Squad should STOP ALL development and do this now

[MaeharaProjekt]

I think "Squald" should stop all development...

 

...for a few weeks and spend some time away from the office, have themselves an adventure full of model rockets of questionable design which have an unfortunate tendency to catch fire, maybe have a spa day, definitely get drunk, take a deeeeeeep breath (or hyperventilate), and then go on a bug-hunt.

[Chel]

I second this! 

[SlinkyMcman]

Given the console galaxy background upgrade, there is a non-zero chance that adding some clouds are already on the to-do list since visual updates are clearly something the devs are prioritizing. This is the sort of thing that could definitely be optional for lower gaming specs, and probably is well within reason for intel graphics. As for people wanting fixing bugs to take priority over visual upgrades, I think that may be a false dichotomy.

[Kerbinchaser]

Sorry to be so direct, but this is a very illogical statement. You don't just stop all development of a huge open world space simulator to focus on adding some mundane feature. 

If you want to add clouds, why not also mention wind effects, dust storms on Duna, improved solar flares, water refraction, etc?
You can see that this just doesn't make sense for Squad/Take Two's development plans at this point. I do agree with you, better scenic elements on Kerbin and other planets/moons would be nice, but for the time being, just go download SVE or EVE. I can actually run both on my Mac pretty well, and from orbit, they look stunning. 

So next time, maybe add a suggestion instead of just hitting all caps and effectively screaming at Squad. You should be happy with the current game, it's huge, well developed, (in my opinion. I know I'll get attacked for this ) and fun to play/mod. Heck, with a little bit of tutorial videos and some hard work for a few months, you could add clouds yourself. 

-Lachland

[Lisias]

14 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

Given the console galaxy background upgrade, there is a non-zero chance that adding some clouds are already on the to-do list since visual updates are clearly something the devs are prioritizing. 

Not necessary - the galaxy background is just a big texture that are rendered when nothing more is on the way of the camera. There's very little GPU processing here - it's essentially taking a texel from a texture coordinate instead of bluntly painting a RGB color.

Clouds, on the other hand, needs a heavy GPU processing because they are painted over an already rendered image, so the GPU must take the image's source, mangle with it, mangle with this neighboors , and drawn them back. And them do the same with the next pixel. And so on.

If you interested on the thing, how about trying it out yourself? You can use Blender to toy with the idea:

Spoiler

 

 

[Capt. Hunt]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

Not necessary - the galaxy background is just a big texture that are rendered when nothing more is on the way of the camera. There's very little GPU processing here - it's essentially taking a texel from a texture coordinate instead of bluntly painting a RGB color.

Clouds, on the other hand, needs a heavy GPU processing because they are painted over an already rendered image, so the GPU must take the image's source, mangle with it, mangle with this neighboors , and drawn them back. And them do the same with the next pixel. And so on.

If you interested on the thing, how about trying it out yourself? You can use Blender to toy with the idea:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Especially since there already was a background in game, all the new one involved was a new texture and probably some code changes to allow a higher resolution.  EVE style clouds is a whole different kettle of fish.  Also, anyone who says "just make all the devs work on this feature," doesn't know how software development works.  Just because you're on the dev team doesn't mean that you can magically code anything a customer wants.

[SpaceCube2000]

On 3/6/2019 at 6:15 PM, seyss said:

Squald should stop ALL development and divert all resources in implementing PLANET CLOUDS ASAP!

Squad wouldn't have to stop development in order to implement clouds. I think that incremental improvements would be more effective, as Squad has already been incrementally improving graphics with the part overhaul, reflections and new skybox. 

[seyss]

KSP players are plagued by inferiority complex.

We've been asking for clouds for almost half a decade, and we're still being ignored.

Just recently reinstalled scatterer+clouds to check it out, it TRANSFORMS the game... that's what KSP is missing: new, stock, well-done, and fast environmental visuals!!! No excuses. I'd give up stuff like true-altitude, node burn info, etc for this.

 

[Chel]

5 minutes ago, seyss said:

KSP players are plagued by inferiority complex.

We've been asking for clouds for almost half a decade, and we're still being ignored.

Just recently reinstalled scatterer+clouds to check it out, it TRANSFORMS the game... that's what KSP is missing: new, stock, well-done, and fast environmental visuals!!! No excuses. I'd give up stuff like true-altitude, node burn info, etc for this.

 

You're not being ignored. They're not implementing clouds because of graphical limitations on old PCs and other things. 

If you want your clouds, then download mods. Ultimately KSP is driven by the way the developers want it to go, and they make the decisions. 

And how are they making excuses? 'No excuses.' in your words

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, seyss said:

KSP players are plagued by inferiority complex.

Just because you have a passion for clouds doesn't mean all of us do. Personally, I don't care that much. I'd sooner see other improvements, like contracts and the tech tree in career mode.

[Aeroboi]

On 3/22/2019 at 3:53 AM, sturmhauke said:

Just because you have a passion for clouds doesn't mean all of us do. Personally, I don't care that much. I'd sooner see other improvements, like contracts and the tech tree in career mode.

IMHO they should merge the most popular tech trees out there and make them option selectable during the career settings. IIRC every tech tree is a small Kb file that shouldn't encumber any hardware requirements

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/7/2019 at 1:21 AM, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Hmm

Clouds aren't the best option right now. They can't just stop working on everything to just appease you, they have a company to run. I could go into depth about this, but I'm choosing not to

- Cat

I'm pretty sure this topic was meant to be a joke. 

[Klapaucius]

On 3/8/2019 at 11:10 AM, Lisias said:

Had you asked yourself why such Add'Ons are slow? What make you think that it wouldn't be slow too if such feature is incorporated on KSP?

There's no free lunch. You need to write code for doing things, and then this code uses CPU time at the expense of other code.

Good points. Question from a non-coder...how does a game like Simple Planes do it?  That has a much lower CPU draw than KSP and yet it has clouds AND wind (which I think is even cooler, since we already have amazing mods for clouds).

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Klapaucius said:

Good points. Question from a non-coder...how does a game like Simple Planes do it?  That has a much lower CPU draw than KSP and yet it has clouds AND wind (which I think is even cooler, since we already have amazing mods for clouds).

Wha's "heavy" on KSP is not the graphics, but the physics engine. Each single part you strap on your craft is a "entity", with tis own rules and physics properties. And the KSP core needs to calculate the physics and movements for every part, and then cascade the effects on the attached parts.

In a example: the engine has a mass, an ISP and a thrust. Once KSP determines if the engine have the fuel to work, the thrust is applied to the engine (subtracted its mass 'weight'). The engine, so, "pushes" whatever it is attached, than so needs to have the current weight subtracted from the force. Whatever remains of that force is applied to the part in which it is attached. Fuel tanks needs to have the weight recalculated once its fuel is used by the engine, and then the process starts again in a loop. This is what happens on the "fixedUpdate" Unity callback, by the way,

(and I didn't even touched atmospheric flight - see my example as what happens when you are in deep space, so far away from the nearest Reference Frame that its effect on you is negligible)

I don't know about Simple Planes, but I'm pretty familiar to Orbiter. In Orbiter, each whole craft is handled as KSP handles a single part. So, a vessel on KSP with 130 parts is way more CPU intensive than an Orbiter running 130 concurrent vessels (in Orbiter, you only collide to the ground - there're no collisions between vessels!!).

Wind is simple to implement - it's a Force Vector that you applies to the resulting craft's movement vector. KSP doesn't have it by design. It's not a "expensive" feature, Squad just choose it doesn't fits on their vision on the Game. Since I got some Private Pilot lessons as young (also have a license as small boat's master - believe me, I know about navigation) , I can understand why they did it.

I don't know about Simple Planes, but if they choose a hybrid approach between Orbiter and KSP (i.e., they cooked up a kind of "compiler" that weld all that parts into a single one), they saved some serious CPU juice on that. And then could use the sparing CPU to make clouds - assuming they are "clouding" the same way Scatterer is - there're some ways to paint clouds on the screen - but most of them are terribly ugly on flight simulators . I'm a Flight Simulator addict since the 80's (yeah, I played Flight Simulator 1 e 2.0 - used the latest on some Pilot lessons, by the way), and I can tell you for sure: "cheap" clouds would make KSP looks bad.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Lisias
typos, tyops, tyops everywhere! :)

[Klapaucius]

3 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Wha's "heavy" on KSP is not the graphics, but the physics engine. Each single part you strap no your craft is a "entity", with tis own rules and physics properties. And the KSP core needs to calculate the physics and movements for every part, and then cascade the effects on the attached parts.

In a example: the engine has a weight, a ISP and a thrust Once KSP determines if the engine have the fuel to work, the thrust is applied to the engine (subtracted it weight). The engine, so, "pushes" whatever it is attached, than so needs to have the current weight subtracted from the force. Whatever remains of that force is applied to the part in which it is attached. Fuel tanks needs to have the weight recalculated once its fuel is used by the engine, and then the process starts again in a loop. This is what happens on the "fixedUpdate" Unity callback, by the way,

(and I didn't even touched atmospheric flight - see my example as what happens when you are in deep space, so far away from the nearest Reference Frame that its effect on you is negligible)

I don't know about Simple Planes, but I'm pretty familiar to Orbiter. In Orbiter, each while craft is handled as KSP handles a single part. So, a vessel on KSP with 130 parts is way more CPU intensive than an Orbiter running 130 different vessels (in Orbiter, you only collide to the ground - there're no collisions between vessels!!).

Wind is simple to implement - it's a Power Vector that you applies to the resulting craft's move vector. KSP doesn't have it by design. It's not a "expensive" feature, Squad just choose it doesn't fits on their vision on the Game. Since I get some Private Pilot lessons as young (also have a license as small boats master - believe me, I know about navigation) , I can understand why they did it.

I don't know about Simple Planes, but if they choose a hybrid approach between Orbiter and KSP (i.e., they cooked up a kind of "compiler" that weld all that parts into a single one), they saved some serious CPU juice on that. And then could use the sparing CPU to make clouds - assuming they are "clouding" the same way Scatterer is - there're some ways to paint clouds on the screen - but most of them are terribly ugly on flight simulators . I'm a Flight Simulator addict since the 80's (yeah, I played Flight Simulator 1 e 2.0 - use the latest on some Pilot lessons, by the way), and I can tell you for sure: "cheap" clouds would make KSP looks bad.

Thanks for the detailed response. Interesting stuff.  It probably also explains why I don't find flying or building in Simple Planes nearly as fun, despite the scalable parts in Simple Planes.  KSP seems to have a lot more variables that come into play.

[Lisias]

2 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

KSP seems to have a lot more variables that come into play.

Crashes change everything. (Cindi Lauper feelings!)  

[StarStreak2109]

I think we need to be realistic here:

1. KSP is still sort of a niche product. I think the ROI difference between a AAA title and KSP is tremendous.
2. Having said that, we should be grateful that Skwod are still continuing work on KSP, for whatever it is worth.
3. Furthermore, I do not believe however, that big style changes will come to KSP beyond small-ish QoL improvements.

I have said this before and will say it again: KSP does not need anymore DLCs or continued development. What KSP needs is a (spiritual) successor that has been made with a singular aim in mind and not like KSP being a mish-mash of work of dozens of different developers and whose original scope was way below what it has become today. As has been pointed out above already, the issue with KSP is not graphics, but rather physics, so I believe that a better physics engine would be in order to take advantage of recent CPUs. Then a suitable graphics engine with up-to-date graphics would follow suite.

My concern however is also, if there was a successor for KSP at any stage, that it would probably not as open to modding as KSP is. I would be afraid of a similar development such as e.g. going from MS Train SImulator (where you had a good payware landscape, but also literally thousands of high-quality addons that were freeware) to Train Simulator 2019 (which is basically 95% payware addons).

So yeah, I would appreciate (and I guess the modders as well) if KSP would be frozen at a sensible point in time (e.g. when most of the serious bugs have been eliminated). If any DLCs would flush further money into T2's coffers, one would hope that it is being used to develop a KSP 2, but I would not put my hope up, especially since DLCs for KSP are kind of senseless IMHO, given the quality some modders put out...

[mikegarrison]

On 3/9/2019 at 11:24 AM, Blaf said:

Depends. But i would happily spend 20 bucks for some significant graphical overhaul DLC.

I would pay $20 easily if all the other bodies in the system were detailed on the surface like Mun.

[seyss]

56 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I would pay $20 easily if all the other bodies in the system were detailed on the surface like Mun.

Me too. I’d even pay $50 for a well-done environmental pack.

There’s just no options for us willing to spend and eager to this game to grow 

 

 

[MrChumley]

17 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

What KSP needs is a (spiritual) successor that has been made with a singular aim in mind and not like KSP being a mish-mash of work of dozens of different developers...

I disagree fully (Tell your brain to ease up on the anger for a sec, let me explain.)  Please don't take this personally, I am talking about ideas here.

The way I see it is that: That's what KSP is!  This WHOLE THING is a collaboration.  WE ARE THE M0NKEYs (LET THAT SINK IN FOR A SEC)

I think that it is a safe gamble to say that some of the top minds in present on our WORLD have been involved with this collaboration.  That's part of the magic of KSP.

17 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

and whose original scope was way below what it has become today.

I think this is the part you misunderstand... 

Every "creator" involved with KSP modding/dev has an aim to make it "MOAR BETTER!"  It's all the little "MOAR BETTERs" together that have created what we know and love to be KSP.

Edited March 28, 2019 by MrChumley

[Fraston]

@seyss Oh please. clouds would make KSP run slower that the below 15FPS I get on my mac. 

The "stop all development" part of his thread is more cancerous than all the corium in the Elephant's Foot. 

I respect that people like visuals in their games, but... 

50$s for just environment stuff is way too much for me. 10$ for a feature I really don't care about would be way too much even. 

maybe in KSP 3.2 or something, I don't know, but not now.

 

[mannscla]

I have an absolutely HORRIBLE PC (with a few mods, it takes like 15 mins to load up KSP). While ppl with high end PC's can appreciate these enhancements, they would devastate my already awful framerate, and that is something that I couldn't live with in this game. 

[seyss]

4 hours ago, mannscla said:

I have an absolutely HORRIBLE PC (with a few mods, it takes like 15 mins to load up KSP). While ppl with high end PC's can appreciate these enhancements, they would devastate my already awful framerate, and that is something that I couldn't live with in this game. 

That’s why someone invented the OPTIONS screen. 

[StarStreak2109]

On 3/28/2019 at 2:48 AM, MrChumley said:

I disagree fully (Tell your brain to ease up on the anger for a sec, let me explain.)  Please don't take this personally, I am talking about ideas here.

The way I see it is that: That's what KSP is!  This WHOLE THING is a collaboration.  WE ARE THE M0NKEYs (LET THAT SINK IN FOR A SEC)

I think that it is a safe gamble to say that some of the top minds in present on our WORLD have been involved with this collaboration.  That's part of the magic of KSP.

I think this is the part you misunderstand... 

Every "creator" involved with KSP modding/dev has an aim to make it "MOAR BETTER!"  It's all the little "MOAR BETTERs" together that have created what we know and love to be KSP.

How can I be angry, just because we have a difference in opinion???

I appreciate that some of the charme of KSP was the way it was developed. However its focus has changed, at least IMHO. Since the acquisition by T2, it now aspires to be a mainstream game, it is no indie game anymore. That is why I said, if further development takes places, it should be to create a spiritual successor, not to further disimprove the game... (Exxagerating a bit here!)

 

[klgraham1013]

On 3/21/2019 at 8:14 PM, The_Cat_In_Space said:

They're not implementing clouds because of graphical limitations on old PCs and other things.  

At some point, if there's not a sequel coming (which I think there is), they're going to need to drop the "old PC" excuse.  This is 2019, not 2011 (early access), or even 2015 (release).  It's been a long time since the first minimum specs were set.

Back in my day, if you wanted to play a game and your computer couldn't handle it, you paid the money and upgraded.  That's life.  We can't all be catered for.  If KSP really wants to be a game as a service and last a decade, at some point it's going to need to make that leap forward in the specs department.  It already looked dated visually in 2011.  The art revamp is a step in the right direction.  I think it's time we rethink the "will it run on my 10 year old potato" excuse.