Dakitess

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.

Thanks for theses numbers, this is what I was looking for. Do other guys corroborate ? It's such a shame, really. I can't even understand how a KSP franchise game can achieve to damage the OG while the fans and passionate players are so dedicated and so hyped for a new one. You REALLY need to fail strong to manage something like that. Congrats, KSP2 team.

Yeah, when ? Don't you feel that the Forum and all the platform dealing with KSP (the whole franchise) definitely loose some momentum since KSP2 ? Not even since its final failure but even before, during its catastrophic dev ? I dare to say that, actually, on our french platforms (Forum + Discord + Twitter essentially), it accelerated the long decline even from the announcement back in 2019 : people were eager for a new KSP, more excited than ever and then you know the story, it got delayed, multiple times, we got some bad news, and during the final year of releasing visuals and enduring a very (very) bad communication, we were a majority to sense something bad approaching. Like, hear me : even during the last year before KSP2 anticipated access, the momentum of the french community actually decreased. What an achievement ! And then of course, the release and all the drama killed any hope. But more importantly, all of us players who were waiting for it as a new milestone to spend some thousands of hours, kept our eyes off the original KSP1, meaning no news, no crafts, no challenge, no adventures, no screenshots, etc. KSP2 damaged the whole KSP franchise and its community. Not only KSP2 itself : this is the main failure of this tentative, and this is a shame, a real damn shape to perform such an achievement. Seriously. Developing a new game and doing so bad that it damages the first successful one-of-its-kind opus. Hahaha, it sounds like a bad joke. Time might help people getting back to KSP1 : I am not ready to do so, for now. The last visual mods and updates associated might help getting back in a year or so.

I consider my last craft to be a mothership, I can speak about it for about an hour I think so I will keep it very simple : It's a big modular SSTO which has 4 main versions, this one below detach his air breathing engine to be able to reach the Mun and land there, it's the main version in mind. It's built all Stock, no mod or DLC parts, and with a good load of RolePlay in mind : all the crew cabins are connected, all the bay are accessible, pressurized, all the clipped tanks are emptied so that it fit the real available volume, etc, AND it had to be 1000t maximum, no compromises on that. I wanted it to be aesthetic and performant while keeping all the previous constraints, soooo... Yeah, there you go, took about 50h of design, testing and fine tuning and about +30h for the video itself.

If it happens, I really hope and I would be quite confident that his main goal would be to get a proper technically up to date game, like, a solid foundation of the core-game, nothing fancy, no Multiplayer, no colonies, no new gameplay, etc. Just KSP1, but running smoothly and taking benefit from 12 years of new graphics engine, new physics engine, news assets, etc etc, so that it looks nice and runs well. This is, to me, the start of a fresh and successful KSP2 which would then expand along the years, like a proper and legit Open-Access game which ensured the initial success of KSP1. Please, pretty please... This is all what we need, at first. Being able to build 1000+ parts on decent rig, with a massive overhaul of the graphics, to bring everything to another level and allow for some modding and new further contents.

100% sure is, like, alot.

I don't believe in any KSP 3.0 unfortunately, none that would be worth the name of the official game. And I definitely don't want to play any kind of ersatz, better play KSP1. Like, I don't believe in a Open Source Space Program for instance. No doubt that it would made with all the best wishes and motivation, but I doubt it would reach the quality of a KSP Successor.

When it comes to tribute, homage, there is not a lot of room for negativity. Though I definitely cannot read that "[...] you guys can stand strong behind Jeb knowing you brought something truly great to Kerbal and it's legacy". They damaged it so hard that I know more players who stopped playing KSP1 than people who discover the whole license and enjoyed it. Including myself, for dozens of reasons already mentioned way too often. Now this is time for a tribute and homage and thus I won't go further. I thank the team for the try, for their devotion against a very bad situation, for being part of what could have been the best game for another decade. So yeah, thanks for the tentative. It ended nowhere, but individually you're are not part of the failure, it just happened.

The music / sound design and the attempt to make a new modern UI, even if it did not end well. The attempt to make something new in the VAB with the WorkSpace, even if it did not end well. The attempt to get some new graphics even if it did not end well (at all, sorry). There were some attempts, some are barely positive since they were strictly mandatory, but hey, they did it anyway. And yeah the sound design was somehow very good, IIRC.

Yes I did, exclusively for KSP2 and was glad to do so. I have spent so many hours, I have developed so many activities around KSP, that it was clearly something I was ready to do to enjoy a NextGen KSP2. But we know how it ended and it was already quite clear some months before the release. The communication was so damn lazy (or maybe "very honest" ?... Nah, it was plain incompetence) about showing the game that all the defects were clearly visible and very not promising. And it delivered ! With a very bad game, aesthetically and technically speaking (To avoid speaking about the gameplay and the content haha). Fortunately, Hogwarts Legacy also came out, which I did not plan to buy at first, but which provided a lot of joy to play with my girlfriend, and it really took benefit from my new computer.

I'll definitely try to get a refund, then.

I'm really sorry but I'll go the TLDR route for that one. What I want from a KSP2 (a real one) ? Only ONE thing : to be technically up to date. I don't care about new content, new parts, new planets, new gameplay. I want my KSP1 to be recreated from scratch PROPERLY, with all the new techs, the new dev method, the new tool, with a pro-team, with a real budget to get the things done right. It would be KSP1 but beautiful (and I mean it, not what we got with KSP2, uh ? It's so friggin outdated, and aesthetically questionable !...) and running well and that's it, as a base. Then only, it would evolve, being Early Access if they wish to go that way, the old KSP1 fashion; but at the very least it would be KSP1 as it exist nowadays, but developed on a real up to date new fresh basis, ready to embed a whole new decade of contents, mods. I don't see how it cannot be the priority. Really, I don't. But that's something personal and I might be wrong, it also happens to me xD

So what ? Having a dead forum with 0 activities would actually be benefitable ? You won't see much "Today in my KSP2" topics or messages by now. Criticism has always been a way to show that we CARE of KSP2. The worst situation would have been a silent forum because of the difficulties, the bad communication, the very debatable choices, etc etc etc. It would have mean that KSP2 was dead in everyone heart. It's not what happened and it is for the best. In addition, the huge amount of criticism, even rough, harsh (but still in the limit of politeness of course) was the only way to show the KSP2 team that the game sucked, its development, their communication, etc. They even asked for it, I'll dare to say. The first months of KSP2 forum was really really bad especially because of all the defenders that would not accept that most of the players would rant about it, would criticize the choices, the prices, the performances, the graphics, the gameplay, the bugs, the wobbliness. It would then transform ANY thread in a fight between the "haters" and the "white knights", while there were a whole palette, a large nuance of opinion at first. It always end up with strong 2-side cleavage when you don't allow people to disagree. Let just the people disagree, hate, criticize, love, enjoy, like, help, doubt, etc. As long as it remains correct, polite, no need to say. It is just what we asked back in the day but, alas, we were still pushed by naysayers going hyperbolic or pretending our own opinions. Really, the worst thing would have been a dead silent forum with all the enjoyers (and their right to do so !) alone.

"This focus of visuals resulted in more fundamental design and gameplay decisions to take the back seat" LMAO, sorry, won't elaborate any further, I spilled my coffee while hearing this xD Actually I'll repeat here what I've said elsewhere : it's a GREAT video, thanks @ShadowZone for that investigation and this quality of content / neutrality on this very sad subject.

You actually belong to the majority of people that seems to not care a lot about graphics, when it comes to KSP2, I think. Majority might be right. GamePlay and content is essential. But I feel like for KSP2, this is a bit different. We already had a functional and feature complete KSP1 which was big enough to enjoy it for thousand of hours. But it was flawed by an IndieDev that started with a single guy, a 12 yo technical basis that barely got updated, and then got patched with new things, new content, new mechanics during a decade : it's not very "clean". KSP2 had the potential to fix that very main basis, to get everything equal to KSP1 but with a up to date foundation so that then, content would be added more easily, be it official or with mods. And in "Technical Update", of course, there is performance, stability AND graphics, enjoying 10 years of progress on that aspect. I really think that they would have gone further by now with that logic, content and gameplay wise, rather than fighting with bugs on an already outdated basis which won't please the "graphics and scenery guys", but neither the "content and gameplay guys", like you, since, well, it never went anywhere At the very least, having a KSP2 failing 1 year after releasing, but being the KSP1 clone while totally revamped technically speaking, would have been a major step forward, a milestone to take benefit from. @FizzleBop : sorry, did not really get what you meant. I guess it's about my grammatical issues, typos, etc : English is not my native language and I don't use any translator so that I can learn how to write more fluently, be it on official document with more attention, or on forum, with something more everyday language.

Which, eh, yeah, hum... indeed ? Yeah, like, does it change anything to the point ? Does it allow KSP2 to look like a 2015 game ? I won't ever understand that argument. It's specifically why so much graphics mods exist on KSP1 and why they are among the most popular. It's specifically why a new game developed from scratch by a pro team rather than a pile of update along 10 years based on an Indie Game by an "amateur" (as talented as he was !), was the opportunity to build something clean, with a proper updated basis, to allow for an up to date graphics while preserving performance and opening even more to the mod community. Yeah, really, that "So was KSP1" point is really out of my reach.

And still, the terrain and graphics associated remained so damn poor in KSP2. It's aesthetically ugly, which is a personal point of view involving taste, but also technically completely outdated. KSP1 with mods is definitely more worth its appearance than a 2023 KSP2 which looks crap AND very weird, inhomogeneous, almost bugged. Its physic is very perfectible (hitbox), its textures lacks consistency and details (and shaders, and...), it has barely no scatters, even less physical one, the Micro-Med-Macro topology is something between KSP1 and a 2015 game, has not character, no scenery, the lightning interact with every part of the ground so bad (horizon line in the backlight, please, seriously... It's like a staircase showroom xD), it doesn't match the craft colorimetry (or the other way), and the easter eggs are, like... Dropped assets with no transition whatsoever with the surrounding, not the same texture resolution, and react even worst to lightning. Really, KSP2 graphics is a joke.