Why is Scatterer (or similar) not part of the base game by now?

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, mystik said:

Two things I want to approach. The "turning off on your machine argument". According to the Steam Hardware Survey attached somewhere earlier, more people than not, are not running potato hardware. So in essence, the majority have something that can benefit the visual improvements. I don't think the capable hardware folks should be held hostage to the potato hardware. Upgrade or turn off settings. Don't limit users, let users limit themselves.

Survival Bias.

The share of people on Steam with high end graphics is irrelevant. The share that really matters are the people on Steam that would be willing to buy KSP. If it happens that these people are on the other side of the Survey, so it's nonsense to waste resources on high end graphics.

Statistics are just a tool. You need a wise man to interpret them.

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/28/2019 at 2:31 PM, mystik said:

I bought the game when development was a thing you did, but now I see the developers are wasting time on parts redesign instead of fixing serious bugs

Then shouldn't they be fixing bugs instead of trying to implementing scatterer into the stock game?

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, mystik said:

Why are so many people shy to criticize SQUAD? I don't get it. Why are people so happy with the bare minimum on a product that they payed for? Do you think that bought early access bought it to be minimally happy about the way the game was or were they supporting the game so that it gets better later? If you actually believe that then I'd say you have a real issue with making your reasonable demands. I expect KSP to improve. I am not happy to see it stall.

We aren't, It just happens that some of us know better (usually by being a professional on the trade), and so we know when to bash their collective cheeks, and when to bash someone else's.

[Xurkitree]

Why is Scatterer not part of the base game?

Because it nukes my laptop's framerate, which is not a potato.

[Bej Kerman]

I make some big craft. Yesterday I got a ring station to space at about 10-20fps. If Squad was completely out of touch with its users (which it isn't thankfully) and decided against popular opinion to implement scatterer into the base game, that would've made the mission near impossible just because some guy wanted KSP to look a tad bit better. Squad should be using their sweet time to be implementing things useful, like Precise Maneuver, like they are doing atm instead of pleasing some guy who gotten too used to overly realistic and beautiful games by implementing Scatterer.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Bej Kerman
Grammatical error

[StrandedonEarth]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:27 AM, mystik said:

"Buh my potato laptop" is not an argument for using dated graphics. Buy a better one. We shouldn't be held hostages to your outdated choice of hardware

I don’t consider my laptop a potato, because it can run plenty of games, compared to others. It just chokes on excessive eye candy. Buy a new one? Okay, I’ll go pluck a dozen C-notes off the money tree in my back yard. Or maybe I just won’t feed my family for a few months. Or yank my kids out of their roller hockey league (the one thing that gets them to willingly turn off their screens).

The ones that can afford to upgrade their PCs or consoles every two years are mostly the young adults with a job living with their parents. They’re also the ones buying the AAA eyecandy twitchy games at $80 a pop. You’re not held hostage by players with old computers (FYI the only reason I have a PC this “good” is AirMiles) cuz “there’s a mod for that.” As I said before, Squad has better things to do than work on something that won’t benefit a significant portion of their customer base. 

E: My PC serves my purposes and I have no need to upgrade it, certainly not because someone on the internet tells me to

Edited April 5, 2019 by StrandedonEarth

[mystik]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Survival Bias.

The share of people on Steam with high end graphics is irrelevant. The share that really matters are the people on Steam that would be willing to buy KSP. If it happens that these people are on the other side of the Survey, so it's nonsense to waste resources on high end graphics.

Statistics are just a tool. You need a wise man to interpret them.

Are you trying to say that only the poor are buying KSP? It isn't exactly cheap. Also, if you are somehow stating that the people with good hardware are not to be considered for new purchases, then aren't you just confirming my theory that people with capable hardware are put off by the outdated graphics of the game and decide not to buy it? So then wouldn't it make sense for SQUAD to update the graphics? Is this not logic to you?

Yes, statistics are more than numbers, and I would know because I studied them in college. So, by your theory, what disqualifies the majority of good hardware people from actually playing the game? If I am to study the numbers and assume a blunt representation, I would expect that since the majority of hardware is above potato level, then the majority of KSP owners would fit into this category as well. Unless you have some numbers to show that most of the owners of the game are from the potato hardware portion? From this there can be only 2 outcomes:

1. There is a equal representation of potato vs good hardware, which would mean that more KSP players have above potato level hardware -> KSP should upgrade the graphics;

2. There is a higher representation of potato hardware than good hardware, which means that more KSP players have potato level hardware so the question is why aren't more good hardware users buying the game? -> Well, they probably don't see the game as worth it because of the graphics, which means that KSP needs to upgrade the graphics.

Now, by upgrading the graphics you can keep the minimal settings as they are. But offer the option for enhanced graphics for those that can handle it. This is why I say I don't understand why the good hardware players need to be held hostage at the current level of graphics just because some people have potato hardware. Let the potatoes play at potato level and then let loose the good hardware to have as much extravaganza as they can handle.

If someone can explain to me why upgrading the graphics would cause harm to the game then I am willing to hear it. And before you say that it is "coding time" and that costs money, well, revamping the parts also costs money, but you are not getting the same amount of bang for your buck. Because potential buyers won't see the level of detail that engine has, they watch "gameplay footage" and they cannot see those nice rings on the engine shroud. They will see excrementsty terrain textures, no atmosphere effects, missing lighting realism... They won't bother with micro graphical details. They will look at the game as a whole.

Fite me, brah, prove me wrong! (Debate wise, of course).

Edited April 5, 2019 by mystik

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, mystik said:

Are you trying to say that only the poor are buying KSP? It isn't exactly cheap. Also, if you are somehow stating that the people with good hardware are not to be considered for new purchases, then aren't you just confirming my theory that people with capable hardware are put off by the outdated graphics of the game and decide not to buy it? So then wouldn't it make sense for SQUAD to update the graphics? Is this not logic to you?

Graphics and people with lots of computing power are irrelevant to KSP when you need to be able to build massive rockets and not have most PCs melt. KSP probably isn't the game for you considering that you don't seem to care for gameplay at all and only care about graphics.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Bej Kerman

[mystik]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Graphics and computing power are irrelevant to KSP when you need to be able to build massive rockets and not have most PCs melt. KSP probably isn't the game for you considering that you don't seem to care for gameplay at all and only care about graphics.

The engine itself has proven to be crap when building large ships. So what's the solution? Upgrade the engine to something that can handle the load or lower your expectations.

I, for one, don't care about large ships. I can play the game fine and dandy with average sized ships that do just the things I need. You want mega structures? Buy a mega computer for all I care. Or ask for upgrading of the game engine.

If you think that enabling better graphics for hardware that can handle it is wrong, then I would have to question if you're not somehow envious of those with better hardware? You can play at the potato level as much as you want. Heck, you can play at the potato peel level if that if what you want. I'm sure there are mods that reduce the textures to insulting low levels.

I don't care for equity in game experience. But I do care for equality of opportunity. Allow me to freely use my ability and capability as free as possible by measures of hardware meritocracy and don't hold me back [snip]

A capisce?

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I don’t consider my laptop a potato, because it can run plenty of games, compared to others. It just chokes on excessive eye candy. Buy a new one? Okay, I’ll go pluck a dozen C-notes off the money tree in my back yard. Or maybe I just won’t feed my family for a few months. Or yank my kids out of their roller hockey league (the one thing that gets them to willingly turn off their screens).

The ones that can afford to upgrade their PCs or consoles every two years are mostly the young adults with a job living with their parents. They’re also the ones buying the AAA eyecandy twitchy games at $80 a pop. You’re not held hostage by players with old computers (FYI the only reason I have a PC this “good” is AirMiles) cuz “there’s a mod for that.” As I said before, Squad has better things to do than work on something that won’t benefit a significant portion of their customer base. 

E: My PC serves my purposes and I have no need to upgrade it, certainly not because someone on the internet tells me to

Post some specs.

I don't buy AAA games.

I am married.

I don't live with my parents.

I upgrade my hardware to modest levels every few years.

I have a PC and not a laptop, because I understood that the worst deal you can get is a gaming laptop, due to constantly needing to replace it as a whole every few years. So instead I did the smart thing and went desktop, having to upgrade partially every few years instead. And by upgrade I mean last year's mainstream thing. So you see, I don't spend money like a dumbass, I buy mostly affordable or used parts. My CPU was just $65 and my video card was just $120. And the funny part is? I don't even live in the US where these things are definitely more affordable. I live in Eastern Europe. I just save a few bucks every month and then when the time comes I upgrade something. I don't smoke or drink, in case you're wondering how I can afford to save, but we're not here to talk about lifestyle choices or bad habits and nor am I insinuating you are doing any of these.

Get off your high horse and don't try to subtlety insult me thinking I am not gonna catch on. You know nothing about me and I wasn't talking about your life choices or your lifestyle. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Vanamonde

[Dman Revolution]

7 hours ago, mystik said:

Everything you said is wrong.

The game does not teach you math. It can make you use math, but to use it, you have to know it. The only thing it does is teach you some basics about orbital mechanics, but nothing more. Everything else is broken in the sense that it does not make scientific sense.

I have a G4560, a budget dual core CPU, not even close to your i7, and the same video card. I max out on all settings and run comfortably (60 fps) any ship I designed (including the ones in my signature). I can record and post it here to prove it, I'll use MSI Afterburner to show the numbers. I mean I don't know what you're doing wrong on your pc, but that should run better than what you're describing. You gotta invest in some ram, in case you're still running 4GB, because this game is so poorly designed it just gobbles up all your ram.

So there must be something wrong with your ships. Mine never have issues with performance. I usually limit my stuff to around 300 parts with minimal clipping. Again, that because I learned that the code is garbage and causes huge amounts of ram to disappear when you start building ships too large or too complex. If an i7 cannot keep up with your ship design, maybe it is time to rethink how you build.

And also, KSP is anything but minecraft in space, that sentence makes no sense. Minecraft is a resource gathering and item crafting game. What resource do you gather here exactly that allows you to craft? If you're going to say credits, then that means any RTS, city builder, or whatever game that involves credits is minecraft. Surely, they aren't.

If you are looking for a minecraft in space experience, I would say Astroneer is what you're looking for, a game that, by the way, is running on the more demanding Unreal engine, is also kinda poorly optimized but I can still run at 60fps.

1. I never said it teaches you math. It gives you the opportunity to learn math if you want to get really good.

2. You didn't refute the engineering argument because you can't.

3. ksp is to minecraft as minecraft is to lego. (yes I played both before getting into kerbal back in like 2013)

4. Please check out some of the things I work on. I can assure you that moving to a more intensive engine would make some of these projects impossible:

Space Shuttle:

https://imgur.com/a/hdJQZ6I

Robotic arm for space shuttle:

https://imgur.com/a/yZwWac1

Multi satellite deployment:

https://imgur.com/a/tx01Smn

Large space station (built with shuttle and modified with arm. can easily get close to 1300 parts):

https://imgur.com/gallery/VmkeBmV

Actually reusable spaceplane: (Has flown 8 times without recovery, 5 more already planned)

https://imgur.com/gallery/VCsrc94

International Space Station: (Worst part about this one is that I still dont feel comfortable building it until I get my new PC. Planning on using the arm for the whole thing)

https://imgur.com/a/QWXPlty

Starship (BFR):

https://imgur.com/a/HVa6RPN

Large Duna Base (Id like to add more ground pieces, but again part limits lol)

https://imgur.com/gallery/Ju8U961

(and check out EJ_SA on twitch. He builds whole 1500-2000 part launch complexes and actually contructs falcon 9's at the desert. Hes working on a shuttle system to do the same thing rn)

 

Now, as a student who is studying aerospace engineering I feel that kerbal has actually influenced my decision. It allowed my love for space to blossom. If it wasn't so readily available I don't think I wouldve been able to play it back when I first started. I don't want to take that away from anyone.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Dman Revolution

[mystik]

3 hours ago, Dman Revolution said:

1. I never said it teaches you math. It gives you the opportunity to learn math if you want to get really good.

2. You didn't refute the engineering argument because you can't.

3. ksp is to minecraft as minecraft is to lego. (yes I played both before getting into kerbal back in like 2013)

4. Please check out some of the things I work on. I can assure you that moving to a more intensive engine would make some of these projects impossible:

Space Shuttle:

https://imgur.com/a/hdJQZ6I

Robotic arm for space shuttle:

https://imgur.com/a/yZwWac1

Multi satellite deployment:

https://imgur.com/a/tx01Smn

Large space station (built with shuttle and modified with arm. can easily get close to 1300 parts):

https://imgur.com/gallery/VmkeBmV

Actually reusable spaceplane: (Has flown 8 times without recovery, 5 more already planned)

https://imgur.com/gallery/VCsrc94

International Space Station: (Worst part about this one is that I still dont feel comfortable building it until I get my new PC. Planning on using the arm for the whole thing)

https://imgur.com/a/QWXPlty

Starship (BFR):

https://imgur.com/a/HVa6RPN

Large Duna Base (Id like to add more ground pieces, but again part limits lol)

 

Now, as a student who is studying aerospace engineering I feel that kerbal has actually influenced my decision. It allowed my love for space to blossom. If it wasn't so readily available I don't think I wouldve been able to play it back when I first started. I don't want to take that away from anyone.

1. You are lying. You said exactly:

Quote

More people can play the game and more people can learn math, science and engineering from it in ways that you can't even learn in school.

2. I didn't refute the argument because there is minimal engineering to learn in this game. It's hardly realistic when it comes to many things. This game is to engineering as Lego is to building things. Very basic. The aspect is there but it is hardly something that will make you win some Nobel prize. You're exaggerating.

3. KSP is not related to Minecraft not even by the widest stretch of imagination. To prove me otherwise please use your engineering skills to draft a nice graph to compare side by side. I am interested in the resource gathering and the crafting parts the most but you are free to add others on top.

4. Congrats. However, I am getting tired of hearing this argument. The game was not built to handle very big ships and models. The fact that you push the limits of the game to satisfy your own curiosities, that is on you. I use smaller models and more simple structures and it gets me through the game just fine. Also, as an engineer, isn't the golden saying "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away"? Fine, you can build anything you want.

However, I am more interested in you saying exactly how allowing higher spec hardware handle more graphics details a detriment to your play style. You can stay on minimal settings. But I, as the player that plays the game within the normal parts limit, that has learned to design ships in such a way that is not game breaking but gets the job done, I would like some eye candy, please.

Is that a deal or is there something in the last part that I said that just bothers you so much that you think such a thing is blasphemy?

And while on the subject, tell me, all of the people that replied to me disgruntled that I dared asked for better graphics: How come revamped parts which mean improved graphics and more detailed models that require more processing power and VRAM are ok and applauded by you, but the idea of improved graphics is something that is crossing a line too far? One might think that you are engaging in doublethink.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, mystik said:

 

Sorry if you took that as a veiled insult, I was simply stating what demographic generally has the most disposable income. 

Why do I use a laptop? No space for a desktop, and I can take it wherever I want. It was the best deal available to me at the time, especially since I didn’t have to pay money for it. My specs? 3rd gen i7,( turbos out to 3.2 GHz) 8 GB RAM, nvidia gt630m graphics. Retailed at $950CAD + taxes when I got it, but didn’t have to pay anything. Anything with decent graphics still retails for at least  that price, even a desktop wouldn’t be a lot cheaper. 

We’re simply going to have to agree to disagree on this. Those convinced against their will, are of their own opinion still

Peace

E: To each their own, different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz... Yadda yadda yadda

Edited April 5, 2019 by StrandedonEarth

[Dman Revolution]

18 minutes ago, mystik said:

1. You are lying. You said exactly:

2. I didn't refute the argument because there is minimal engineering to learn in this game. It's hardly realistic when it comes to many things. This game is to engineering as Lego is to building things. Very basic. The aspect is there but it is hardly something that will make you win some Nobel prize. You're exaggerating.

3. KSP is not related to Minecraft not even by the widest stretch of imagination. To prove me otherwise please use your engineering skills to draft a nice graph to compare side by side. I am interested in the resource gathering and the crafting parts the most but you are free to add others on top.

4. Congrats. However, I am getting tired of hearing this argument. The game was not built to handle very big ships and models. The fact that you push the limits of the game to satisfy your own curiosities, that is on you. I use smaller models and more simple structures and it gets me through the game just fine. Also, as an engineer, isn't the golden saying "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away"? Fine, you can build anything you want.

However, I am more interested in you saying exactly how allowing higher spec hardware handle more graphics details a detriment to your play style. You can stay on minimal settings. But I, as the player that plays the game within the normal parts limit, that has learned to design ships in such a way that is not game breaking but gets the job done, I would like some eye candy, please.

Is that a deal or is there something in the last part that I said that just bothers you so much that you think such a thing is blasphemy?

And while on the subject, tell me, all of the people that replied to me disgruntled that I dared asked for better graphics: How come revamped parts which mean improved graphics and more detailed models that require more processing power and VRAM are ok and applauded by you, but the idea of improved graphics is something that is crossing a line too far? One might think that you are engaging in doublethink.

Working through a problem to reach a solution is at the end of the day engineering. Doesnt matter if im playing a game with flying frogs or in real life. My stuff broke in game? Lemme figure out why it broke and how to fix it. I don't think that thought process is any different in real life. What you might be surprised to find out that I do minimize the parts I have on my ships. I still get terrible framerates. If there is an engine that allows for better total part performance, great! I'd love that. Do you have any example of this hypothetical "Great Physics and Graphics" engine? One that can handle large particle effects and a large amount of physics simultaneously?

 

Also, by saying that youre happy to deal with low part craft and thats why you want better graphics youre implying that your way of playing the game is the only way the game should be played. This is where my comparison to minecraft and lego comes. You can play Kerbal in any dang way you want. Just like lego, just like minecraft. Just planes, microcraft, dyson rings, I don't care do it. If you were to change the way the game performs you would be taking out many possibilities. Theres a reason minecraft is mainly just blocks. Theres a reason why lego has a relatively standardized connection process. If you were to change those you'd lose so many possibilities.

I'm not telling you how to play Kerbal, so why are you telling me how to play?

EDIT:

might I also say that you can't state how kerbal was meant to be played so the statement: "The game was not built to handle very big ships and models." is invalid

Edited April 5, 2019 by Dman Revolution

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, mystik said:

The engine itself has proven to be crap when building large ships. So what's the solution? Upgrade the engine to something that can handle the load or lower your expectations.

I, for one, don't care about large ships. I can play the game fine and dandy with average sized ships that do just the things I need. You want mega structures? Buy a mega computer for all I care. Or ask for upgrading of the game engine.

If you think that enabling better graphics for hardware that can handle it is wrong, then I would have to question if you're not somehow envious of those with better hardware? You can play at the potato level as much as you want. Heck, you can play at the potato peel level if that if what you want. I'm sure there are mods that reduce the textures to insulting low levels.

I don't care for equity in game experience. But I do care for equality of opportunity. Allow me to freely use my ability and capability as free as possible by measures of hardware meritocracy and don't hold me back [snip]

A capisce?

1. You act like switching the engine of a game is an easy task.

2. You don't need compare me to a communist to understand that making the game look pretty for no reason but some stranger behind a screen wants KSP to look too realistic for its own good is ridiculous and has no benefits other than making said stranger behind the screen stop making ridiculous demands. Look, I've got a KSP install with ALL DA VISUAL AND CAMERA MODS but me not wanting Squad to waste its time on your demand somehow means I'm "envious of those with better hardware"?

3. In the case of KSP, having good graphics is not important considering most of the time you're only looking at either your ship (partly revamped parts), the skybox (which is already revamped for 1.7) or an airless planet whose looks won't change much with Scatterer installed.

On 3/28/2019 at 7:31 AM, mystik said:

but now I see the developers are wasting time on parts redesign instead of fixing serious bugs

Then they should be fixing bugs instead of complying with your demands for KSP to look more pretty than it needs to be.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Vanamonde

[Lisias]

4 hours ago, mystik said:

Are you trying to say that only the poor are buying KSP? It isn't exactly cheap. Also, if you are somehow stating that the people with good hardware are not to be considered for new purchases, then aren't you just confirming my theory that people with capable hardware are put off by the outdated graphics of the game and decide not to buy it? So then wouldn't it make sense for SQUAD to update the graphics? Is this not logic to you?).

No. I didn't say anything of that.

All that I said is that their decisions should be taken using facts, not blind guesses using statistics without context.

You don't have this information, I don't have this information. Only Squad have this information.

Your rationale necessarily infers that Squad (and now, Private Division) are dumbs and need your advise for what they need to do with the game.

My rationale, on the other hand, infers that they may know what they are doing - and so, I'm proposing a possible explanation.  

Edited April 5, 2019 by Lisias
yeah, tyops. But you alreday knew it. :)

[Vanamonde]

Some content has been removed from this thread. No need to drag politics into this, and it would be swell if folks could avoid accusing each other of being liars and such. 

[Dman Revolution]

@mystik

Ah I think I finally realize your misunderstanding...

Kerbal Space Program is NOT a flight simulator. You should NOT expect it to look or play like FSX or any other sim, because it is not. You don't expect physics simulation games to look like crisis, and should not expect kerbal to look like crisis either.

For example: although I would say a game like BeamNG looks pretty good, not insane, but decent. I don't expect it to have lense flares and crazy reflections because thats not why you play that game.

If you want a fun spaceflight simulator go play orbiter.

[Xurkitree]

you clearly haven't see how well Scatterer alone can bomb framerates compared to the rest of my mods combined.

[Pthigrivi]

18 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

you clearly haven't see how well Scatterer alone can bomb framerates compared to the rest of my mods combined.

Do EVE/SVE have the same effect? I haven't tested these individually.

[Fraston]

Because they would halve the framerate and nobody would like the sub-par performance.

(in simple terms, It would lag the crap out of the game.)

[Xurkitree]

6 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Do EVE/SVE have the same effect? I haven't tested these individually.

No, EVE/SVE isn't that bad, but tbf I used Spectra. Infact it barely affected framerates as far as I can tell.

[Lisias]

17 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

No, EVE/SVE isn't that bad, but tbf I used Spectra. Infact it barely affected framerates as far as I can tell.

It depends hugely of the machine's architecture you are using. 

Shared memory between GPU and CPU are the biggest villain. For simple effects, it does the job. But reflections, smoke, plasma, shadows, anti-alias (this one is terrible) plays havoc as while the GPU is busy doing its business, the CPU can't access the memory and so, halts when need something not on the cache.

And KSP makes heavy use of physics engines, that needs tons of memory - not to mention the Mono's VM.

You can have the bests CPU and GPU in the World: if they share memory, one of them is always starving when the other gets the memory lock.

By evident reasons, the CPU is always on the receiving side on this. And if you set higher refresh rates, you get the CPU starving more times - the GPU stale him more times per second!

[mystik]

17 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Sorry if you took that as a veiled insult, I was simply stating what demographic generally has the most disposable income. 

Why do I use a laptop? No space for a desktop, and I can take it wherever I want. It was the best deal available to me at the time, especially since I didn’t have to pay money for it. My specs? 3rd gen i7,( turbos out to 3.2 GHz) 8 GB RAM, nvidia gt630m graphics. Retailed at $950CAD + taxes when I got it, but didn’t have to pay anything. Anything with decent graphics still retails for at least  that price, even a desktop wouldn’t be a lot cheaper. 

We’re simply going to have to agree to disagree on this. Those convinced against their will, are of their own opinion still

Peace

E: To each their own, different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz... Yadda yadda yadda

630 is a very old graphics chipset. Not to mention that it is a entry level one at that. And it is also a mobile chipset which also ensues performance penalty. What you are running there is Legacy hardware. Nvidia stopped providing driver updates back in 2018. If you are willing to use that as a standard for KSP today, then I am afraid we will never reach any sort of middle ground. Mostly because that hardware is 2012 entry level, so it was a budget level graphics chipset even when it launched, let alone 7 years later... I don't see why KSP should care for legacy hardware performance. What's next, GeForce 250 users would like a slice of the pie?

 

14 hours ago, Dman Revolution said:

@mystik

Ah I think I finally realize your misunderstanding...

Kerbal Space Program is NOT a flight simulator. You should NOT expect it to look or play like FSX or any other sim, because it is not. You don't expect physics simulation games to look like crisis, and should not expect kerbal to look like crisis either.

For example: although I would say a game like BeamNG looks pretty good, not insane, but decent. I don't expect it to have lense flares and crazy reflections because thats not why you play that game.

If you want a fun spaceflight simulator go play orbiter.

FSX is considered good graphics now? What is going on? Did I accidentally step into some time portal where that game is considered good looking? Am I on candid camera?

 

People of 2012. Behold, I bring graphics from the future! Wonder and be amazed!

I think we're done here. Good luck with 10 year old graphics card in the upcoming years. I for one will be shifting to better looking games.

Edited April 6, 2019 by mystik

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, mystik said:

630 is a very old graphics chipset. Not to mention that it is a entry level one at that. And it is also a mobile chipset which also ensues performance penalty. What you are running there is Legacy hardware. Nvidia stopped providing driver updates back in 2018. If you are willing to use that as a standard for KSP today, then I am afraid we will never reach any sort of middle ground. Mostly because that hardware is 2012 entry level, so it was a budget level graphics chipset even when it launched, let alone 7 years later... I don't see why KSP should care for legacy hardware performance. What's next, GeForce 250 users would like a slice of the pie?

 

FSX is considered good graphics now? What is going on? Did I accidentally step into some time portal where that game is considered good looking? Am I on candid camera?

 

People of 2012. Behold, I bring graphics from the future! Wonder and be amazed!

I think we're done here. Good luck with 10 year old graphics card in the upcoming years. I for one will be shifting to better looking games.

Being able to build massive rockets and still play at a decent framerate is more important than you wanting your screenshots to look pretty. Also, if you want a standard on how graphically advanced most modern games are, don't cherry pick specifically the top 10 most pretty games then act like all games should look as good, then call everyone who hasn't got a game as pretty as your way-too-high standards some person who can't afford basic computer components.

6 hours ago, mystik said:

I for one will be shifting to better looking games.

[snip]

Edited April 6, 2019 by Gargamel
Portions Redacted By Moderator.

[4x4cheesecake]

1 hour ago, mystik said:

People of 2012. Behold, I bring graphics from the future! Wonder and be amazed!

The future

Hm....there was a different game I had a lot of fun with recently...it got released last year, so it's not even close to the age of KSP and should have amazing graphics! Let's take a look:

Spoiler

Oh...it's a bit "rough" isn't it? The devs should port the game to the unreal engine, it'll look way better! I hope I can still play the game after the port though, my GTX980TI is ancient....

The point is: a game doesn't become better by improving the graphics.
KSP is about building rockets and space exploration. Most time spent in KSP will be in the editor or in space, while looking at your craft and the skybox. I really don't see any benefits in improving the environmental graphics.

On the other hand, improving the parts and the skybox, which will be visible on your screen like 95% of the time makes sense and creating a more consistent design for the parts will allow you to build a rocket which doesn't look like a hotchpotch. I would consider "building stuff" a core element of KSP...there is basically nothing else you can do without building something. So will the game benefit from improved parts? Kinda...at least more than from an environmental graphics update.