Visual design disasters I hope KSP 2 will steer away from

[Guest]

BTW I just re-watched the KSP2 pre-alpha gameplay video, and it does have both bloom and lens flare at least. Very subtly and tastefully applied, I must add.

[sturmhauke]

On 9/27/2019 at 4:29 PM, Delay said:

And I was addressing your choice of movie, because I cannot remember that much lens flaring in First Contact. Or TNG. Or DS9. Or any other movie/series in the franchise.

Abrams was only involved with Star Trek starting with the recent reboot, and he brought his excessive lens flares with him.

[Delay]

4 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

Abrams was only involved with Star Trek starting with the recent reboot, and he brought his excessive lens flares with him.

Then the problem isn't the lens flare, it's Abrams (ab-)use of them. If used correctly lens flares can make the scene.

[Klapaucius]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:53 AM, lajoswinkler said:

Hah, if this were only true. No, it is not an artifact of shutter speed. We're talking about video, not photography here.

Yes it is.  Video cameras still have shutter speeds. They are still interpreting light over time and converting it into a series of still images.  The difference is that becomes less and less as shutter speeds increase and camera chips become more sensitive. 

 

However, I agree that it is an unwanted effect in KSP2.

[Concodroid]

On 9/20/2019 at 6:39 AM, lajoswinkler said:

So we should view the game as a shortsighted, astigmatic wearer of (poorly chosen and 16th century) corrective eyeglasses who doesn't bother to wipe them off dandruff and skin grease? At the expense of computer resources?

Good to know what passes under "reality" nowdays. It's not really surprising that entertainment media pumps out horrid looking stuff - it realized crap is good enough.

Dude, calm down!

Seriously, just make it an option in settings whether or not to have it, I think we can all agree on that, right?

 

Personally, I don't mind camera shake, but bloom can be annoying if overused.

 

However, when it isn't, it's beautiful. Take these two pictures I rendered quickly.

 

Which looks nicer, and higher quality? IMHO, the second (depends on usage scenario, though). On pure black, the bloom makes it look great*!

 

To see what I'm on about, take your hand and cover just slightly more than half the image, leaving just a sliver of the original blue bar and all of the atmosphere-like glow-y bits on that half.

 

Now, bloom should be turned OFF for ground usage, and turned ON when looking at planets. But that's automatic when bloom is turned on, and make the default ON.

 

As for the others, chromatic aberration is USELESS. Make it an option, default OFF. Lens distortion, again, option, default OFF. Etc.

 

Honestly, that game example @sturmhaukeprovided was terrible, nice job! That's what we're trying to AVOID.

 

Listen, there isn't much to talk about, just make it an option for all these things. Even if they have it there, and not changeable, it's not gonna be a "visual disaster", as modders can easily take it out, and the devs listen. They're among us now, anyway!

 

 

*If you really, really hate it, then I get that, to each to his own and all that.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Concodroid

[lajoswinkler]

On 9/27/2019 at 5:39 AM, Gryphorim said:

HDR and bloom are IMHO, essential to representing sunlight in an no-atmo environment. There is no skyshine, so shadows become much deeper in contrast to lit regions, and the sunlight is whiter and more intense. Looking at footage from the ISS and older video from apollo missions demonstrate this. Obviously a balance needs to be reached as to how intense these effects are, but again IMHO, KSP has lighting that is too flat to really give that impression of being in space. Naturally, these effects should be player adjustable.

I wasn't talking about HDR. If you check my post, it talks about bad HDR which some "photographers" (people on social networks who have a camera and no knowledge of photography) consider "artistic" therefore "beautiful", but is actually a horrible eyesore.

Yes, of course there has to be a certain level of luminosity adaptation. That's how our eye-brain system works. Nothing wrong with that.

But bloom, that's something that happens with people who have cataracts. I don't. I don't look at the world through fogged eyeballs.

 

 

On 9/27/2019 at 7:55 PM, Delay said:

Source: NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/586473main_iss028e005671_full.jpg)

 

Source: NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss060e014984.jpg)

 

Source: NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/iss060e013819.jpg)

 

Clearly NASA should turn off their visual effects!

So when you play a game, it's not a character or "you" you're looking through, it's a camera with faulty lenses?

Besides, what you show as examples here have little to nothing to do with my post.

 

20 hours ago, Concodroid said:

However, when it isn't, it's beautiful. Take these two pictures I rendered quickly.

 

Which looks nicer, and higher quality? IMHO, the second (depends on usage scenario, though). On pure black, the bloom makes it look great*!

 

To see what I'm on about, take your hand and cover just slightly more than half the image, leaving just a sliver of the original blue bar and all of the atmosphere-like glow-y bits on that half.

 

Now, bloom should be turned OFF for ground usage, and turned ON when looking at planets. But that's automatic when bloom is turned on, and make the default ON.

If you think this is how real world looks, I have to suggest you visit your physician and get an appointment with an ophtalmologist. This is not normal vision. I don't care if it looks "nicer". It's a sign of pathological changes in the eye. It might be cataract or glaukoma.

[Delay]

9 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

I don't care if it looks "nicer". It's a sign of pathological changes in the eye.

Wait, so you're comparing a virtual camera inside a video game meant to display vertices at certain screen coordinates with human eye malfunctions?

 

I don't care about visual accuracy compared to how things look to the human eye. I care about being able to make gorgeous shots - both in real life and in a video game. These effects are there to approximate a real camera's behaviour, and if done right they can greatly enhance a scene!

Edited October 2, 2019 by Delay
Typos. I'm tired.

[lajoswinkler]

21 minutes ago, Delay said:

Wait, so you're comparing a virtual camera inside a video game meant to display vertices at certain screen coordinates with human eye malfunctions?

 

I don't care about visual accuracy compared to how things look to the human eye. I care about being able to make gorgeous shots - both in real life and in a video game. These effects are there to approximate a real camera's behaviour, and if done right they can greatly enhance a scene!

It's always assumed you are looking into the scene with your own eyes, not with a camera in front of them. This is KSP, not Slender.

If someone wants to look at the game through the diseased eyes of an 80 year old man, we have mods for it. I sure don't see any reason for the developers to waste resources on making the game look crummy for everyone, not even as an option. I'd rather they worked on the game itself.

[Delay]

11 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

It's always assumed you are looking into the scene with your own eyes, not with a camera in front of them.

That doesn't make sense in a (mostly) third-person game such as KSP, where it's pretty obvious the viewpoint is not a physical set of eyeballs, but a camera.

11 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

If someone wants to look at the game through the diseased eyes of an 80 year old man, we have mods for it.

What surface doesn't seem to glow if it is illuminated by a very bright light source? Aside from the fact that I wear glasses to correct my short-sightedness, every time I look at a full Moon I see what would be called bloom in a virtual environment.

11 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

I sure don't see any reason for the developers to waste resources on making the game look crummy for everyone, not even as an option.

So... how do you expect it to look? Like Mario 64? In terms of visual effects, that is, because if you remove bloom, HDR, motion-blur, etc. there's not much left in the graphics department.
In the meantime I'd like my KSP to look as fantastic as GTA 4 with ENB installed. Or like FS 2020, because that's much closer to what I see every day.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Delay

[razark]

51 minutes ago, Delay said:

That doesn't make sense in a (mostly) third-person game such as KSP, where it's pretty obvious the viewpoint is not a physical set of eyeballs, but a camera.

If it's a camera, why do we never see it when looking out the window in IVA?  What is this camera-carrying vessel that follows all the Kerbals and rockets and rovers and planes and boats around, with absolute infinite delta-v?  Why is the KSP camera crew given such powers, while the Kerbals we control are limited to mere physics?

 

Answer: Because there is no camera.  Therefore, giving the viewpoint faults that result from physical lenses is pretty dang silly.

[lajoswinkler]

13 hours ago, Delay said:

That doesn't make sense in a (mostly) third-person game such as KSP, where it's pretty obvious the viewpoint is not a physical set of eyeballs, but a camera.

What surface doesn't seem to glow if it is illuminated by a very bright light source? Aside from the fact that I wear glasses to correct my short-sightedness, every time I look at a full Moon I see what would be called bloom in a virtual environment.

So... how do you expect it to look? Like Mario 64? In terms of visual effects, that is, because if you remove bloom, HDR, motion-blur, etc. there's not much left in the graphics department.
In the meantime I'd like my KSP to look as fantastic as GTA 4 with ENB installed. Or like FS 2020, because that's much closer to what I see every day.

1) Razark explained it nicely, see his reply.

2) I urge you to go to the ophtalmologist because what you see could easily be a sign of degenerative pathological processes in the eyes. I don't see bloom around full Moon. It would require a much brighter source of light to cause scattering in my eye goo, like staring into a lightbulb up close.

I see the atmosphere scattering that remains the same even if I eclipse it with my thumb and the clearer the atmosphere is, the less prominent it is.

It would be unethical from me to diagnose you over the forum so I can only advise you to visit your doctor.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

It's always assumed you are looking into the scene with your own eyes, not with a camera in front of them.

Is it? Then how do you manage to magically float just outside a rocket, flying along with it as it heats the air around it to a white-hot plasma? From where I'm at that's a cinematic PoV, and a little lens flare or bloom tastefully applied like in the gameplay video they've already released can nicely enhance it a bit.

[razark]

8 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Then how do you manage to magically float just outside a rocket...

Because there's a viewpoint that you can see things from, even though it's not actually a camera.  If it is a camera, how does it manage to survive that white-hot plasma without being destroyed?  Why do we continue to see it during the plasma blackout, instead of losing the signal it's transmitting?  Because it's not a camera, it's an abstract viewpoint that you can view the world from, and it's possible to show the virtual world of KSP without the limitations that we are used to seeing from physical cameras.

Kind of like we can also hear things while in space in KSP.  I mean, the stereo system following the rocket around should simulate physical speakers, just like the viewpoint should simulate a physical camera, right?  Therefore, we should not be able to hear music in space, nor the sounds from our own vessel.  Hell, you should also be holding your breath while viewing your ship in space, since there's no air, either.

 

Just so long as they make it all optional, we can all be happy with our own ideas of what it should look like.

[Delay]

13 hours ago, razark said:

What is this camera-carrying vessel that follows all the Kerbals and rockets and rovers and planes and boats around, with absolute infinite delta-v?  Why is the KSP camera crew given such powers, while the Kerbals we control are limited to mere physics?

If eyes are ruled out, what alternative do you have that can take and process images?

Hmm...

Maybe a camera? A camera that can be freely controlled give the player of a video game the opportunity to see their masterpiece from every possible angle?

Obviously I didn't mean a handheld camera.

 

I like retro games, don't get me wrong, but that's not what the real world looks like. Neither from the perspective of an eye, nor a camera, nor an abstract, zero-dimensional point.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Delay

[razark]

3 minutes ago, Delay said:

Maybe a camera?

Or maybe an abstract viewpoint that has no physical existence, and is therefore not limited by the physics that affect physical cameras?

How about while in IVA?  Is there a camera involved there, or do we need to start checking each Kerbal to make sure we're properly limiting to what a physical Kerbal eyeball would see, with appropriate visual defects?

[Delay]

13 minutes ago, razark said:

Or maybe an abstract viewpoint that has no physical existence, and is therefore not limited by the physics that affect physical cameras?

Uhhm...

21 minutes ago, Delay said:

Obviously I didn't mean a handheld camera.

 

21 minutes ago, Delay said:

...nor an abstract, zero-dimensional point.

 I acknowledge(-d) your point, but it doesn't change the situation one tiny bit. Yes, the camera is immaterial. So what? It's still your viewpoint, represented by an object that is supposed to get as close to real world optics as possible. And in the real world cameras show bloom, lens flares and other imperfections. They've become part of photography, even if only to avoid them. They're authentic.

I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to KSP 2 if the Sun is represented by a perfect white circle surrounded by nothing but blackness. That looks just as wrong as overusing the effect.

 

There is only one effect I can agree on with @lajoswinkler, and that is DoF. It's hard (to say the least) for a game to predict what the player wants to look at. Optional effect? Please.
I can even add one myself: God rays. They're very overused, completely neglecting their real-world causes, just because they look pretty. You don't see god rays between twigs every time you look at a tree, do you?
Either you make their use justifiable, or you don't include them.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Delay

[klesh]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:35 PM, Concodroid said:

However, when it isn't, it's beautiful. Take these two pictures I rendered quickly.

Spoiler

 

Which looks nicer, and higher quality? IMHO, the second (depends on usage scenario, though). On pure black, the bloom makes it look great*!

The 2nd picture with bloom looks exactly like when my glasses need to be wiped clean.  It honestly makes my brain demand I wipe my glasses off, and when I look at the other non-bloomed picture that sensation goes away. Not a fan at all.  I do enjoy some of these post processing effects, but only when I am able to turn them nearly off.  For instance, I would put a bloom slider to 5-10% to achieve what I feel is a nice aesthetic without looking like smudges on my glasses.

Edited October 3, 2019 by klesh

[DStaal]

37 minutes ago, Delay said:

It's still your viewpoint, represented by an object that is supposed to get as close to real world optics as possible.

Why?  Why represent real-world optics?  The point is to show the action to the player - if real-world optics help, fine.  But if they get in the way, they should be removed.  It's not a camera, it's not our eyes, it's a viewport into a world - and we define the viewport however is convenient and useful for us.

Don't replicate reality - of either a camera or an eye - decide what helps the gameplay and put that in, and decide what hurts the gameplay and remove that.

[razark]

34 minutes ago, Delay said:

I acknowledge(-d) your point

Sorry, I missed your edit while I was typing my reply.

 

35 minutes ago, Delay said:

...represented by an object that is supposed to get as close to real world optics as possible.

But, why?  We don't need to do that.  There is a long history in camera technology of trying to reduce the imperfections as much as possible.  The only reason they get added to fake cameras is that we're so conditioned to seeing them while watching a screen.  There's no reason to continue that paradigm.  I'd prefer to see KSP as through a window, not as through a camera.

 

41 minutes ago, Delay said:

Either you make their use justifiable, or you don't include them.

That's my point.  There's no justification to adding artifacts from physical lenses when there is no physical lens to cause them. 

[Delay]

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

The point is to show the action to the player - if real-world optics help, fine.

Well, they don't help at all, so...

Back to the NES we go for KSP and every game from now on!

No, that would be ridiculous, right? But making games more realistic and underlining that with more realistic graphics? Unacceptable!

 

I also like how everyone so far as conveniantly ignored my conclusions about the consequences of "No VFX" in their replies. Why, if you're right?

Edited October 3, 2019 by Delay

[adsii1970]

Hey, folks...

Just a friendly reminder to not make personal attacks for differences of opinion. While we do want an open forum for the free-flow discussion of observations, ideas, and opinions, personal attacks are forbidden.

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

The moderation team.

[DStaal]

3 minutes ago, Delay said:

Well, they don't help at all, so...

Back to the NES we go for KSP and every game from now on!

No, that would be ridiculous, right? But making games more realistic and underlining that with more realistic graphics? Unacceptable!

There are quite a few games that have taken that art direction, even new games.  

KSP needs a more fine-grained interface than the sprite-based style of NES, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be fully realistic - or to carry over the flaws of real-world optics.

[Delay]

Yes, I know that there are still games developed in retro styles. I appreciate that, but there are far to few nowadays.

Also, note the use of "every" in "every game from now on". That's what you're suggesting here.

And I still cannot imagine a Sun without lens flares and glare! Both of which - in "absolute" terms - are camera malfunctions, but - again - a perfect white circle doesn't look right!

Edited October 3, 2019 by Delay

[DStaal]

4 minutes ago, Delay said:

Yes, I know that there are still games developed in retro styles. I appreciate that, but there are far to few nowadays.

Also, note the use of "every" in "every game from now on". That's what you're suggesting here.

And I still cannot imagine a Sun without lens flares and glare!

No, I'm suggesting that 'realism' isn't the goal - that 'useful' and maybe 'pleasant to look at' is.  Realistic is better in some cases, and worse in others - use it when it's relevant, and when it helps the game.  Realism helps things like Call of Duty, as it's trying to put you into the place of a soldier.  It hurts things like Cuphead, as that's operating more on cartoon logic.  But it's not an either-or, it's a spectrum, and each feature has advantages and disadvantages.  Just saying 'it's realistic!' doesn't say anything about whether it's *good* for any specific purpose - even Call of Duty has a HUD to help you with elements that are part of the game.  Think about what your trying to convey, and how the tools you have could do that for you - if realism helps, fine.  If it gets in the way, remove it.

And if you can't imagine a Sun without lens flares and a glare - I suggest you go outside and look up.

[Delay]

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

use it when it's relevant, and when it helps the game

Microsoft Flight Simulator (1982) and Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020). Which would you rather play? It should be noted that 2020 uses a 2 petabyte databank to make sure the buildings and trees look right.

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Realism helps things like Call of Duty, as it's trying to put you into the place of a soldier.

And in KSP you take the position of a space program administrator and pilot. One of those could be done with graphs, the other could easily take realistic graphics to go with the realistic physics in the game*

*At least more realistic than COD!

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

It hurts things like Cuphead, as that's operating more on cartoon logic.

Of course, it's not trying to simulate (an aspect of) the real world!

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

And if you can't imagine a Sun without lens flares and a glare - I suggest you go outside and look up.

Then something truly is wrong with my eyes - the sunlight is so intense that I merely see white. Well, yellow actually.

What am I seeing? Glare!

Edited October 3, 2019 by Delay