only place where the universe gets incredibly scary as well (unless you go intergalactic, or inter-supercluster. We'd be losing the experience to magical light. Sad.
  16. Remember that light emitted by the sun is also scaled down, that's why Eeloo is dark-ish as well. It'll really depend on how far apart they set those stars to be. If we haven't solved the devastating effects of collisions that can happen during relativistic (and let alone FTL) travel, then we haven't solved relativistic/FTL travel at all. This is a different topic, but how they'll manage relativistic/FTL tech whilst keeping chemical rockets relevant is still something I'm very much concerned about.
  17. Gotta love the dodging. You do not need lights on probes, you've got the highlight, action groups, the UI full of telemetry.
  18. You do not. You have instruments, a full UI providing lots of telemetry, and action groups and actually, for manned ships, Kerbals on EVA already have lights integrated into them. Hmm, kinda like it's all there for working in darkness, which you do already in all those scenarios I mentioned but you magically don't consider them the same: Landing in the dark is an engaging gameplay feature, packing lights seems ok by you. Docking in the dark is an engaging gameplay feature, packing lights seems ok by you. EVAing in the dark is an engaging gameplay feature, packing lights seems ok by you, suits have their own lights for this already. Going into interstellar space puts you in the dark, a pretty unique characteristic of this setting, but here light is not a gameplay mechanic, you need to see the ship magically at all costs... hmm?
  19. For you. On the other hand: Eclipses, atmospheric haze, solar panels, every mod that includes a greenhouse, landing on the dark side of a body, night launches, night docking. Lighting as a mechanic is already there in multiple forms, let us not pretend that this is the only way light would play a role. Autonomous ships don't need human input or vigilance in the first place, that's what autonomy is there for. However, in the case of KSP, you don't even need lights, remember that you have instruments, and you don't need to interact with the ship via clicking either, that's what a different mechanic is there for: action groups. Really you've failed to bring any problem that isn't actually already solved with actual mechanics that are part of the first game. Yeah, a reflective skin would help with visibility a bit, though working on the outside of a ship that's almost a complete mirror would be pretty scary and surreal. I'd doubt manned ships wouldn't include external floodlights along with something like collision lights.
  20. A game where you literally build rockets that can overcome the challenges of spaceflight... Guess we should remove batteries, as being able to control your craft trumps the novelty of electricity management. Don't take me wrong, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't try to disguise it as the obvious, objective, gameplay design choice. Fake ambient light is not gameplay, designing your ship around simulated mechanics is gameplay.
  21. Discerning is not the same as seeing, resolving, etc. That's why the discussion includes a mathematical solution and a simple to understand conclusion: "You will not be able to make out any kind of details. You will be essentially colour blind. You will be able to see the presence of "large" white/light objects, but details will be impossible to make out." Remember that this is for the case of being in eva and wanting to work on the exterior of your ship, so as close as possible. The purpose of the discussion is different, but it is rooted in the same subject matter: How cameras and eyes perceive stuff in different lighting situations. The other thread was "too much light, so you adjust down and lose dim stars", this thread is "too little light, so you adjust up and see stars, but it's still not enough light to see the ship". Finally, those starshades have a very different purpose: They're trying to see the planetshine on an object that's merely arcmilliseconds away from a light source (their parent star) hundreds of magnitudes brighter. Those "starshades" block a single star, only to be able to make out the planets next to it. If anything it proves my point on the other thread: Big light make small light not visible.
  22. Might come off as a jerk, won't deny that, but it is probably because I'm not a native English speaker. Anyways, my point in that thread was that, for cameras, adjusting the exposure to (for example) discern surface features on a sunlit planet, or "toning down" the sun to see the rest of the objects, pretty much removes any stars from the picture, as they're the dimmest light sources. Whilst for the eyes the effect might not be so extreme, they will still try to adapt to lighting conditions, thus looking at a bright moon, a street lamp, a reflective hull of a spaceship, or other light sources will also wash off stars from your sight. So in the end my suggestion was to follow reality, and dim (or disappear) the stars from the skybox when appropriate. In that thread I did not argue a single point with people that expressed opinions on whether they liked the idea or not, I only kept my arguments centered on people that wanted to discuss reality. In this thread, in interstellar space, you'd have a full background of stars, as they're the only light source, but they don't give off nearly enough light to illuminate a ship travelling in the interstellar medium. Thus you'd see not much more than a black silhouette, unless your ship was the brightest white possible (you'd barely gain any detail anyways). For those cases I presented evidence from the past thread, plus that new stackoverflow answer that mathematically calculates for eyesight that you would indeed only see the silhouette of the ship. My intention is (was, in the other thread) to cement what actual facts are, and we did that back then with simulation software, astronauts' experiences, and maths. What I wanted to do here is to reuse that same factual foundation as soon as I saw the discussion was going that same way. Hopefully, if we all agree on that factual foundation (hard to disagree without some good evidence), we can move on to actual opinions and not further beat the dead horse back into its constituent atoms.
  23. Gameplay would be using the tools the game gives you: lights and floodlamps. Relying on a magical hardcoded solution like fake ambient light is not gameplay.
  24. Are we gonna compare the decision of one or two game designers against the potential tens of thousands of voluntary searches and downloads of mods? Also, if you read again, what I have a problem with is attempting to objectively define "good game design". The extensive and super diverse catalog of successful indies gladly makes fun of anyone who thinks a single solution is the only way to design any game. wowowow, did you just attempt to give a realistic solution to a real challenge of interstellar spaceflight like putting lights on your craft? calm down bro, people don't think that far ahead as you can see. Yes.
  25. The difference from that discussion to this one is that here we'd actually see the stars, since those are the only light sources, and they aren't much brighter from one another to wash each other off the sensor. What we wouldn't see here is the ship, it'd be almost a fully featureless black silhouette if realism were to be followed. On that other thread we exposed how if you adjust exposure to see (for example) surface features on a daylit planet, or for the sun to not blind you, you'd be washing off stars from the sky. Just different situations that end up working the exact opposite. The downloads on mods like DOE, Scatterer, PlanetShine and other lighting fixes all kinda speak against the people that think they objectively know what good game design is.
×
×
  • Create New...