Dakitess

Yeah... Lol.

Is there a way to make it stop ? I deeply don't want anyone to buy this game even if they would have fun with it. It's simply unfair and I do want the studio to not earn any new money about that scam.

Which is... An issue with KSP2 development. Nowhere near a generalization to be made. None other game is struggling because of clouds or unable to deactivate / degrade them to get a game running on basic rigs. Again : I'm totally supporting the idea that a KSP successor should (or even MUST) run on... Very very old / basic computer. Just like KSP did, while being particularly badly optimized. I would even dare to say that my expectation of KSP2 would be to run 1080p with low settings (whatever it means, like lowering all the settings possible, but keeping 1080p) on a 2020 iGPU. Yes, yes, an iGPU. Because it's in the ADN of KSP to run on students laptop. On an unplugged computer in the train (might go down to 720p then haha, it's fine). It's really part of KSP, it has been played in places and condition like few other games. I even consider that if Stock KSP is running 20FPS with a given rocket in KSP, on a old-ish laptop, then it should run 30 FPS on the very same laptop, very same craft reproduction, in 720-1080p low, while being 3 times more beautiful. Because... Optimization, dev from scrach. KSP1 is supposed to be a junk when it comes to optimization, so the next one should be a high step better in this regard. I would not understand how it would not happen, except for laziness and bad choices / skill development. BUT this is totally compatible with beautiful graphics and aesthetic. Sure, volumetric clouds should not be impossible to deactivate if it's a bottleneck for low end PC. That's an evidence. Just like we CANT have a new KSP game in 2023+ without cloud in Vanilla. How could it be ? A space game, dealing with rocket, plane, atmoshere, etc, without... Clouds ? C'mon ! It's just a matter of developing them corectly.

Is it ? For real ? Like, do we have insight about that asumption ? Fair enough, it won't be totally "free" to ensure some low-graphics settings. But with the nowadays tools, using generic game engine and so on, is it more than 1% of the total work time to be spent on ensuring some ability to degrade graphics and improve framerate with very very very (very (very)) common settings that we see for more than 15 years now ? I doubt. And if it's 1-2% of extra work to allow low rig to be able to run your game, I really don't understand why this conversation, again, about clouds being "not necessary". Damn, guys, hell, do we really want to stick in 2010-15 ? I don't get it, do you really want the dev to be lazy ? To not spend time on scenery ? Why even a new game then ? For new parts, new gameplay, without new graphics ? Wow, really, it's strictly impossible for me to get around this. It became some kind of "gameplay is what matters the most" trend, for every game, like, "we don't care" : of course we do, it's mandatory ! You would not have the nowadays game with the incremental evolution of graphics and physics ! And at a time, it was all about water realism, then texture, tesselation, fake relief, lightning, resolution, vertices, optimization, etc etc etc : without those "I don't care about that game being more aesthetic" we would be stuck with damned ugly game. And again and again, scenery and overall graphics SERVE the gameplay. A LOT. Like, really. Please, go ahead, enjoy your 20yo Tomb Raider with so many vertices and textures that you miss the platform. Enjoy the camera doing excrements because the wall and the whole environment hitbox is not well enough defined. Enjoy the lack of shadows, details, textures of a beautiful scene, it surely is dispensable. It's not, it's just limited by the era the game appeared. Let us having a KSP-like with beautiful clouds, scenery, well detailed parts, state of the art terrain, correct lightning. I bet a finger that you'll still get the ability to run 720p resolution with 1/8 textures and no shadows, running on a 1050 or even a 2020 iGPU. Really I do, and then I don't understand why you would call for dev laziness. Damn guys. The ONLY way to get upset by research of good graphics is if it pushes the bar too high with a game that no one can properly run. Oh wait : KSP2 is ugly AND does not run well, haha. No need for aesthetic when even an outdated looking game is running so poorly. Blame the dev, the optimization, the choices, not the wish to get clouds and trees.

The threat of a Forum disparition also concerns the KSP1 part ? I would not mind at all the KSP2 section to disappear, of course, but KSP1 is a bit more problematic. I guess our own french forum will live longer then x)

I would just want KSP2 to be an up to date KSP1, technically and aesthetically speaking... And would already be happy with that. But knowing that I am not looking for any kind of new gameplay, it would definitely need to be a 2023+ game, not an aged garbage that already runs bad and look horrible at its launch. We need a NEW REAL KSP, new core, new foundation, new engine, new code, new optimization, etc. God, just give us a good and well developed KSP based on nowadays techs, plz, c'mon, that's all what matters the most, everything else can be build on top of that just like Mods did in the past. Better have an Exact KSP1 looking gorgeous and running well than a pile of nothing with new gameplay and weird decision. I know that a game should not rely on mod : that's why being a copy of KSP1 is already fine as long as we don't need any kind of graphics mod at first to make beautiful, not weird workaround to get it working right, playing more with Windows files and GPU libraries than Kerbals themselves. KSP1 was already feature complete to some extent : i'm surely biased since I play it 100% vanilla for 8000 hours, except for graphics mods, but c'mon, just don't aim for new things you won't be able to dev correctly without introducing tons of bugs, crippled perf, and so on. Let's have a base new KSP game that will then evolve, enhance, grow with new content, new gameplay. Of course some things need to be thought at the begininning of dev, but not everything... And ditch MultiPlayer if 'its a major obstacle.

Whatever the graphics max level as long as you can lower the settings to match a reasonable part of the players, a thing that the KSP2 OG game itself failed to respect, while being ugly, so... Yeah, I don't even remember why we would discuss about a game to *not* be "too beautiful" because of hardware limitation : just need to make sure to get settings like any nowadays game. I can run Hogwarts Legacy on crappy laptop if I reduce the resolution accordingly, as well as all the various settings. Then people with low end can run the game and are happy while the one who actually "invest" a lot more in their rig, got something to benefit from their horsepower and obtain a decent beautiful game for a decade to live with. Again, it's not about photorealism, please, get that out of the discussion. It's about doing something correctly. KSP2 is not photorealistic, by far, and it's not its objective, it's fine. But the direction chosen is just plain weird with a lot of laziness, and no, it's not ALL because of its EA state. I asked you if you thought it would actually improve enough, considering the dynamic of the team, of the updates, of the actual performances and so on : I personally don't think that the game would have been more than 30-40% more beautiful with 4-5 years of added dev. Except for mods of course, but, hell... We won't ever know. We don't care about KSP2, it's dead. I'm speaking about a new KSP like game able to live for a decade just like its predecessor, which was quite bad when it comes to technical aspects and global aesthetic. Just dated, that's it, and I would not like a new KSP game being out in 2025+ to look like a 2017-18 game at most, just because... KSP would benefit A LOT from good sceneries for plenty reasons that I won't repeat here, and I would not tolerate any kind of "laziness" about it just because "It's a KSP game and its community is totally fine with bad graphics. Objective bad graphics, not artistic choices.

@Lisias I get what you say, and can understand your point. But. What matter is... Do you truly (sincerely) believe(d) of substantial graphics improvement, by the time KSP2 was still running ? Yes, I get it, it was an EA and some work was planned to make it better looking : the contrary would have been plain dumb and not logical, of course. But I guess we don't speak of a 30% enhancement, right ? What would have make KSP2 a good looking game, is something like 100-200% improvements when it comes to aesthetic, technic, graphics wise, to me. There were really a LOT to do to get something "correct" and worth a KSP2 holding a new decade, basically. So my question is, based on what we've seen of they dynamic, and not talking about the last months of falling down completely, rather the initial and best pace of the EA, do you truly believe that the game would have enhance enough, graphics wise ? I really really don't believe it myself, by a good margin. Like, really. And then it does not really matters about that EA thing : be it in EA or not, my personal guess is that it would not have evolved anywhere near it needed to be in 3-4 years of full dev time. Sooooo, yeah, I consider KSP2 definitely lacking ALOT when it comes to aesthetic, and again, i'm not (only) speaking about Artistic choices but more about the game being completely outdated, betting on wrong tech, with a lot of laziness and poor hope of anything coming to a good end. I'm very genuinely surprised that people find it good enough, it's not a rant or anything but rather really some surprise that "it's fiiiiiiine, it's KSP...". Yeah, well...

If you're fine with that, go ahead, I'm not

Yup, fair enough, but then my point remains the same : good graphics would not be an issue of any kind, since it's not the bottleneck, and whenever it becomes, you can lower the parameters with generally dramatic effect on perf, until... Again the very badly coded physic is the bottleneck again, on the CPU. @Lisias I don't get it : of course i'm judging the game based on what it shown in its EA state since it's the only thing that we have. And of course I'm knowing that it "could" have improved, graphics wise, and I guess that it "would", to some extent. But as I said, it's not only a matter of time to make things better but also artistical choices. Let say that it's all personal and then focus on the technical part : sure, it's in EA. But priced as a full game. And it became an EA only at the very end, it's was not advertised as such before. And I think that we can all agree on the fact that, EA or not, it was deceivingly poor and the dynamic was not showing much improvements in that department with some cruel limitation imputed to the game engine itself and the dev saying they won't do any miracle about it... Like, we all knew that time would not have helped to get a "good" looking KSP2, only a "better looking" one along the years of dev, nah ? I guess it's enough for some, maybe for most. I feel that it's very frustrating. We would not have any kind of KSP3 before 2040 and the KSP2 would already look meh, at best with basically not hope to get THE KSP next-gen game with gorgeous scenery, up to date technically, yet able to run on basic rig by lowering graphics ? Why should we be "OK" for that, just because it's KSP ? It can take time to get better, i'm fine with that. But not with a totally compromised and limited core foundation that won't allow for proper good environment, performance, and all.

But... What about graphics parameters ?... It's very common for this main reason and in fact I totally agree that KSP games should definitely be running on low-end machine. I'll dare to say that a KSP2 game should actually run BETTER than KSP1 on the same machine, given the optimization throughout the decade, the game being natively developed from scratch (when appropriate of course) by a pro team rather than a mexican non-pro guys (at first, which gave the foundation and its limit to the OG), etc. I don't see any way for KSP2 to be limited by the fact that it should run on basic rig : just lower some parameters as we all do in other game, including very demanding one. Also, the new tools such as DLSS and so on completely change the way performance are measured : future low end graphics cards like a 5050 or even the actual one are very capable to deal with any 1080p max settings game, like, by a good margin. So it would be a shame, on the contrary, to not benefit from them. And I insist again that I'm totally supporting a KSP2 running like a charm on an old 1060 or even (yeah really !) a modern iGPU on a laptop, by adjusting some settings. Regarding the graphics not aging well : I've never defended something such as realistic aesthetic, I rather like the OG. A beautiful game, with some Artistic Direction and technically up to date, can be anything else from MineCraft to Gris, going through Tunic or Crysis. But it has to be coherent, persistent, homogeneous. No, not having AA in 2022+ is not OK, it's a flaw, not a decision. No, harsh and incoherent lightning is not about taste, it looks awful and ruin everything, including colors. No, having an horizon being a staircase line because of not enough polygones is not aesthetic, it's ugly and outdated (and AA lacking does not help haha). No, ground features like the Easter Egg being drop on the surface with a complete decoherence with the rest of the textures, lightning, shaders, and so on, is not something to wish or accept. It's just laziness at the cost of a full game, for one, as well as a cruel miss opportunity to get better and way more inviting and engaging scenery. Laziness and poor technical level added to a not suiting engine makes it frankly not beautiful nor futureproof and it's not any kind of artistic choices. It's just... Flaws and KSP is definitely worth better. Edit : and, guys, it's not like the actual KSP2 ran well, did it ?

Just keep the audio, please, dump the graphical part as well. This is by no mean a beautiful game, and it does not depend on personal point of view, not at this extent. Sure it's a bit more pleasing than raw stock vanilla KSP1, such a challenge huh ?! But come, we are not in 2015 or so, KSP really deserve some love when it comes to graphics... I can't understand how / why people are so OK about it just because "it's KSP, Graphics does not matter that much".

Ha, I would totally let down the "conceptual art" as well, I deeply HATE how KSP2 looks(ed). It's very very dated, technically speaking, but had some "unfortunate" engine limitation. But what is not a engine limitation, is the overall look of this game. The color palet is atrocious, the lightning is wildly broken and unaesthetic, the parts shaders are really weird and their modelisation is almost at the level of KSP1. The ground features is totally lacking, the clouds are... "They are", at least haha. Yeah nah, KSP1 was already outdated by the time it appeared, which was normal considering the context of the game and its nature, then it kept being outdated, which is normal since, well, old and "very indie" game foundation, and mods helped to keep it alive. KSP2 only added some polygons (not much) and clouds, basically, reaching 70% of what could be done on a 12yo indie game with community mods (...), at the cost of even less framerate, no AA and horrible art choices. Ha, KSP2...

This forum is the only one that I know, related to KSP, that have somehow (barely) survived the Discord wave. And just like you I really really mess this whole era. For multiples reasons : - Indeed, Discord is chaos when it's "successful". People won't care about the channel, the topics, it will always derive fast and strong. - Most youngers never used a forum or barely and thus they don't know what they are missing and while non-instant conversations are great. - Discord is... Completely not reachable from Google. Meaning that any constructive content, help, tutorial, workaround, etc won't ever appear on Google. Which is absolutely nefast for a game like KSP which remains A LOT on keywords, on finding an helpful post, a guide, etc. This is one the main grief I have about Discord and assimilated apps. - Discord is not meant to have Hundreds of pages, which is required for a game like KSP. One page for a mod dev, for instance, and you're already done, you won't ever be able to explore the database like you would on this forum. And again, they would not be reachable by a google search, sooo... Then Discord really have some advantages, it really connects people, with an instantaneous way that matters equally. For "small" communities, like 500 members at most, it makes sense, you can pretty much follow all the contents added, and you can maintain some kind of activities, of dynamism that would not work on a forum with such a "low" number, especially when the game is falling down very drastically. This is what happen to our french community, and I'm not glad about it, but at the very least, it's the only tool that allow our community to survive, to gather around a easy-to-use and convenient app, available on computer and designed for smartphone. Even if I'm not able to write down gigantic guide anymore haha.

No. Not even. Better go with passionnate guys an a new franchise, be it a copy of KSP, than another cash-oriented development by a new pro team, of the official franchise. "KSP2" acronym by itself is way too damaged, it's FUBAR, let it go. How sad is that ? I swear, as one of the most passionate player of KSP, I am not even a little excited by this news, which is so sad. There is a minor chance, though, that the new IP owner is... KSA team haha.