Underwater features

[Fletch4]

From what I have seen, no underwater features have been implemented. I have created many a functional submarine, only to go under and be underwhelmed(was that a pun?). I would hope that there would be biomes chock-full of coral, different textures, trenches, etc.

I just hope that with all of the new features, having at least a couple easter eggs underwater would bring a new challenge.

Imagine having some kind of coral biome in Eve's oceans. You build and test a sub, send it to Eve, and explore the seas, while finding new types of "life".

[intelliCom]

22 hours ago, Fletch4 said:

From what I have seen, no underwater features have been implemented. I have created many a functional submarine, only to go under and be underwhelmed(was that a pun?). I would hope that there would be biomes chock-full of coral, different textures, trenches, etc.

I just hope that with all of the new features, having at least a couple easter eggs underwater would bring a new challenge.

Imagine having some kind of coral biome in Eve's oceans. You build and test a sub, send it to Eve, and explore the seas, while finding new types of "life".

The closest thing we'll get to exploring underwater life outside of Kerbin would be under-sea geysers, likely on Laythe.

But it would be interesting to explore underwater caves on another planet.

[TLTay]

Sounds like a good idea for a DLC.

[Davi SDF]

There will likely be more things bellow the surface of the ocean to exlplore. And it will be significantly easier to explore other planets oceans due to colonies.

Not only that, but if colonies are stuck on the ground (like the Launch Stability Enhancer) then they could definetly be built underwater!

[Fletch4]

10 hours ago, Davi SDF said:

Not only that, but if colonies are stuck on the ground (like the Launch Stability Enhancer) then they could definetly be built underwater!

I know this, but what is the point of having a massive colony underwater, just to find one surface feature? I like what @intelliCom and @TLTay said: underwater caves as a DLC.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Fletch4

[Nazalassa]

With complex networks of underwater caves!

[Caerfinon]

Ya... exploring underwater sites is fun. 

[t_v]

2 minutes ago, Caerfinon said:

Ya... exploring underwater sites is fun. 

What was used to achieve this? A mod, a rendering software?

[Caerfinon]

It's part of the mod Kerbinside Remastered - The Life Aquatic.  A collection of underwater contracts with sites designed in Kerbal Konstructs. The diving suits are from the WIP addon Sunkworks.  See signature for links

Edited April 20, 2022 by Caerfinon

[Laxez]

I would also like to mention that there is Puf! this very curious planet may have some features to... keep an eye on ...

[intelliCom]

On 4/20/2022 at 10:09 PM, Fletch4 said:

I know this, but what is the point of having a massive colony underwater, just to find one surface feature? I like what @intelliCom and @TLTay said: underwater caves as a DLC.

I didn't say as a DLC. Life itself as a DLC, absolutely, but considering how caves are a land formation, I suspect they'd want that implemented alongside the rest.

From what I know, there already exists caves in KSP1, just not underwater.

[Admiral Fluffy]

23 hours ago, intelliCom said:

From what I know, there already exists caves in KSP1, just not underwater.

Where? I know there is one on Tylo, but is there one anywhere else?

[The Dressian Exploder]

No, there isn't any cave aside from the Tylo cave, as KSP's terrain generation doesn't allow for generation of caves. The Tylo cave is technically a static structure like a KSC building or one of the other easter eggs.

[Catto]

I really want there to be.

[Zozaf Kerman]

Yeah

[intelliCom]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:59 AM, Admiral Fluffy said:

Where? I know there is one on Tylo, but is there one anywhere else?

I think the Mun has one or two maybe. It's been a while, maybe I'm just getting mixed up.

[Fletch4]

What about seaweed? it could just be an animated surface feature, that worked in the same way as rocks that aren't surface features so that you can still go through them.

[DunaManiac]

3 hours ago, intelliCom said:

I think the Mun has one or two maybe. It's been a while, maybe I'm just getting mixed up.

Perhaps you're misremebering the arches?

But no, caves and overhangs aren't possible in KSP by definition because KSP uses 2D textures to create terrain. A cave would only be possible by making a mesh or some trickery with groundscatter.

Edited April 24, 2022 by DunaManiac

[Pthigrivi]

3 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

Perhaps you're misremebering the arches?

But no, caves and overhangs aren't possible in KSP by definition because KSP uses 2D textures to create terrain. A cave would only be possible by making a mesh or some trickery with groundscatter.

Technically an arch is just a very short cave.

[DunaManiac]

49 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Technically an arch is just a very short cave.

Although since a cave should be enclosed in all directions except 1, I would consider an arch to be a very short tunnel rather than a cave.

Anyway, to stay on topic I would not be opposed to any underwater features. The only problem is I don't see underwater exploration or colonies as really being part of the scope of the game. KSP is a game about space travel as its core, and I would rather have that be prioritized rather than a peripheral feature. It would make good content for a later update, a mod, or a DLC, but I don't see it coming out on release.

[t_v]

16 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

Anyway, to stay on topic I would not be opposed to any underwater features. The only problem is I don't see underwater exploration or colonies as really being part of the scope of the game. KSP is a game about space travel as its core, and I would rather have that be prioritized rather than a peripheral feature. It would make good content for a later update, a mod, or a DLC, but I don't see it coming out on release.

Back in 2019 and 2020, Nate Simpson was interested in adding underwater exploration to KSP 2, though probably not at release. The reason I personally think that underwater exploration should be a prevalent part of the game is that a big portion of space exploration is actually planetary exploration. A lot of our missions to mars (aside from relay satellites) were to deliver rovers, which initially might not seem immediately relevant to space travel. But rovers and planes, and by extension boats and submersibles, are very important for fully exploring celestial bodies, and underwater environments on any celestial body would give us immense amounts of information. What is the difference between the rock on Titan’s surface and the rock at the bottom of its oceans? Knowing that could help us answer myriad questions on planetary evolution. So, I definitely wouldn’t consider it a peripheral feature to spaceflight, any more than rovers or bases. But at the same time, despite it being probably more relevant than rovers for the next few decades of exploration, I could see it being developed after the game releases. 

[Vl3d]

Beautifully said @t_v

[intelliCom]

7 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Caves and overhangs aren't possible in KSP by definition because KSP uses 2D textures to create terrain. A cave would only be possible by making a mesh or some trickery with groundscatter.

Huh, didn't know about textures. I guess that explains why it's so easy to have so many fully-fledged celestial bodies with terrain; the data for it is literally just a 2d texture. I'm curious, what's the resolution of the texture, and what's the ratio between pixels on the texture and km on the planet/moon? Terrain seems half-decent for a 2010s game, so the ratio might be something like 100:1 (pixels : km), right?

[Fletch4]

you can see a very obvious repeat at a certain height(especially over water) so it may be less than that.

[DunaManiac]

15 hours ago, intelliCom said:

Huh, didn't know about textures. I guess that explains why it's so easy to have so many fully-fledged celestial bodies with terrain; the data for it is literally just a 2d texture. I'm curious, what's the resolution of the texture, and what's the ratio between pixels on the texture and km on the planet/moon? Terrain seems half-decent for a 2010s game, so the ratio might be something like 100:1 (pixels : km), right?

It really depends. The planet's fine terrain is actually randomly generated, which makes up most of the rolling hills that you see, the heightmap only makes the overarching terrain like the flats on Minmus and mountain ranges on Kerbin - the noise is mainly there to hide the pixels of the heightmap and to give the local terrain a little flavor. Most stock planets, like Vall were actually generated through procedural noise and don't even have a heightmap.

14 hours ago, Fletch4 said:

you can see a very obvious repeat at a certain height(especially over water) so it may be less than that.

That's not actually the texture itself, that's the transition from the terrain to the texture. The texture by itself is what you see when you're far away from Kerbin, simply because its less resource intensive, but when you get close the game switches to the terrain generation system, where the texture is overlayed over it.

Edited April 25, 2022 by DunaManiac