Caves

[theJesuit]

I want lava tubes in which to lose my rovers from signal and build my colonies please.

[t_v]

Since this feature won't be added before release unless it is already in the works, I'd like to add my support for this idea. I think that a solid fraction of the player base would be in support, and I personally think that it would fit well as a stock feature down the line (after core systems are well developed)

[The Aziz]

I still say caves are a high possibility with all the hints. Despite what naysayers say.

[Vl3d]

Lunar pits are a thing.

[intelliCom]

I have a feeling that the addition of caves might be a low priority to Intercept Games'. The most important thing is to get interstellar travel and colonies working. After that, caves might be part of an update or mod.

Consider KSP 1's development: It started with Kerbin and enough parts to count them on your fingers and toes. Then they added the Moon, then Minmus, then all the other planets, then Eeloo. Along the way to here, they added rocket engines, fuel tanks, all sorts of things.

I think this is a good time to remind everyone that no matter how disappointing KSP 2 may be on release; it will get better. And if it's amazing on release, we can only expect so much more in the future. Even if there's only one extra solar system besides Kerbol. I don't want to see anyone complaining because we all know that more will be added in the future. When KSP2 comes out, just enjoy the better performance*, nicer graphics, and high-tech parts. You'll get more in the future.

*I hope I don't live to regret saying "better performance" when it turns out performance ends up being like Cyberpunk 2077.

Edited July 28, 2022 by intelliCom

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

I still say caves are a high possibility with all the hints. Despite what naysayers say.

Do explain.

[The Aziz]

22 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Consider KSP 1's development: It started with Kerbin and enough parts to count them on your fingers and toes. Then they added the Moon, then Minmus, then all the other planets, then Eeloo. Along the way to here, they added rocket engines, fuel tanks, all sorts of things.

That's early access. It's not only additions but a lot of changes along the way. Like completely redesigned aerodynamics to make drag and heating work properly. And the fact that Sun from a 2D texture turned into a flaming ball™. After 1.0 release there were some additions, yes, but very little significant changes to gameplay. The only thing I could theoretically compare it to is KSP2 in 2019 vs KSP2 last year. There's no way it could reach current level of detail in a year from announcement (and you have seen how little the planets changed in many showcases from that time). That's when they had interstellar travel and colonies planned. So, my point is, caves could've been in their roadmap for couple of years, perhaps since the studio change, ready to be done on release. I'd be disappointed if after development extended by 3 years they'd show us that nothing really changed since that gameplay from 2019. We have seen the evolution of KSP1 because it was available for us to see in whole. We only see tiny bits of KSP2 development and there's a lot they're not showing (which are exact Nate's words).

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Do explain.

Quotes from dev blogs:

We can’t wait for the next opportunity to share our progress with you all. In the meantime, we’re still hard at work in the radness mines, discovering and extracting new veins of totally sweet gameplay. I’m very sorry for this last sentence, but I’m leaving it in.

We want players to build crazy orbital drydocks and mining colonies on stalactites. 

[Bej Kerman]

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

So, my point is, caves could've been in their roadmap for couple of years, perhaps since the studio change, ready to be done on release. I'd be disappointed if after development extended by 3 years they'd show us that nothing really changed since that gameplay from 2019.

"no caves" is a big jump from "little gameplay". Even if you're right about a few obscure quotes confirming a massive gameplay feature that would require building and rendering planets in an entirely different way, it's nothing to be upset over if we don't get caves.

[intelliCom]

Just now, The Aziz said:

That's early access. It's not only additions but a lot of changes along the way. Like completely redesigned aerodynamics to make drag and heating work properly. And the fact that Sun from a 2D texture turned into a flaming ball™. After 1.0 release there were some additions, yes, but very little significant changes to gameplay...

... So, my point is, caves could've been in their roadmap for couple of years, perhaps since the studio change, ready to be done on release.

My point in bringing up KSP 1's development is this; If something is missing now, that doesn't mean it's missing forever.
The most important suggestion that Intercept Games needs right now is to just keep working on the game, and get it released cleanly and on-time. Then again, it's easy to think optimistically when you trust in something.

5 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I'd be disappointed if after development extended by 3 years they'd show us that nothing really changed since that gameplay from 2019.

Remember; Rask and Rusk, Orion drives, and Metallic Hydrogen engines were all parts of pre-alpha footage. That's a pretty decent step up from KSP 1 anyways, so I don't see why there should be disappointment. If KSP 2 offers everything that KSP 1 did, alongside better graphics, optimised performance, and a few extra things for a not-too expensive price, I'd be a happy camper. I think we can- with a degree of confidence- say that most if not all of the features shown in the developer insights and show and tells will be in KSP 2 on release. And even if some or all of it isn't, I'd like to support the game for a bit to hopefully see it coming back (that is, if they don't throw out a game that's extremely buggy and runs terribly like Cyberpunk 2077, of course.)

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

We only see tiny bits of KSP2 development and there's a lot they're not showing (which are exact Nate's words).

Seems a little cynical to interpret "a lot they're not showing" as "3 computers are on fire, the programmer's cat died, and our boss is a dick". To put it more plainly, I trust what Intercept is doing. Given that Cyberpunk 2077 is an important reference point to me, Intercept is already doing better than they did by directly showing us aspects of their development.

I'll admit that everything I've said up to this point sounds like lip service for Intercept, but I will absolutely agree on one thing; we have no real idea how well they're doing with development. This doesn't mean they're doing horribly; it's ambiguous. We only know exactly what they show us, which doesn't provide any clear view of Intercept Games' working conditions, KSP 2's progress, or the amount of influence that the corporate higher-ups have on KSP 2's features. (*cough* microtransactions *cough*)

We will just have to wait and see, patiently. For now, try out a really hard KSP 1 challenge or watch For All Mankind Season 3.
Time flies when you're having fun, and time trickles slowly when you're scared. We'll get to "Early 2023" eventually. (Or late 2023, if there's another delay)

[t_v]

On the stalactite quote, I though about caves but when I saw Skoot, I decided that they meant that colonies on the tippy top would experience negative gravity. Either way, we don't have confirmation and as much as I would love caves, I must say that the terrain system from 2019 was looking really iffy compared to the one we've seen recently. 

[The Aziz]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

massive gameplay feature that would require building and rendering planets in an entirely different way

Or they can just be objects instead of being part of the terrain. Performance issues are out of the question thanks to wonders of occlusion culling and similar rendering methods.

Or maybe Intercept were already building and rendering planets in an entirely different way from the start, we don't know. Don't base your thinking on how it works in KSP1, please. Just because we're used to something doesn't mean it's a standard way of doing it. From everything we've seen, it doesn't look like the planets are made of large rectangles anymore.

11 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Remember; Rask and Rusk, Orion drives, and Metallic Hydrogen engines were all parts of pre-alpha footage. That's a pretty decent step up from KSP 1 anyways, so I don't see why there should be disappointment.

Again, I'm not comparing two games. I'm comparing KSP2 to KSP2. If I told you I need double the time to finish a product after showing relatively satisfying results (for the time), and after that time, delivered only minor improvements and nothing else, you'd probably ask what I was doing the last two years. I hope to see a proper sequel, not a modded KSP1 for $60.

[intelliCom]

30 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Again, I'm not comparing two games. I'm comparing KSP2 to KSP2. If I told you I need double the time to finish a product after showing relatively satisfying results (for the time), and after that time, delivered only minor improvements and nothing else, you'd probably ask what I was doing the last two years. I hope to see a proper sequel, not a modded KSP1 for $60.

Touche. They shouldn't back down from what they've shown so far, especially given the delays. If they did end up doing it, I'd still be alright with playing it if it isn't as badly made as cyberpunk 2077

However, as another counter-point, caves have not been promised in any way, shape, or form.

Edited July 28, 2022 by intelliCom
added counter-point

[Bej Kerman]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Or they can just be objects instead of being part of the terrain.

10 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Don't base your thinking on how it works in KSP1, please.

KSP 1's Tylo cave is an object and not a part of the terrain, and it looks as ugly as you'd expect it to look. So I'm not sure why that would sound like a good solution for KSP 2.

[t_v]

Okay:

19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Or they can just be objects instead of being part of the terrain. Performance issues are out of the question thanks to wonders of occlusion culling and similar rendering methods.

This is very true, technically these things can be done, and if the devs decided to implement it, it wouldn't be a feature that ruins the chance to add other features. Caves could very well be in the game, they are in no way out of the question or even very unlikely. 

19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

If I told you I need double the time to finish a product after showing relatively satisfying results (for the time), and after that time, delivered only minor improvements and nothing else

I don't see how you can build anything out of this statement, since it does not apply in any way to KSP 2. The sheer progress we have seen in the terrain system alone (since that is what we are considering at the moment, there is also progress in other areas that we have seen) makes this analogy moot. In 2019, I was happy to see dramatic curves in the terrain, but it was still the kind of smooth surface that KSP 1 had, even in its mountains. Recently, the terrain I've seen is miles better than previous ones. That is more than a minor improvement, even if you ignore every other area of the game .

Spoiler

Just look at those erosion ridges!

19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Again, I'm not comparing two games. I'm comparing KSP2 to KSP2

19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I hope to see a proper sequel, not a modded KSP1 for $60

KSP 2 back in 2019 was a proper sequel - maybe not an award-winning, 10/10 GOTY sequel, but it nonetheless had enough new stuff and improvements that it could be considered a sequel. KSP 2 now is looking to be a vast improvement in quality over the original game - something not always seen when sequels to games are made. If you compare things to KSP 1, we already had a proper sequel, by industry standards. I'd say we now have a proper sequel even by fan standards, even if caves are never part of the picture. 

But oh man, I hope we get caves. 

edit: thank you, however, for the images in the knowledge repository. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by t_v

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1's Tylo cave is an object and not a part of the terrain, and it looks as ugly as you'd expect it to look. So I'm not sure why that would sound like a good solution for KSP 2.

Because Tylo cave is a glorified Mun arch. And, 1) KSP easter eggs weren't reworked like planet surfaces; 2) everything you can see on planets is very much in 2013 quality; 3) KSP1 planets are very much low poly so of course it stands out - by being actually MORE detailed than the surroundings. Except for the texture of course.

I don't know how can you compare this

Spoiler

to that

Spoiler

Where in the second picture you could cut a hole in the side of the crater and use the same material to texture a model put inside of the hole. If they were able to pull off Skutt, a nonspherical object with very distinctive, uneven terrain (like giant rocks on the pointy side and much more smooth ground on the opposite side), a cave with fidelity no less than the rest of the planet shouldn't be a problem.

2 hours ago, t_v said:

I don't see how you can build anything out of this statement, since it does not apply in any way to KSP 2. The sheer progress we have seen in the terrain system alone (since that is what we are considering at the moment, there is also progress in other areas that we have seen) makes this analogy moot.

Slight misunderstanding but I'll let it pass since it's not the point.

2 hours ago, t_v said:

This is very true, technically these things can be done, and if the devs decided to implement it, it wouldn't be a feature that ruins the chance to add other features. Caves could very well be in the game, they are in no way out of the question or even very unlikely. 

This is my point however, and I won't stop criticizing pointless comparisons between 1 and 2, especially the "it can't be done in 2 because it wasn't in 1" kind since the only thing connecting the two games is the engine and maybe a little of the codebase, we don't know how much (I'm assuming only as much to get the basic features running).

We got half a year at least, if i'm wrong and there's no caves, fine, I accept my defeat.

But if I'm right and my predictions based on nothing but "few obscure quotes" were correct, you know who was first to say it XD

[t_v]

6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

This is my point however, and I won't stop criticizing pointless comparisons between 1 and 2, especially the "it can't be done in 2 because it wasn't in 1" kind since the only thing connecting the two games is the engine and maybe a little of the codebase, we don't know how much (I'm assuming only as much to get the basic features running).

Oh, absolutely. I am just saying that the difference between saying it can be done and saying it should be done (to have a "proper sequel") is big. I really hope you are right, just like I hope Vl3d is right about the weather and scripting systems, but just like rain effects on windshields, KSP 2 can be a complete, good game that is wayyyyy better than the stuff from 2019, without having caves in it. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by t_v

[Bej Kerman]

40 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Where in the second picture you could cut a hole in the side of the crater and use the same material to texture a model put inside of the hole.

There's just literally no way that's going to look good.

[t_v]

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

There's just literally no way that's going to look good.

I do t see how that statement can make sense. If there were no way for a hand-modeled cave to look good, how would you explain all the good-looking caves in media? Even procedurally generated caves can look good if artists can generalize the steps they took to make the custom cave look good. And I have confidence that if the artists can create good looking erosion effects, they can also create good looking caves. Sure, cutting a perfect hole won’t work, but add some roughness, and a bumpy transition area around the mouth of the cave, and a collapsed rock scatter… it is definitely possible for a cave to look good. 

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, t_v said:

If there were no way for a hand-modeled cave to look good

Except that's not what I said, at all. Look at what Aziz said. I'm saying trying to procedurally integrate caves into procedural terrain. despite being a separate entity from the planet. will not look good.

[t_v]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Except that's not what I said, at all. Look at what Aziz said. I'm saying trying to procedurally integrate caves into procedural terrain. despite being a separate entity from the planet. will not look good.

And I’m saying it can. If you can break a model into steps, then you can make it procedural. On top of that, I did look at that Aziz said, and nothing told me that they were talking about anything procedural. The terrain for the planet is hand-made down to the level of large craters, so a few custom caves on a few planets wouldn’t be out of the question. 

[Bej Kerman]

19 minutes ago, t_v said:

The terrain for the planet is hand-made down to the level of large craters

That doesn't mean everything else isn't procedural. The devs aren't going to handcraft anything smaller than a crater with millions of square kilometres of land to work with. Procedural generation is still involved with smaller scales. What is handcrafted on a larger scale is pretty much irrelevant because we won't be seeing caves the size of large craters - we're discussing reasonably sized craters. And I'm still not convinced that it's possible to integrate individual objects into the terrain seamlessly.

[Catto]

guys can we just agree that the planets will be MUCH funner to geographically chart out?

especially kerbin...