Blocker features in KSP2 -- what would stop you from playing it?

[justspace103]

7 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

 

And how much time is need to rewrite BD armory for KSP 2?

Even KSP pathes ruin almost all mods and need to wait months untli they start working.

Weapons have never been within the scope of stock KSP. i doubt they will even think about starting this in KSP2. Kerbal is not a war game. If you want to make it a war game, there are well respected mods for KSP 1 that you will absolubly be able to continue to play even when KSP2 comes out. Also, one of  KSP2's goals is to make the game more modable. This will hopefully allow mods to be updated quicker and be implemented more easily.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by justspace103

[Vegatoxi]

13 hours ago, DStaal said:

Your hard drive isn't big enough to store the required data.

Say it to ASTRONEER devs.

13 hours ago, DStaal said:

I can see it would be nice, but things like Astroneer can do it because their worlds are tiny.  The moment you start talking realistic world sizes, you're talking at minimum terabytes of data per planet.

I'm not asking about caves within every 100 meters.

But at least few points of interest

[mcwaffles2003]

13 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

Say it to ASTRONEER devs.

I'm not asking about caves within every 100 meters.

But at least few points of interest

You're missing the point... astroneer planets are orders of magnitude smaller meaning orders of magnitude more polygons. The way planets are constructed in KSP simply doesnt allow for terrain deformation or multiple surface heights in one (x,y) location... This is also why there are no overhanging ledges/cliffs in the game either. In the end you have a trade off do you want a large planet with a high LOD from a large distance with smoothly operating physics or do you want studdery physics on a small deformable world with a low LOD. 

Please don't mistake me on this also, Saying astroneer is low LOD is not calling it ugly, its a pretty game, but every polygon surface is just 1 color and details dont hold at large distance, but this is hidden by the very close horizon

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

The way planets are constructed in KSP simply doesnt allow for terrain deformation or multiple surface heights in one (x,y) location...

Depth maps don't allow for multiple heights, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to deform one. 

It would also be possible to make voxel worlds of any size you want by using seeds to generate the voxels on the fly at any LOD you want. Of course this is a lot harder than simple depth maps and will need a quite a lot more processing power as well; however, it's easily parallelisable so it should be possible to offload that to the GPU. But you would need a much beefier GPU than KSP currently does.

As I said earlier, it's not impossible, it's just a lot of work and there's very little point in a game like KSP. If you want to dig tunnels, go play Dwarf Fortress, it's terrific.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

Depth maps don't allow for multiple heights, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to deform one. 

Perhaps then craters could be made along with hills and pits, but caves are still simply out of the question.

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

It would also be possible to make voxel worlds of any size you want by using seeds to generate the voxels on the fly at any LOD you want. Of course this is a lot harder than simple depth maps and will need a quite a lot more processing power as well; however, it's easily parallelisable so it should be possible to offload that to the GPU. But you would need a much beefier GPU than KSP currently does.

I don't disagree, though the speed of generation required while travelling at 1000+ m/s over such a large planet would be insane if the polygons were of any usefully small volume.

5 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

As I said earlier, it's not impossible, it's just a lot of work and there's very little point in a game like KSP. If you want to dig tunnels, go play Dwarf Fortress, it's terrific.

Agreed

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I don't disagree, though the speed of generation required while travelling at 1000+ m/s over such a large planet would be insane if the polygons were of any usefully small volume.

Computers are insanely fast. GPUs are especially insanely fast at stuff that is easily parallelisable. I'm not a domain expert by any means but my seat of the pants hunch is that voxel generation would be roughly as taxing as rendering pixels through a graphics pipeline. If it's possible to push out a half a billion pixels per second, it ought to be possible to push out, say, a million voxels a second. That's a whole lot of voxels!

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Computers are insanely fast. GPUs are especially insanely fast at stuff that is easily parallelisable. I'm not a domain expert by any means but my seat of the pants hunch is that voxel generation would be roughly as taxing as rendering pixels through a graphics pipeline. If it's possible to push out a half a billion pixels per second, it ought to be possible to push out, say, a million voxels a second. That's a whole lot of voxels!

Do you know if only surface voxels are rendered or do sub surface voxels get rendered as well?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Do you know if only surface voxels are rendered or do sub surface voxels get rendered as well?

If I was programming it I'd generate as few voxels as possible, so only the surface ones. Subsurface ones would have to be generated only when the surface is deformed.

But again, I'm not programming it and in fact the little understanding I have of this kind of stuff is purely theoretical, I am a programmer but I work with completely different stuff.

[DStaal]

 

6 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

Say it to ASTRONEER devs.

Don't have to.  They already know the problem and designed their game to avoid it: Asteroid-size planets make it much more manageable, among other things.  But note that the *entire* game is built around those constraints.

And yes, there are lots of ways to help reduce the size of the problem - but they'll all have other impacts and trade-offs.  Most would make it hard to build in long-term fashions, unless you have a small selection of very set parts that can actually interact with the world.

[Dirkidirk]

8 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

I'm not asking about caves within every 100 meters.

But at least few points of interest

that sounds like something they could and would do (nOt). very much do want!

Spoiler

why are you not going to play a new game, with Many new features, better graphics, better optimization, ect., just because it doesn't have a few things you don't need?

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[steuben]

1a. A digging game sounds like it would be boring.

1b. It isn't the Kerbal Landscaping Program.

2a. An argument against using voxels can be found here:

But, it boils down to the data requirements for one planet let alone several _will_ explode your hard drive, melt your ram, and turn your CPU and GPU into jelly in that order. Followed by other really awesome and smoke generating stuff in any other electronics within a 10 metre radius.

2b. Extra-kerbol planets could be procedurally generated, and stored as chucked difference maps. You will still have to fall back on having to store whole planets for the Kerbol system so that the starting parts of the game are consistant.

2c. It doesn't matter if the voxel is exposed or not. You have to know what is there prior to the exposure. Otherwise you will just get a void, rather than an empty space.

3. Drawing the voxel is a solved problem. The first generation of the solution... for digital electronic computers was developed back in 1982, though for static images. In the early nineties it was fielded, though as I recall the commercially available areas were a few miles a side, for real time terrain generation.

4. I think I had a fourth point but three will be sufficient.

 

[Vegatoxi]

1 hour ago, steuben said:

A digging game sounds like it would be boring.

Not literally dumb digging like an ASTRONEER

But flaten surface for base or some archeology excavations

[Random Annoying Guy]

The fact that it will be over 2gb

[Guest]

3 hours ago, steuben said:

2b. Extra-kerbol planets could be procedurally generated, and stored as chucked difference maps. You will still have to fall back on having to store whole planets for the Kerbol system so that the starting parts of the game are consistant.

Planets can be generated from seeds and be fully deterministic. You don't need to store any voxels, you can generate them on the fly. Or, rather, the only voxels you would need to store are at points where you've transformed things.

[Curveball Anders]

On 2/26/2020 at 3:57 PM, Vegatoxi said:

1. No presistent universe in MP = NO BUY!
2. No subterrain environment = NO BUY!
3. No realistic aerodynamic = NO BUY!
4. No terrain modification = NO BUY!
5. No dedicated servers = NO BUY!
6. No native BD armory = NO BUY!
7. No procedural wings = NO BUY!
8. No clouds = NO BUY!

1. I'll never play MP.
2. I don't give a dime for underground in a space game.
3. I prefer X-Plane if I want to play with aircraft.
4. Why would I bother about terrain modification in a space game?
5. Servers for what?
6. No weapons in KSP, ever.
7. Wings? Why bother about wings in a space game?
8. Clouds is a minor thing that pass on your way up or down.

 

 

 

[Bartybum]

Bar microtransactions and unreasonably excrements DLC, I can't really think of any blocker features to be honest. I'd only opt out if the game wasn't filled up with good stuff.

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

On 2/26/2020 at 7:42 AM, Brikoleur said:

Tell you what, if it has no weapons, I'll buy two copies to make up for the one you won't buy. I already know who I'll gift it to.

You madlad

On 2/26/2020 at 6:57 AM, Vegatoxi said:

8. No clouds = NO BUY!

Done

[snip]

 

On 2/26/2020 at 6:57 AM, Vegatoxi said:

1. No presistent universe in MP = NO BUY!
2. No subterrain environment = NO BUY!
3. No realistic aerodynamic = NO BUY!
4. No terrain modification = NO BUY!
5. No dedicated servers = NO BUY!
6. No native BD armory = NO BUY!
7. No procedural wings = NO BUY!
8. No clouds = NO BUY!

To be continue...

1.Why    2. Why?  3.Mods are here for a reason  4. Why would you need that?  5. Probably  6. KSP has never been a game fit for weapons, make your own https://kerbalx.com/jeb_/Lupus-short-range-guided-missile  7.Then go play Simpleplanes  8. Done

22 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

8. Clouds is a minor thing that pass on your way up or down.

Plus it's already been added

Ngl I think @Vegatoxi is just hating on Ksp at this point

Edited February 28, 2020 by Vanamonde

[mcwaffles2003]

18 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

Not literally dumb digging like an ASTRONEER

But flaten surface for base or some archeology excavations

You wont need to flatten surfaces since colonies seem to be built on pylons and it seems to me, working with the terrain that is given is part of the fun/challenge of building colonies.

Also you want archaeology to be a system in the base game? Why? I think you're looking in the wrong game for that.

Asking for base game archaeology is like me asking for a base game tennis mini-game... Completely unrelated to the game at hand

Edited February 28, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[The Aziz]

56 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Asking for base game archaeology is like me asking for a base game tennis mini-game... Completely unrelated to the game at hand

This needed to appear here

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

This needed to appear here

Archaeology it is then! xD

im ded....

 

EDIT: Ok looked at the comments to se what people are saying and I see "Inferno Wolf it was uploaded on April 1, hint hint..."

so this IS a mod... I was really fooled that this was a hidden feature for a moment

Edited February 28, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Bej Kerman]

On 2/26/2020 at 11:24 PM, justspace103 said:

Weapons have never been within the scope of stock KSP. i doubt they will even think about starting this in KSP2.

But they're fun! Plus, you'll need to clear debris somehow...

[Curveball Anders]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But they're fun! Plus, you'll need to clear debris somehow...

There are several people around the globe that doesn't agree that weapons are fun. and there are many other ways to cure the Kessler syndrome.

 

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

There are several people around the globe that doesn't agree that weapons are fun. and there are many other ways to cure the Kessler syndrome.

But every KSP player I've met says that anything that explodes is fun.

[Curveball Anders]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

But every KSP player I've met says that anything that explodes is fun.

Explosions yes, weapons no.

 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Curveball Anders said:

Explosions yes, weapons no.

But weapons cause explosions