Some more KSP2 footage

[coyotesfrontier]

Here's a video that not many people are talking about, but with some valuable information:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tRewAKMllVo

Most notable is confirmation that Kerbin has clouds, better looks at the new engines, a new ringed rocky planet that might be the super-earth talked about, and a sound effect showcase.

Edited August 24, 2019 by coyotesfrontier

[The Aziz]

It was in the background of the interview at gamescom.

[Geschosskopf]

23 minutes ago, coyotesfrontier said:

Here's a video that not many people are talking about, but with some valuable information:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tRewAKMllVo

Most notable is confirmation that Kerbin has clouds, better looks at the new engines, a new ringed rocky planet that might be the super-earth talked about, and a sound effect showcase.

Hmmm.

Yup, definitely a ringed, rocky planet, some repaintable parts,.  I'm not sure about clouds on Kerbin, though.  The initial launch just shows haze, although there appears to be some clouds when Kerbin is seen from space. 

Some other things I noticed...

• Spacesuits:  can be different colors and also have gloves, not mittens.
• HUGE lander legs toward the end with that VASIMR-powered ship.
• The terrain around the Kerbin(?) launch site....  Rivers, forests, hills all around.  Also, the ship turned back along the crawler path, presumably over the VAB.  Is that the new KSC or some other launch site?
• The terminator of the big green planet (Jool?) makes the clouds look very 3D.  I'm wondering if that's a bug, an artifact, or a real thing.
• The launchpad on Mun(?) is either indestructible or expendable.  The ship immediately dropped a bunch of NERVAs on it, then fired up its Orion drive at about 100m  

The little rocks all over on Mun(?) look cool but I foresee a lot of landers tipping over and rovers flipping.

[drhay53]

I'm not particularly encouraged by the consistency of the frame rate. People will say "but it's just alpha footage" to which I will say, I will probably want to install as many mods as I have memory for, and if performance is even remotely iffy at this point in the stock only game, modded performance in ksp2 is likely to drive me away just as it has in ksp.

[boolybooly]

VGC also published an interview article with creative director Nate Simpson, yesterday. Worth a read.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/interviews/an-in-depth-conversation-with-the-creator-of-ksp2/

[GoldForest]

20 minutes ago, drhay53 said:

I'm not particularly encouraged by the consistency of the frame rate. People will say "but it's just alpha footage" to which I will say, I will probably want to install as many mods as I have memory for, and if performance is even remotely iffy at this point in the stock only game, modded performance in ksp2 is likely to drive me away just as it has in ksp.

But it's just alpha footage... I'm not sorry. 

But in all seriousness, KSP 1's unstability comes from lack of deep code fixing. The code is unstable and it's a wonder the game works as well as it does. 

KSP 2 will have hard code fixed by launch. Stability should be at least 5 times that of KSP 1's, or more. 

I'd imagine that space craft will be able to be upwards of a 1000+ parts now. Although, you might get some frame loss, but no where near KSP 1 where 1000 part craft meant 1 FPS.

[nikokespprfan]

12 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I'd imagine that space craft will be able to be upwards of a 1000+ parts now. Although, you might get some frame loss, but no where near KSP 1 where 1000 part craft meant 1 FPS.

Not so fast.

It depends on whether they are goin to do weird things with their physics. Simulating 3-body physics for exampleis more heavy than rolling a vessel along exactly known on-rails paths like how it does in the original KSP. Then there is your assumption that the part limit grows linearly with performance, maning big improvement in performance = big improment in part limit. If it grows in a quadratic, exponential or, heaven forbid, factorial style, well, ther will be no real improvements in part limit. I don't pretend to know how it works exactly, but there is the potential for a real bummer there.

Not to invalidate you point, but just wanted to put this forward.

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, nikokespprfan said:

Not so fast.

It depends on whether they are goin to do weird things with their physics. Simulating 3-body physics for exampleis more heavy than rolling a vessel along exactly known on-rails paths like how it does in the original KSP. Then there is your assumption that the part limit grows linearly with performance, maning big improvement in performance = big improment in part limit. If it grows in a quadratic, exponential or, heaven forbid, factorial style, well, ther will be no real improvements in part limit. I don't pretend to know how it works exactly, but there is the potential for a real bummer there.

Not to invalidate you point, but just wanted to put this forward.

Even if the part limit is still limited, it won't be KSP 1 limited. KSP can handle 100 to 250 part craft with medium to large frame losses? Depending on your machine of course. I imagine KSP 2, if they still with the part limit problem, will be able to have twice that, even with KSP 1 style limits. 250 to 500 parts before any major FPS loss. 

[Urus28]

I notice that we have a clear confirmation of clouds over Kerbin and colour switch of parts : at least red blue white, black (or perhaps metal) and metal.

[magnemoe]

46 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Even if the part limit is still limited, it won't be KSP 1 limited. KSP can handle 100 to 250 part craft with medium to large frame losses? Depending on your machine of course. I imagine KSP 2, if they still with the part limit problem, will be able to have twice that, even with KSP 1 style limits. 250 to 500 parts before any major FPS loss. 

Saw an article who talked about around 1000 parts or 5 times better than KSP1
You could also set up burns so you could do them under warp who would resolve lots of the slowdown problems
 

Edited August 24, 2019 by magnemoe

[Xurkitree]

excuse me what lag i barely see any I would kill for this sort of performance.

[Kaerbanogue]

1 hour ago, boolybooly said:

VGC also published an interview article with creative director Nate Simpson, yesterday. Worth a read.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/interviews/an-in-depth-conversation-with-the-creator-of-ksp2/

Thanks for the sharing dude, a lot of new infos. This guy Nate Simpson really made me confident they will do fine work on KSP2, he seems very aware of what's making ksp so unique

[nikokespprfan]

 

1 hour ago, boolybooly said:

VGC also published an interview article with creative director Nate Simpson, yesterday. Worth a read.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/interviews/an-in-depth-conversation-with-the-creator-of-ksp2/

yea, thanks

• constant thrust during timewarp
• axial tilt
• way higher part count
• higher time warp
• bigger core sizes

[pschlik]

The idea of an LOD system for physics sounds interesting. You could just brute force physics to use more CPUs and stuff, but without some clever solution like this 'LOD' system you'd still hit a soft cap on part counts. If I had to guess, I bet this system might work like a sort of 'automatic part welding,' where multiple parts have their physics calculated collectively, instead of doing each part individually. Like LODs for 3D models, this would mean less detailed physics, but the net result would still be the same. And do you really need to calculate the physics for 500 individual parts when you are time warping? No.

[drhay53]

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

But it's just alpha footage... I'm not sorry. 

But in all seriousness, KSP 1's unstability comes from lack of deep code fixing. The code is unstable and it's a wonder the game works as well as it does. 

KSP 2 will have hard code fixed by launch. Stability should be at least 5 times that of KSP 1's, or more. 

I'd imagine that space craft will be able to be upwards of a 1000+ parts now. Although, you might get some frame loss, but no where near KSP 1 where 1000 part craft meant 1 FPS.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from and I have no real baseline to evaluate them. 

My secondary concern is about garbage collection. After 2000 hours in ksp, when I try to fire it up these days I end up stopping due to these issues:

1) garbage collection frustration

2) frame rate issues

3) problems with the surface of bodies (wheels suck, craft bounce around, bases blow up)

Since colony building is a core part of the game, I'm stoked that number 3) should be very solid in ksp2. I fear that we'll still end up with GC issues and frame rate issues and the early alpha video doesn't do anything to alleviate those concerns for me. I don't have the technical expertise with unity to evaluate your claims as to why that will be better in the final product. 

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, boolybooly said:

VGC also published an interview article with creative director Nate Simpson, yesterday. Worth a read.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/interviews/an-in-depth-conversation-with-the-creator-of-ksp2/

This is the article I was referring to. 
Keypoint, no serious framerate drops from the things you see in the video. 

i9 @5GhZ on an sunny day with headwind. 

But the scale is ramped up a lot. 
Now the obvious idea is make an 1+8 asparagus of the starship and move the orbital colony to another star. 

Point 2: trust under warp, yes you can put the large fuel tanks in all the way to the rotating habitats on the boosters. and warp to 100X. 

And you have the interstellar real time challenge, your point is to drop an octo2 probe in orbit of the closest star. 1+8 asparagus is just a starting point 
Also orion pulse nuclear replaces SRB. 

 

[drhay53]

You can clearly see the frame rate variability in every scene in the video

[lajoswinkler]

It's definitively early work and you can see it with the reflections and framerate getting wonky. I like the look of the engines.

What I can not forgive are two things:

1. skybox being there all the time, even in the brightest conditions possible (Kerbol is literally shining into our faces)
2. skybox AGAIN being that awful "London fog" with splotchy stars

It looks so cheesy and ugly.  Why on earth are the developers making this same mistake again, is incomprehensible to me. They basically just repeat the trope seen in space video games.

 

Make the skybox nicer, peppered with tiny, point like sources of light, and extinguish it when it's daylight or when Kerbol is in the view. One of the things that's nice and grand about space is that unnerving void in which worlds just "hang". I'm not advocating for removal of skybox, just make it less cloudy, more starry, and make it reveal itself when the conditions are right. It's most rewarding.

[Geschosskopf]

14 hours ago, drhay53 said:

You can clearly see the frame rate variability in every scene in the video

Not me.  The only jerkiness is in the initial launch sequence.  And that I attribute entirely to the horrible external camera shake feature, which I always turn off.  The rest of the video is smooth to me.  But I was only watching it at 480p.  Maybe that has something to do with it.

[Kaerbanogue]

Hi guys there's this interview that had been released today, but it's in german... 

Any german folk to tell us if something new is said? 

https://youtu.be/ftLT_puDtxo

[nikokespprfan]

something new is said, too tired and too dutch to translate right now. Stuff about life support and next-gen engines

[Francois424]

On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 12:18 PM, GoldForest said:

I'd imagine that space craft will be able to be upwards of a 1000+ parts now. Although, you might get some frame loss, but no where near KSP 1 where 1000 part craft meant 1 FPS.

I Sincerely hope so.  Assuming KSP2 has everything KSP1 with more glued to it, if the performance is there then I won't look back.
If KSP2 is missing a lot of stuff from KSP1 (Science tree, sandbox/science/career games, Antennas and telemetry, Kerbal skilling-up, etc) then not sure I would splurge 60$ on it.  TBF I probably would, butno clock that many hours into it.

But the performance alone is a HUGE selling point to me.  I just hope it improves on KSP1 and not "Streamline" it for 25IQ console players (like they did at first for the X-Com remake a few years back).

[ModZero]

Something I noticed right here after the explosion: scorch marks appeared on the upper stage where the booster passed next to it. I'm not sure if that's a useful upgrade, but hey, neat. If they upgraded texture switching to support decals then I guess scorch marks could be trivial on top of that.

[drhay53]

7 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Not me.  The only jerkiness is in the initial launch sequence.  And that I attribute entirely to the horrible external camera shake feature, which I always turn off.  The rest of the video is smooth to me.  But I was only watching it at 480p.  Maybe that has something to do with it.

You have to be watching certain areas of each scene to see it, but I would estimate that I was watching something running between 15-25 FPS

[drhay53]

Interestingly I just watched the gameplay video again on a different YouTube channel and didn't notice the issues I had seen before.