ronson49

Yes, one is spheres which I presume is the most performant model as it is just a point with radius. It has none of the complexity of connecting parts into compounds which is instantly a performance bottleneck. Cities Skyline has the Unity Look™ as soon as you build half a map.

I had been quiet just because there was nothing to see. As you know, I have a problem with Unity being used for a game of this scope which was my original point. Many people told me that "Next Unity is out of this world" "They will escape physics from the CPU loop and performance is outstanding". Doesn't seem to be the case, and I was expecting the "oh but its pre alpha" but that is pretty vague. We can assume that as a studio greenlit for a sequel, there is absolutely no way that the physics engine wasn't at the very heart of everything. The "foundation stone", and there is absolutely no way that the physics engine, is anything other than a first class citizen. You can't make anything else before you have your physics model dialed in and therefor at pre-alpha that should be done. The next year of the game is going to be developed assuming that is in place to make time for all of the other stuff which actually is the "game purpose". The Pre Alpha with just physics engine and some hit boxes should be like 60+fps and buttery smooth. I mean you just can't argue that "no the physics are just a side job and it gets done as it goes along". What you see there is what you are going to get. You can all see the "Unity Look™" [snip] The Unity Look™ is here and on that basis I stand by everything I have said about it being a primitive choice to realize this games potential.

When they said "Next Gen Tech", it certainly wasn't about the technology choice (Unity). lol Almost all of the footage, including the first seconds of the video, has the "Unity Look"™. The stuttery lagging renderer dropping frames for distant objects. This basically tells you all you need to know about how KSP2 is going to run, it is going to be very similar to KSP1, maybe a 30% part count improvement (skeptical) and at that point, they can add 1000% more scale to the concept, but all of it is going to come out of part count and that part count is the the life blood of the game being fun. 13fps approaching my space base? No thanks, it kills the game and this video does nothing to show me that the bar has been raised.

You are fooling no one, do you really need food, clothes, study or do you actually need a new gaming rig? Time will tell.

It is Unity, so whatever hardware you have (either today, or in 2025), it won't be enough.

For me personally, that is the killer to the game and why I stopped playing it. I don't have an interest in sending a few satellites. I am after a long term colonization. It is guaranteed that I am not going to get that while the game is using Unity. It is like a promise from the developers that I am going to be bitterly disappointed.

Unity can't even do that well!!!

I will just say no for the sake of this thread since my knowledge is outdated however, I am an avid reader of say, https://jacksondunstan.com for example and I know him from a previous technology. Always loved his dedication to his blog for all these years, and his psychopathic fixation on squeezing the last bit of performance out of any compiler he focuses on. I wouldn't therefor say I am clueless and spouting nonsense with no basis but I am hardly accurate either with the nomenclature. For example people are jumping on my "Unity is Java" comment shooting it down with pedantics, but the underlying concept is still true. Your Momo code is managed code and just like anything with managed code, DONT USE IT if performance is your goal. It is that which causes the "intermittent jitter" seen in ALL unity games. Since performance is the definition of KSP, meaning that, if the Engine runs at 2fps with 1000 parts.... that destroys the game experience. It means I have to design a ship with 500 parts..... to fudge Unity into running at 30fps.... By using Unity again, the same thing will happen. The concept is there, it is epic, it is so good, but alas, by the time I have a mun base ready to explore the solar system, I am at 3fps. My game should not be ending here, it should be just starting and my performance budget is zero. We need 100 times the magnitude of part peformance, and everything else should come second to that. We aren't going to get anything like that in Unity, and you can't just "optimise it away" like everyone is saying either. And this is just PARTS, there are people on the threads here talking about Voxel Surfaces, and Ray Tracing. I mean that is far far out into the realms of fantasy land!

You mean I expect more investment from a multi billion pound parent investor to correctly realize the game? Everyone is telling me "oh but KSP was just a guy in his spare time". Sure it was. TT is arguably one of, if not the biggest publishers in the world. And we are going ahead with `Start > Grandmother > Tools > Unity`. I mean you have to just laugh at it right? You can tell they (prominent defenders of the faith on this thread) are fan boys as well because for example somehow Unreal simply would be NO GOOD for KSP because basically it was optimized for FPS. Alright fair enough..... BUT somehow Unity is brilliant at this because what Unity has optimized is not FPS, it is not Flight Sims, or overly complex Particle based systems. The only thing that Unity has optimized is my Grandmothers learning curve. How does that possibly mean it is the only engine to use?? This thread is nuts.

I stand by it in this context.

Human Fall Flat is the only one I have recognized, and it sucks hardcore but granted, it is performant until that section with the rocks, then it grinds a bit. Because it dips a lot with merely 20-30 spheres, I do not claim this is a victory. I consider it a failure of the point. KSP needs upto 100 orders of magnitudes more than that in part count to make people happy. I am sure they just need to optimize a few things lol. Another note for those saying that you can do threaded physics, no you can't like this because each time a rod is calculated, it effects other rods in the resolver.

Granny can't make a splash screen, and she doesn't get analytics. She will still be harnessing the exact capability of what KSP2 has available. https://store.unity.com/compare-plans KSP is a very unique, very epic and very demanding title and to do it justice, it requires some kind of custom engine. I would likely start with something that doesn't assume I am a grandmother with no experience, then I would ask the multi billion dollar backer called Take Two, to put money into funding this unique engine to realize the game correctly.

I have asked this to be deleted and it hasn't happened. I didn't start this thread, the Mods started it for me. I simply said that Unity destroyed KSP. I loved the vast and epic reach the game had, but the technology choice let it down. I certainly won't be buying KSP2 because of Unity. So maybe KSP3 will use a bit more of a grown up toolset.

I am not doing 2d/Isometrics. I will go and buy Human Fall Flat right now. The Stanley Parable looks fresh out of 2008. Slightly better than 2004 Half Life 2. I aint interested in playing it. Also Both Unity and Java are the same only in that they are managed languages and will simply never be as performant at their non managed counterparts. When I keep saying my grandmother, I mean it is a laughable example of managed code is what I am getting at. I expect more from a publisher worth several billion dollars and I feel I should be getting support from the community on that

Yes it does, Unity is literally designed for my Grandmother to use, and those assumptions are baked into the Unity Engine architecture. Havok for example simply won't be anywhere near the performance of its Unreal counterpart for that reason. All of this is why Unity in 2019, is openly mocked in the wider games industry. It is cheap, it is cheerful, and it shows. I guess for me personally, i'd take any other engine other than Unity. Ugh, I would even take Unreal. At least it has a fragment of performance and requires a little more knowledge than my grandmother to correctly use it. I am waiting for that good looking 3d rendered unity game with reasonable performance. Let me know when you find it. As for my side, go and find ANY 3d rendered Unity Game anywhere on any platform. It will look muddy about 2007 and it will be sluggish. You don't even need to start playing the game, just go to the Menus to see the sluggishness. That is my evidence. Surely you can provide one? Since it is unlikely you can, perhaps you could explain why the games industry isn't dominated by Unity Engine games? Why is Take Two happy for Rockstar to roll its own engine, but relieies on an amatuer tool for this IP? Money grab? Maybe that is what I am missing, maybe KSP2 is just the same as KSP1. Don't spent any money on it, just pump it out reskinned? Perhaps I am expecting too much and that is the problem, not unity.

I remember you from my previous unity bashing thread, and you went quiet when I asked to provide a reasonable quality, reasonable performance 3D Rendered Unity Game. I haven't forgotten,

Can this thread be deleted please? I simply said that I can't buy KSP2 as it is using Unity, and the usual fan boys have come out moaning about it with their usual lack of evidence. This doesn't need to be a thread of its own.

Isometric isn't 3D, keep trying. If Rigid Body physics is the problem, then KSP (under the pockets of one of the bigger publishers in the world) should be starting with an optimized physics body system, and building a game from there. Not starting with the same underlying Unity Framework aimed at my Grandmother and her Indy game weekend jaunt.

So take two, arguably the biggest publisher in the world, a multi billion pound entity cannot afford any better tooling than what my grandmother can download for free and use today? Do you think that is acceptable when we are talking a game as great in scope as KSP?

@Brikoleur No one has provided evidence. I urge you AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME to provide a single 3d Rendered, Performant Unity game that can compete with 2010+ visuals. None of the Unity fan boys have. Try playing it on a modern Ryzen or Intel PC and grab something like a RX5700 or 2060 Super. You can throw high end gaming rigs at it, and it won't play any better than your old laptop. I need 10000 parts, not 200 and it is that which kills KSP in Unity. For KSP2 not to run like a old dog, You would need to believe that KSP2 will be the first Unity game that is 2-3 order of magnitudes more impressive than anything Unity has done before. If you believe that, that is fine. I don't as there is zero evidence.

[Moderator note: This topic has been split from another thread here.] The choice of using the Unity Engine means I can't play KSP2 KSP was one of the greatest games I have played in 2 decades, but Unity destroyed the game. Performance just fell off a cliff edge with a few dozen parts on your Mun Base. Even on the latest technology of the time. KSP2 is going to run straight into those same issues and there is nothing that you can do about it. Unity has make assumptions so that my grandmother can make a game this weekend too. Trying to code a solar system in there based on physics of this scale..... I am happy to put how much I love the game on hold until the day where it is done properly so I may properly enjoy it. KSP2 is just a long Pre Alpha until a later game (or competitor) is made in a reasonable and performant engine.

I am thinking (and please correct me! I am interested). You can see Unity like Java. In the sense that, Unity has a runtime executable written in C++ and then, developers author their work in C#. Effectively what happens now is that the unity runtime is put into the final executable first, and then, the authored code is compiled on a separate layer. Meaning that your final code is still C# managed output running on the thread, CALLING INTO the C++ runtimes?

It is just more of the same tired 2d/2.5d/3dplane (boardgame style). The bulk of this discussion is pointing out all these features but nothing exists beyond the pen and paper stage. And for all the people saying that Unity is somehow Assembly, that, the better you are, the better it is. Well not really. You hit the ceiling of the framework and the framework has to make assumptions so that my grandmother can make a game as well.

Looks nice!! Actually your comment made me end up here: https://unity3d.com/unity/demos Some appear to be downloadable..... I will try them when I am home as interested.

Some amazing knowledge in this post and I appreciate you all sharing it with us. Back on topic, all these features sound amazing. Is there anything in existence showing current (modern) versions of a 3D Unity Game that don't look like the "10 years ago" images above? Even Subnautica wasn't far off Halo 3.