lajoswinkler
-
Posts
5,866 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by lajoswinkler
-
-
Using that logic, you shouldn't watch any film. Ever. At least this one is trying. I honestly don't understand why some people enjoy to attack films that are trying to elevate above the mediocre. You don't hear such attacks with really dumbs stuff, but as soon something goes higher, there's the nerd police to fling turds like monkeys. That's so sad.
-
So we should view the game as a shortsighted, astigmatic wearer of (poorly chosen and 16th century) corrective eyeglasses who doesn't bother to wipe them off dandruff and skin grease? At the expense of computer resources? Good to know what passes under "reality" nowdays. It's not really surprising that entertainment media pumps out horrid looking stuff - it realized crap is good enough. -
You guys are nitpicking (yes, yes, you can't remove it completely but even late 19th century lenses do a damn fine job, and you need special situations to even notice it nowdays) for the sake of defending something rarely anyone thinks is good. It's a horribly annoying thing and there's no need to ruin the vision in the game like that.
-
There is nothing realistic about that. To be honest, I don't remember seeing chromatic aberration on any "rocket photos and videos". Chromatic aberration is a consequence of simplest lenses found in absolutely the cheapest toy cameras, the ones with plastic single element lenses from USSR or China. Technology beyond crap, even in early 20th century.
-
Really? Eyeball grime? Bad HDR? What possible purpose would those things have in KSP other than making the game look ugly?
-
Yeah, that's why everyone uses Astronomer's visual pack in KSP. /s
-
Related to the film.
-
Namely because it would be useless usage of valuable computer resources which are better spent on performance or part number. Other than that, most people who are into KSP love the visual realism of space.
-
I voted for the second option, but ideally it should be dynamic response. No stars in daylight conditions and let's say ten seconds of gradual reveal of the sky in night conditions. However, the skybox itself, even in KSP after the skybox was apparently redesigned, is still quite ugly. Poopy color, I call it "London fog". Quite horrible looking, and it's something really ugly when visible in daylight. Sadly, KSP 2 trailer showed this ugly thing is still there.
-
Yes, I haven't understood exactly what we were talking about here. I get it now. *brainfart*
-
It would be nice but not achieveable with KSP and likely not with KSP 2, either. KerikBalm explained why.
-
edit: I think we're talking about framerate issues here. That's where the confusion arose. Again, you missed the point of the thread. Does anyone even read before commenting?
-
Hah, if this were only true. No, it is not an artifact of shutter speed. We're talking about video, not photography here. In recent films, it's often used intentionally to hide things that would be too expensive for the predicted budget. And then others copy such "look" to seem "professional", but there's nothing professional or high quality about it. It's just annoying. Keyword - should. The whole point of the thread is when these things are forced upon us, at the expense of quality and performance, so that people have to mod the game to turn them off. Also it's sad that they're overused in cinematic videos because there's nothing beautiful about it. It's a fad people laugh at even today, and I'm sure it will be looked down on in the future.
-
I was reading one article and it made me think, again, how annoying these things are when forced and used for the sake of being used, and how disappointed KSP 2 would be if its developers would go towards that path. motion blur - please no, this is annoying even in films where it's used to hide the fact the scene is poorly made eyeball grime - VFX atrocity that is trying to convince you how you're looking into the world through scratched, dirty plastic or eyes without eyelids, with damaged corneas chromatic aberration - just horrible. It's a favorite tool of hipster attention seekers on various mindless social networks where duckfacing is a norm. Lens makers solved this in mid 18th century and it's called achromatic lenses. film grain - when used as a temporary effect in cinematics, it serves a useful purpose. If used all the time, it's just annoying. shallow depth of field - effect that says it knows what you want to look at better than yourself. Please, no. lens flare - computer monitors have a limit of brightness, so this is a good way to show something is really, really bright, like the Sun in field of view, if used decently, as a spice, however healthy human vision doesn't have lens flares so it's better to ditch it. bloom* - Who wants the feeling of watching the world through greased, foggy window? This is one of the worst things a computer game can force upon the user, especially the one where spaceflight is featured. It makes airless bodies look as if they have atmosphere. This belongs to late 70s and early 80s music videos. It's not pretty. Makes me want to wipe my screen with window cleaner. (*bloom does appear in human vision when small part of the field of vision has intense luminosity, and the rest is very dark, therefore it could be used in rare occasions as a measured procedure, but not far from Kerbol) overblown HDR - initially, made by overzealous amateur photographers who just discovered HDR and don't understand it's not supposed to look intense and weird, but since then this atrocity has been copied by some VFX artists. Please, for the love of aesthetics, just don't. vignetting - annoying artifact of old lens systems that photographers profoundly hate. Enormous money has been invested during the history of photography to attenuate it as much as possible. I think I saw some bloom in the trailer and it made me grind my teeth. If you have some additional horrible VFX you are afraid of being used in KSP 2, feel free to mention them here.
-
This is weird: Are the winners obliged to provide such statement? I think using someone's identity to advertise a product is not ok. This is asking too much for a simple loading screen image contest... Also, can we upload lower resolution here, and provide the original in case of winning?
-
[1.3.X] Duna Restoration Project v2.0
lajoswinkler replied to Whirligig Girl's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I'd just like to say I'm still eager to use this. Hopefully the official texture revamp of KSP will consider it. Duna is so ugly now. -
Parts of that article are good for final digestion process.
-
Orbiter located and made a thermal image of the lander. Seems like it landed, but it's quiet.
-
Unexplained gel, AKA Mystery Goo, discovered on Moon
lajoswinkler replied to Superfluous J's topic in Science & Spaceflight
This is all a product of three things: - partially silly secrecy of China - average Americans not knowing what gel is - American media clickbaiting online Glass, unless exceptionally pure, is a gel. Gel is not necessarily a wobbly thing you eat. It's a solid colloid. Volcanic glass is gel because it contains colloidal particles suspended in glassy matrix. There's literally nothing weird about this. -
More trailers, teasers, whatnot.
-
Why is everyone fixating on rover looks? Did Hollywood brainwash people so much that they don't understand that Apollo rovers were not a fashion choice, but exclusively functional industrial design? Lunar surface is no place for heavy automobiles. Mass stays the same regardless of gravity. Weight decreases, and therefore friction decreases. Good luck trying to stop a fast moving heavy vehicle in such conditions. There's also a problem of heat management. Big bulky stuff is a bad choice. And where do you see Earth's gravity in the chase scenes? I see just one faster falling motion at 01:28 and that's it. But when stuff is colliding, it's clearly lower gravity.
-
I don't see any strange shadows... It's dust suspended by electric force.
-
Neat screenshots from IMDb.
-
SF, it's called SF. <3
