Show and Tell - Terrain progress

[MechBFP]

9 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

You can fly through the clouds, walk through the grass, but you still cannot phase through the rocks. Not a fair comparison. 

Not even a logical comparison. 

[Acid_Burn9]

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Not even a logical comparison. 

Indeed

[RyanRising]

5 hours ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

You can fly through the clouds, walk through the grass, but you still cannot phase through the rocks. Not a fair comparison. 

You can walk through some amount of gravel, provided you have shoes on. You’re not phasing through the grass in my example either, you’re pushing it aside, even though games don’t model that either. The reason I make this comparison is they’re all visual details that technically should have some physical effect on a vehicle moving through them, just not much. Small rocks would probably be scattered away from a small wheel and driven over my a large wheel without any noticeable change in its path, but I don’t mind if they’re static since modelling them as movable objects may be too expensive on a game that will already have a rather taxed physics engine. 
 

That being said, I’d love to see different types of terrain, which could include a sort of gravel that makes it more difficult to get traction with wheels and is visually represented by dense patches of these small, non-collideable rocks.

[JB182]

AMAZING!

[peridoot]

hey my GPU is screaming is that good?

[Guest]

So anyway after i came back round from passing out i thought i should say great job, its looking amazing : D

[Mr.dobsonian]

Absolutely phenomenal! 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Mr.dobsonian

[SpaceCatMeow]

Wonderful. I have always been amazed at the detailed and realistic graphics in games. Add raytracing here and you can stick to enjoy space views.

Edited August 17, 2021 by SpaceCatMeow

[magnemoe]

On 8/6/2021 at 6:32 PM, DunaManiac said:

I just have one question. I'm assuming the rocks are procedurally generated, but will the locations of the rocks be persistent? As in, can I drive around on gilly, then come back to the same spot, and expect the rocks to be in the same positions? Could I leave the game and then come back in later and will the large rocks be still there, or will every scene change or location change cause a new generation?

if you procedural generated something with an fixed seed you will always get the same result. 
So if you landed next to an rock it will be there on next load and it will be at the location in other games.
As I understand this is used on Mun surface in KSP 1. 

 

[The Aziz]

4 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

if you procedural generated something with an fixed seed you will always get the same result. 
So if you landed next to an rock it will be there on next load and it will be at the location in other games.
As I understand this is used on Mun surface in KSP 1. 

 

I don't see any other options. Randomly placed at each scene reload? I'd hate to have my lander blown up because a large boulder appeared where one of the landing legs was.

[magnemoe]

59 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I don't see any other options. Randomly placed at each scene reload? I'd hate to have my lander blown up because a large boulder appeared where one of the landing legs was.

Yes and using fixed seed is pretty common for stuff like terrain elements. 

[That John]

Imagine that they implement VR into KSP2... God, imagine walking on the new and fresh planets in VR, moving around the space stations while being (almost) totally immersed, and all of that.

[PlutoISaPlanet]

3 hours ago, That John said:

Imagine that they implement VR into KSP2... God, imagine walking on the new and fresh planets in VR, moving around the space stations while being (almost) totally immersed, and all of that.

I did a VR space station thing. It was cool, but super disorienting with the whole floating around thing. Made me imagine what it would actualy feel like floating in 0-G.

[Fletch4]

all this talk about gilly made me think about orbiting asteroids...

[amankd]

On 8/6/2021 at 5:21 PM, Nate Simpson said:

This is a good note. Will add to our backlog. Thanks!

this could be a variable made as part of the difficulty setting of a particular save, more and smaller objects are collideable when on higher difficulties to make roving more like real life plot and execute rather than doing donuts

[gussi111]

With the ground looking so gorgeous I can't imagine rover wheels, landing legs and other parts not making slight depressions / marks in the ground when moving around or standing on the ground, I hope the ground won't be completely static and solid, I really wish to actually see my first footprints on the Mun or rover tracks in Duna's soil, 

Something like we saw in the trailer when the rocket touches down on the Mun.

[t_v]

In response to the hard/taxing thing, the answer is that it is pretty hard and pretty taxing if you want to do it correctly. Putting aside 3D deformations in the ground because that would be excessive and kill performance, even 2D texture changes, when applied so many times and stored, are pretty resource intensive, and on top of that, a lot of work needs to be done to make sure that those texture changes work in every situation on every planet without sacrificing more performance. However, we have seen other graphically intensive things in the game such as visual weather effects and reflective planets, so it really is just a matter of determining whether the performance hit is worth it. For me, it is not. 

[gussi111]

Now that I watched this video many times I noticed a lot of subtle but very noticeable flickering and glitches with the shadows and lights, will this be fixed?

[Nazalassa]

On 8/6/2021 at 7:21 PM, pandaman said:

any chance of a low, med, high graphics setting comparison?  That may help those of us on lower end machines to stop worrying so much.

Yeah, would be nice for my 14-years-old computer. It lags with 200+ parts when in space, and with 0+ parts when in-atmo 

On 8/7/2021 at 4:02 PM, Pthigrivi said:

It seems like they would always have to generate in the same places. Im not a programmer so I might be wrong or explaining this poorly but I believe you can have things like this generate based on a set seed number thats either the same for all players or generates randomly for each save and then persists. 

That's Perlin-noise scatter generation, no? I did something like that on my Numworks calculator (the Perlin noise, not the terrain scatter).

Whatever, if you don't change the seed they normally reload the same.

On 8/9/2021 at 1:36 AM, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Will the rocks generate based on saves or be in the same spots for everyone? Just asking for projects like Upsilon

Depends of the size, so if you want to have the same terrain scatter etc in two saves they have to have to have to have to have to have to have the same seed. If you have access to persistent.sfs you can copy-paste it.

[bobjonesisthebest:D]

On 8/6/2021 at 11:26 AM, DunaManiac said:

This is stunning! 2022 can't get here soon enough! If I didn't know better I would believe that some of the scenes were photographs!

Can someone help me find my jaw? I think it's on the floor somewhere

2023*

[DunaManiac]

15 hours ago, bobjonesisthebest:D said:

2023*

I'm sorry if I can't predict the future, but that post was made before the delay was even announced. Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball to see a delay over half a year in advance, and I certainly don't see the need to bring up a 4 month old thread to point out something that neither me nor anyone else even knew about at the time.

 

[Anth]

On 8/7/2021 at 4:17 AM, Nate Simpson said:

There's a size threshold below which we don't intend to calculate collision -- that's still in flux, but we don't want your rovers to rattle themselves apart on apple-sized rocks. But yes, the big stuff is collidable.

After seeing Parallax 2.0 and the youtuber's issues with lots of rocks I have to say this is a relief

[Alexoff]

And in a real game it looks like this

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

And in a real game it looks like this

They've got better things to do right this second than deal with implementing the eye candy systems they made, and presumably haven't yet scaled to work everywhere under every imaginable kind of terrain.

[Alexoff]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

They've got better things to do right this second than deal with implementing the eye candy systems they made, and presumably haven't yet scaled to work everywhere under every imaginable kind of terrain.

Yes, for sure all the forces are thrown into the creation of autostruts