First beta KSP2 images

[Ryaja]

HOW DID I MISS THIS!?!?!?!

Edited January 9, 2023 by Ryaja
New page!

[K^2]

9 hours ago, Xelo said:

I agree with the notion that comparing a mod from ksp 1 and ksp2 itself is disingenuous. Mod authors  sometimes have very specific expertises that are difficult to look for in a regionalised  job posting, allowing for more advanced systems then what the core dev team can produce.

It's not just expertise, but also completely different constraints. If you make a mod and it turns out that it can't run on 30% of computers out there, that's generally ok. If you make a mod and nobody but you can figure out how it works to maintain it, that's not a problem at all. If you make a mod and its visual style doesn't match the rest of the game, well, people who are bothered don't have to run this mod.

Devs can't make these decisions. Anything they make has to be stable, maintainable, work well with everything else in the game, and be within resource budgets on target platforms. These are a lot of conditions that may require a lot more skill, a lot more time, or just straight up make the task impossible on current generation of hardware.

And yeah, sometimes you also get modders with special talents. Especially when it comes to these tight interfaces between the art and science that are the technical art of rendering, and specialization can get really narrow. You just shouldn't assume that the lack of talent is what has been holding back the dev team. There's way more that goes into it.

[bQuest]

On 1/6/2023 at 12:20 PM, Vl3d said:

The clouds could use some work

I feel like the clouds fit the semi-cartoony style perfectly. They look like someone drew them onto the planet.

Also, You can see a grey line on the horizon in the first image, Probably fixed by now but damn.

Edited January 9, 2023 by bQuest
Fixing grammar + forgot to add reason for edit.

[Strawberry]

I like the clouds but I feel like adding a second layer would be relatively easy to do and add wonders to how it looks.

[bQuest]

12 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

I like the clouds but I feel like adding a second layer would be relatively easy to do and add wonders to how it looks.

I'd think they're doing that with Jool, On the steam page there's a gif at the bottom that shows a probe descending into the clouds and it looks like there's quite a few layers.

Maybe not for Kerbin but for Eve and Jool multiple layers works amazingly.

[K^2]

36 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

I like the clouds but I feel like adding a second layer would be relatively easy to do and add wonders to how it looks.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see improvements like that as we're moving through Early Access. This isn't one of the things that has to be fully fleshed out in beta.

[Xelo]

5 hours ago, K^2 said:

It's not just expertise, but also completely different constraints. If you make a mod and it turns out that it can't run on 30% of computers out there, that's generally ok. If you make a mod and nobody but you can figure out how it works to maintain it, that's not a problem at all. If you make a mod and its visual style doesn't match the rest of the game, well, people who are bothered don't have to run this mod.

Devs can't make these decisions. Anything they make has to be stable, maintainable, work well with everything else in the game, and be within resource budgets on target platforms. These are a lot of conditions that may require a lot more skill, a lot more time, or just straight up make the task impossible on current generation of hardware.

And yeah, sometimes you also get modders with special talents. Especially when it comes to these tight interfaces between the art and science that are the technical art of rendering, and specialization can get really narrow. You just shouldn't assume that the lack of talent is what has been holding back the dev team. There's way more that goes into it.

While those lack of constraints is true, for a mod to be generally 'sucessful', it typically has to be stylistically consistent or superior, maintained for a long duration, and performant and stable enough for most to run it. (And a feature that is determined to be lacking in the base game but thats probably a given)

Those that compare ksp 1 modding with ksp 2 arent comparing kiddies first mods with ksp2, they are comparing cream of the crop stuff. Thats why I omitted those constraints. I feel these well recieved mods typically satisfy (or have the ability to satisfy) most or all of these constraints anyway. Leaving typically the narrow expertises and wisdom of the crowd kinda deals where out of everyone who plays ksp theres going to be someone who wants a feature and knows how to make it well.

I do however understand that the beaucracy of a real dev environment makes these constraints considerably more stringent, but its not that uncommon for modded features to be outside the techincal scope for the main dev team so I dont think it should be dismissed as a possibility either, even if the core team is very talented.

 

[intelliCom]

On 1/7/2023 at 4:02 AM, Vl3d said:

What color is the nebula? Not individual stars or galaxies. The interstellar dust - what color is it?

On 1/7/2023 at 4:23 AM, MechBFP said:

Yes there is green.

Do you think that is a problem or are you just wondering why things in space can show green in the visible spectrum?

As much of an advocate as I am for scientific accuracy, breaking the rules is done best by people who know the rules to begin with, and Intercept definitely seems to know the rules.

Yes, KSP is perhaps the most scientifically accurate space-related game to ever be made. That doesn't mean it can't use artistic license. The existence of the Kerbals alone is already a huge assumption if all that's on your mind is "its gotta be scientifically accurate".

Think of it this way; by having a green skybox, it'll entice people who don't know to search up whether green stars exist, and they'll learn that they don't exist. It's not like KSP is going to have an EmDrive.

Edited January 10, 2023 by intelliCom

[Benzo Kerman]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:56 PM, Stephensan said:

I'm showing that they do have such technologies to make clouds look as good as a certain mod that being produced for ksp 1. but the lack of nothing more than mix of cirrostratus clouds, altocumulus clouds and altostratus clouds for ksp 2 kerbin just looks... sad? like something they created, and just removed all function of, its hard to put my input on it without sounding insane, i was expecting big beautiful clouds with tons of variation but all we have seen as of current KSP 2 clouds on kerbin is rather flat, smooth, with some "textile" bumps here and there with it being mostly semi-transparent.. with almost nothing showing like a "ecosystem" of clouds, just a one type of cloud for the entire planet its just a shame as of now to see it everywhere like that.

I have additionally become curious of this... we have been shown stunning visuals, and then in the recent beta footage, it seems to be a serious downgrade. Besides just clouds, we've been shown some amazing surface scatter:

 Where'd it all go now?

There is no pushing the fact aside: we've seen a definite change in style in the latest images a videos. There are two possible options. 1: the beta stuff is from a build that does not have all the visual aspects incorporated- it could simply not be ready now. It could, if not present at early access, be integrated in a later update. This seems unlikely though, as if they have beautiful stuff, why wouldn't they show it off? 2: as @Bej Kerman has mentioned, they could be trying to go for a set visual style, one that isn't realistic per se, but at least is consistent. This seems quite likely too me, but at the same time personally is disappointing. It just feels a little sad that they have the technology at their disposal, yet have chosen to ignore it or use it in a way that doesn't look as good. When I saw the amazing show and tells showing off the new graphics, I dreamed of KSP 2 having amazing cinematic visuals. But alas, I guess modding is a big planned feature, so it may once again be up to the modders to make our stuff cinematic. Or, you know, it could be option 1...

I feel kinda bad about saying this, as all the devs seem to be really passionate people, and just dissing their work like this feels bad. 

 

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Benzo Kerman said:

 Where'd it all go now?

In a different test build.

4 minutes ago, Benzo Kerman said:

There is no pushing the fact aside: we've seen a definite change in style in the latest images a videos. There are two possible options. 1: the beta stuff is from a build that does not have all the visual aspects incorporated- it could simply not be ready now. It could, if not present at early access, be integrated in a later update. This seems unlikely though, as if they have beautiful stuff, why wouldn't they show it off? 2: as @Bej Kerman has mentioned, they could be trying to go for a set visual style, one that isn't realistic per se, but at least is consistent. This seems quite likely too me, but at the same time personally is disappointing. It just feels a little sad that they have the technology at their disposal, yet have chosen to ignore it or use it in a way that doesn't look as good. When I saw the amazing show and tells showing off the new graphics, I dreamed of KSP 2 having amazing cinematic visuals. But alas, I guess modding is a big planned feature, so it may once again be up to the modders to make our stuff cinematic. Or, you know, it could be option 1...

I feel kinda bad about saying this, as all the devs seem to be really passionate people, and just dissing their work like this feels bad. 

Why you spent the time going off on a conspiracy-theory-esque tangent for option 2 instead of settling for the obvious option 1 that the devs themselves have confirmed previously is a mystery to me.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, intelliCom said:

As much of an advocate as I am for scientific accuracy, breaking the rules is done best by people who know the rules to begin with, and Intercept definitely seems to know the rules.

Yes, KSP is perhaps the most scientifically accurate space-related game to ever be made. That doesn't mean it can't use artistic license. The existence of the Kerbals alone is already a huge assumption if all that's on your mind is "its gotta be scientifically accurate".

Think of it this way; by having a green skybox, it'll entice people who don't know to search up whether green stars exist, and they'll learn that they don't exist. It's not like KSP is going to have an EmDrive.

And they may even stumble across stuff like this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/08/this-is-why-some-galaxies-have-a-green-glow-even-though-there-are-no-green-stars/amp/

[Strawberry]

43 minutes ago, Benzo Kerman said:

I have additionally become curious of this... we have been shown stunning visuals, and then in the recent beta footage, it seems to be a serious downgrade. Besides just clouds, we've been shown some amazing surface scatter:

 Where'd it all go now?

Most of what we've seen recently is closer to the planetary surface, whereas earlier focused on orbital views. The recent beta screenshots looked about the same quality as the stuff we've seen before. The pebble texture looks meh, but the texture we've seen for rask and rusk and the sand looks great, we've seen mostly the pebble texture for now and I dont think that one looks as good as the others. Also the surface scatter has been reduced from the tests, I hope they can optimize it and up the amount of flavor scatter because it did add a lot.

[The Aziz]

The reason we don't see much scatter in recent footage is simple.

They're not showing much of close to the ground, do they?

Also, the closeups of the past don't really show that the surface is littered with rocks.

[Vl3d]

So.. I really like how the game gets closer to looking like the cinematic trailer. I feel the devs really wanted the trailer to be an accurate depiction of the final product.

But.. when will Jool look like this?

[Vl3d]

Also.. why do we still not see rooster tails on wheels and footsteps on dust? They should be there, as in the trailer. They're important!

 

[GoldForest]

44 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

So.. I really like how the game gets closer to looking like the cinematic trailer. I feel the devs really wanted the trailer to be an accurate depiction of the final product.

 

But.. when will Jool look like this?

 

Games will NEVER look like cinematic trailers. You would need basically NASA super computers to run the game. Cinematic trailers are just that CINEMATIC, they are not representative of the actual game. 

33 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Also.. why do we still not see rooster tails on wheels and footsteps on dust? They should be there, as in the trailer. They're important!

 

 

Footprints are coming, but other things are very much more important. Like making sure there's a descent frame rate, making sure bugs are squashed. Remember this is EARLY ACCESS, more features will come with time, but footprints, which are purely cosmetic, are not on the list of priorities. 

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by GoldForest

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

I feel the devs really wanted the trailer to be an accurate depiction of the final product

Listen to yourself 

[The Aziz]

19 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Games will NEVER look like cinematic trailers.

There are few games that look like trailers. It happens when game engine is great enough to be used in a trailer. KSP, at the time of announcement trailer, really wasn't.

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Listen to yourself 

Not entirely, but remind how the game looked when it was "we're releasing in 2020!". No way they would've hit the level of detail of today. Over the years they definitely aimed higher. Not to the point of the trailer, but if you apply some filters, and depending on scatter density, it may come closer.

[GoldForest]

Just now, The Aziz said:

There are few games that look like trailers. It happens when game engine is great enough to be used in a trailer. KSP, at the time of announcement trailer, really wasn't.

I will admit, you are correct, but those games are far and few in between. It's better to say that a game will never look like the cinematic trailers than to try and hunt down the Blue Moons, at least imo. 

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Games will NEVER look like cinematic trailers. You would need basically NASA super computers to run the game. Cinematic trailers are just that CINEMATIC, they are not representative of the actual game. 

Footprints are coming, but other things are very much more important. Like making sure there's a descent frame rate, making sure bugs are squashed. Remember this is EARLY ACCESS, more features will come with time, but footprints, which are purely cosmetic, are not on the list of priorities. 

 

We should really start asking more questions. Did not know about that answer.

[Vl3d]

@Ghostii_Spacecan we expect some of the remaining bugs in KSP1 to be fixed in KSP2 EA, at launch? For example the bug where jettisoned heat shields get stuck to grip pads.

Also.. will exploits be removed? Like the ones used by YouTubers to "break" the game.

Thank you!

Edited January 10, 2023 by Vl3d

[MechBFP]

Just now, Vl3d said:

@Ghostii_Spacecan we expect some of the remaining bugs in KSP1 to be fixed in KSP2 EA, at launch? For example the bug where jettisoned heat shields get stuck to grip pads. Thank you!

You are assuming that KSP2 will have grip pads, which it almost definitely won’t because that was a workaround to the slippery terrain bug which hopefully won’t exist going forward.

The only time existing bugs carry over from one game to another is when they are reusing existing sections of the codebase.

I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this but this is KSP 2 not KSP 2.0. There is a significant difference between those two. 

[Vl3d]

2 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

The only time existing bugs carry over from one game to another is when they are reusing existing sections of the codebase.

I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this but this is KSP 2 not KSP 2.0. There is a significant difference between those two. 

So you can guarantee the codebase has been completely rewritten? That old KSP1 bugs and exploits will no longer be present in KSP2?

If you don't know, let's welcome an answer.

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

So you can guarantee the codebase has been completely rewritten? That old KSP1 bugs and exploits will no longer be present in KSP2?

If you don't know, let's welcome an answer.

It has been confirmed mant times that KSP 2 has been written from the ground up.

[Pthigrivi]

Just an etiquette thing but I prefer not to constantly tag the creators directly on trivial questions. If they’ve responded to a thread on a particular subject there’s no harm in a follow up question but generally speaking these are very busy people. Im sure many of them lurk and see the tenor of conversations, so they’re aware of broad consensus expectations. All will be revealed in a month and a half and there’s no real advantage to knowing everything now.