aaa

[MajesticEagle98]

aaa

Edited December 29, 2017 by MajesticEagle98

[rkarmark]

No that will never ever happen ever

case closed

Edit: Welcome to the forums!

Edited April 15, 2017 by rkarmark

[Acea]

Xbox 360 is kind of obsolete now and I don't think there would be, since the (told to be crappy) existing version is for Xbox One 

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Acea said:

Xbox 360 is kind of obsolete now and I don't think there would be, since the (told to be crappy) existing version is for Xbox One 

Main issue is memory
KSP tend to crash a lot if you have less than 4 GB memory.
360 has 512 MB total memory who includes both graphic and system memory. 
PC typicaly has 8 GB +1-4GB graphic memory. One and PS4 has 8 GB
 

[Starman4308]

There's a significant chance your old Dell laptop is more powerful than the 360, anyways.

The Xbox 360 is over a decade old by now, and its hardware is creakingly slow by modern standards. Magnemoe's point about the memory is a complete game-stopper; there is no way KSP will fit onto half a gigabyte, quite possibly even if you stripped it down to the bare minimum of parts, removed some of the planets, etc.

[Temeter]

22 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Main issue is memory
KSP tend to crash a lot if you have less than 4 GB memory.
360 has 512 MB total memory who includes both graphic and system memory. 
PC typicaly has 8 GB +1-4GB graphic memory. One and PS4 has 8 GB

Technically PS4 and One only use 5GB for games. 3GB and two of the cores are reserved for the OS for some reason (not even windos is that inefficient).

Edited April 16, 2017 by Temeter

[ZooNamedGames]

4 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

There's a significant chance your old Dell laptop is more powerful than the 360, anyways.

The Xbox 360 is over a decade old by now, and its hardware is creakingly slow by modern standards. Magnemoe's point about the memory is a complete game-stopper; there is no way KSP will fit onto half a gigabyte, quite possibly even if you stripped it down to the bare minimum of parts, removed some of the planets, etc.

Ha. I was gifted a computer last year and it was an upgrade from my last and still my 360 is more powerful. 

I personally say that's it's possible. Then again, I also think it's possible to port Minecraft to the PS2 with enough trimming. So I'm crazy.

[The Aziz]

59 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Ha. I was gifted a computer last year and it was an upgrade from my last and still my 360 is more powerful. 

I personally say that's it's possible. Then again, I also think it's possible to port Minecraft to the PS2 with enough trimming. So I'm crazy.

@topic nah it won't happen, X360 is seriously too old. Five years ago, maybe, but not today.

[ZooNamedGames]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

@topic nah it won't happen, X360 is seriously too old. Five years ago, maybe, but not today.

Not saying it isn't old, just saying that it's possible if you put enough effort behind it. 

[The Aziz]

Like limiting framerate to 30 and lowering resolution?

 

[Starman4308]

58 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Not saying it isn't old, just saying that it's possible if you put enough effort behind it. 

Not really, probably not even if we threw whatever resources it took to make it happen.

In terms of a simple port: no. Both of these are written in high-level, partially-interpreted languages, that would require you to write a reasonably modern JVM (Minecraft) or .NET framework implementation (KSP) for the respective platforms. Then, you're still stuck, because they simply don't have the memory or computational firepower to handle what's being asked of them. Even stock KSP takes upwards of 2 GB, probably 3 GB, compared to the 512 MB of the Xbox 360 and 32 MB of the Playstation 2.

In terms of something that might possibly run on those ancient machines: only if you basically re-wrote both games from scratch, with a lot of effort put into manually micro-optimizing the respective code-bases... and by the time that got done, I'm not sure those games would look anything like what they do now.

Just because games look simple does not mean they are simple once you start digging into the code. For example, with Minecraft, assuming a very generous data structure (1x 8-bit integer for "what block is this", 3x 16-bit integers for "where am I"), the PS2 could barely put a 2000x2000 square grid of tiles (1-deep) into its memory. The 360... maybe, but it would be hard-pressed to do anything else while it was at it.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Starman4308
PS2, not PS3 has 32 MB of RAM

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Not saying it isn't old, just saying that it's possible if you put enough effort behind it. 

Yes its probably possible, Skyrim is an 360 game after all. 
However ti would require an total rewrite of the game using an new engine and an overall focus in saving memory.
In short making KSP2 would be easier. 

[ZooNamedGames]

35 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

Not really, probably not even if we threw whatever resources it took to make it happen.

In terms of a simple port: no. Both of these are written in high-level, partially-interpreted languages, that would require you to write a reasonably modern JVM (Minecraft) or .NET framework implementation (KSP) for the respective platforms. Then, you're still stuck, because they simply don't have the memory or computational firepower to handle what's being asked of them. Even stock KSP takes upwards of 2 GB, probably 3 GB, compared to the 512 MB of the Xbox 360 and 32 MB of the Playstation 2.

In terms of something that might possibly run on those ancient machines: only if you basically re-wrote both games from scratch, with a lot of effort put into manually micro-optimizing the respective code-bases... and by the time that got done, I'm not sure those games would look anything like what they do now.

Just because games look simple does not mean they are simple once you start digging into the code. For example, with Minecraft, assuming a very generous data structure (1x 8-bit integer for "what block is this", 3x 16-bit integers for "where am I"), the PS2 could barely put a 2000x2000 square grid of tiles (1-deep) into its memory. The 360... maybe, but it would be hard-pressed to do anything else while it was at it.

Yeah and every time I see someone say "it can't be done" I see someone who doesn't have exceptional skill, technique or hardware prove it can be done. 

So, yes. The hardware says that. Human ingenuity says otherwise in time. 

[Starman4308]

5 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes its probably possible, Skyrim is an 360 game after all. 
However ti would require an total rewrite of the game using an new engine and an overall focus in saving memory.
In short making KSP2 would be easier. 

I'll hold you up here a sec.

By some standards, Skyrim is a very simple game; maybe a few dozen actors at once (in cities), very few interacting bodies (no giant tree structure of mutually-interacting parts such as a KSP vessel), a few projectiles going around here and there, possibly sneak calculations to evaluate; really, not much.

What makes it look impressive is graphical glitter, and that's really a separate discussion, because you can to an almost arbitrary extent turn graphics up or down. Not enough VRAM? Use smaller textures. Not enough rendering units? Use fewer polygons.

KSP, though, is a hardcore physics simulator where the game must, each physics tick:

Calculate aerodynamic forces on each and every part.

Calculate gravitational forces on each and every part.

Calculate the forces exerted between connected parts.

Calculate thermal flux between parts.

Handle PartModules. For example, it's got to figure out where to rotate the solar panels, it's got to generate thrust from engines (if applicable), it has to draw fuel from the correct tanks, etc.

If CommNet is installed, calculate a path back to Kerbin (probably an A* graph search).

Propagate the orbits of all non-loaded vessels (some non-trivial math).

Check to make sure that each Vessel is still a Vessel, and that you haven't had any decoupling, planned or otherwise.

Calculate the fraction of fuel left to each engine for display.

Check all existing contracts to see if any conditions have been fulfilled.

Mono says we're out of memory? Time for a GC sweep!

And there's almost certainly things I'm forgetting. Even on modern machines, even with vector instructions, KSP can be very badly CPU-limited, and old consoles will scream trying to keep up.

[ZooNamedGames]

5 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

I'll hold you up here a sec.

By some standards, Skyrim is a very simple game; maybe a few dozen actors at once (in cities), very few interacting bodies (no giant tree structure of mutually-interacting parts such as a KSP vessel), a few projectiles going around here and there, possibly sneak calculations to evaluate; really, not much.

What makes it look impressive is graphical glitter, and that's really a separate discussion, because you can to an almost arbitrary extent turn graphics up or down. Not enough VRAM? Use smaller textures. Not enough rendering units? Use fewer polygons.

KSP, though, is a hardcore physics simulator where the game must, each physics tick:

Calculate aerodynamic forces on each and every part.

Calculate gravitational forces on each and every part.

Calculate the forces exerted between connected parts.

Calculate thermal flux between parts.

Handle PartModules. For example, it's got to figure out where to rotate the solar panels, it's got to generate thrust from engines (if applicable), it has to draw fuel from the correct tanks, etc.

If CommNet is installed, calculate a path back to Kerbin (probably an A* graph search).

Propagate the orbits of all non-loaded vessels (some non-trivial math).

Check to make sure that each Vessel is still a Vessel, and that you haven't had any decoupling, planned or otherwise.

Calculate the fraction of fuel left to each engine for display.

Check all existing contracts to see if any conditions have been fulfilled.

Mono says we're out of memory? Time for a GC sweep!

And there's almost certainly things I'm forgetting. Even on modern machines, even with vector instructions, KSP can be very badly CPU-limited, and old consoles will scream trying to keep up.

The whole idea behind early game design is to make shortcuts; simplifications and known hardware workarounds to make the game work. Taking these complex calculations and thinking of a simpler way to have the machine run it in a single frame. 

Sure. It's impossible. Someone else who says, "hey, why are you calculating it this way?" And gives an answer that makes it possible. 

I'm a dreamer. In the same vain as space travel, it was science fiction and foolhardy. So is this. 

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

I'll hold you up here a sec.

By some standards, Skyrim is a very simple game; maybe a few dozen actors at once (in cities), very few interacting bodies (no giant tree structure of mutually-interacting parts such as a KSP vessel), a few projectiles going around here and there, possibly sneak calculations to evaluate; really, not much.

What makes it look impressive is graphical glitter, and that's really a separate discussion, because you can to an almost arbitrary extent turn graphics up or down. Not enough VRAM? Use smaller textures. Not enough rendering units? Use fewer polygons.

KSP, though, is a hardcore physics simulator where the game must, each physics tick:

Calculate aerodynamic forces on each and every part.

Calculate gravitational forces on each and every part.

Calculate the forces exerted between connected parts.

Calculate thermal flux between parts.

Handle PartModules. For example, it's got to figure out where to rotate the solar panels, it's got to generate thrust from engines (if applicable), it has to draw fuel from the correct tanks, etc.

If CommNet is installed, calculate a path back to Kerbin (probably an A* graph search).

Propagate the orbits of all non-loaded vessels (some non-trivial math).

Check to make sure that each Vessel is still a Vessel, and that you haven't had any decoupling, planned or otherwise.

Calculate the fraction of fuel left to each engine for display.

Check all existing contracts to see if any conditions have been fulfilled.

Mono says we're out of memory? Time for a GC sweep!

And there's almost certainly things I'm forgetting. Even on modern machines, even with vector instructions, KSP can be very badly CPU-limited, and old consoles will scream trying to keep up.

Yes, KSP is CPU heavy because of lots of calculations.
However 360 is probably better at single tread cpu load than One or PS4.
It does not have to be memory heavy, that is just because of limitations of unity and probably non optimized code. 
Best way to solve this is to load and unload things on need. 

[The Aziz]

40 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Best way to solve this is to load and unload things on need. 

Then again, rewrite half of the code.

Cmon, minecraft can run on potatoes (pocket edition, duh, also ps3/x360 released years ago, and very limited compared to pc version), skyrim is probably the same age now (right? Both games released in November 2011?), and as someone said, was meant to work on consoles back then. KSP was not. For the majority of development it was pc only game, and now relying on past generation consoles is not the best idea in terms of possibilities.

SimpleRockets could probably work there though.

[ZooNamedGames]

16 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Then again, rewrite half of the code.

Cmon, minecraft can run on potatoes (pocket edition, duh, also ps3/x360 released years ago, and very limited compared to pc version), skyrim is probably the same age now (right? Both games released in November 2011?), and as someone said, was meant to work on consoles back then. KSP was not. For the majority of development it was pc only game, and now relying on past generation consoles is not the best idea in terms of possibilities.

SimpleRockets could probably work there though.

Yeah. It would likely need independent work and rewriting; doesn't mean it's impossible.

Thats where I stand. That if someone (definately not Squad) put in enough effort, it is possible.

[Starman4308]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

However 360 is probably better at single tread cpu load than One or PS4.

Almost certainly not. While the clock rate on the One's CPU is significantly diminished vs. the 360, the One has almost a decade's worth of improvements in IPC behind it, plus a larger cache, AVX vector instructions, faster main memory, etc.

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

It does not have to be memory heavy, that is just because of limitations of unity and probably non optimized code. 

While a large fraction of KSP is, indeed, bloat caused by baffling decisions like "let's load textures straight to RAM, lol", a substantial fraction of it is legitimately based on being a heavy-duty physics simulator with numerous complicated behaviors. I would be very surprised if you could cut KSP down to fit in 512 MB without eliminating some of KSP.

And this is all assuming somebody is willing to throw enormous amounts of money to micro-optimize a game for an obsolete platform.

[Curveball Anders]

6 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Yeah. It would likely need independent work and rewriting; doesn't mean it's impossible.

Thats where I stand. That if someone (definately not Squad) put in enough effort, it is possible.

While it might be possible to "(back)port" KSP to a 360 it would require a total rewrite of almost all code and serious refactoring of most art assets).

But why in the world would anyone spend such massive amount of resources to make it run on an outdated system?

[ZooNamedGames]

43 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

While it might be possible to "(back)port" KSP to a 360 it would require a total rewrite of almost all code and serious refactoring of most art assets).

But why in the world would anyone spend such massive amount of resources to make it run on an outdated system?

Why did someone port a game as stupid as Desert Bus to the Atari 2600? People do it because of achievement, desire, passion. Why is a good question, if not the best one. There's no reason to. These people make no money. Little fame or notoriety in the process and yet they do it. As far as stats and logic go, there's no reason. The only possible reasoning falls to the reason of "being human".

[stosyfir]

Lol well, why do anything? To quote an unnamed egotistical Starfleet captain .. "Not to mention the biggest reason for climbing a mountain.." ... "Because it's there". That being said yes, there are some serious technical challenges to putting the game on 360, doubtful it would be doable other than a small for funsies project.. I don't seeing it being stable by any stretch of the imagination without stripping out some serious components of the game.. almost down to what's in the demo even maybe. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by stosyfir