KSP2 Social Posts

[Snafu225]

10 hours ago, Coin said:

Took forever to find but it's the latter half of this video from 1 year ago

It looks grainy too, but still a lot better than the 'new' ones! Different style than EVE's, they both look great.

Oh damn, I totally forgot about that video, thank you. Yes those look really good, though Deddly is also right. 

4 hours ago, Deddly said:

For those of you worrying about the clouds, have you considered that, in real life, there is more than one type of cloud? Some look exactly like this. Perhaps there are/will be other clouds in the game. 

It could be just different weather/cloud patterns we're looking at. 

[DrCHIVES]

15 hours ago, Coin said:

I have seen much better in-game clouds on this forum though, one of the devs posted a video of a kerbal free-falling with very good looking clouds in the background. Better than the upcoming EVE update, I'd dare say.

 

It looked like it was 15FPS though. so perhaps that's why there's been an apparent downgrade.

 

18 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The clouds look bad and need work.

  Reveal hidden contents

The clouds were looking better in some old KSC images:

  Reveal hidden contents

In my opinion the clouds could use some of the launch smoke effect (lower right):

  Reveal hidden contents

Also consider KSP1 EVE Redux clouds:

We need to also keep in mind that these may all be different test builds.  I remember @Nate Simpson commenting on a post awhile back stating that certain aspects of the game will look different in various clips and screenshots due to multiple variations of test builds.  For example if the focus of the screenshot is meant to show off engine plumes and their interactions with other plumes, like perhaps the first of the new screenshots where the rocket is ascending with the KSC in the background, then the test build used for this screenshot wouldn't necessarily have the most up to date build of their cloud models.  However, I would say that I actually am perfectly ok with the cloud models being shown in these screenshots.  We got to remember Kerbin is not Earth, and I do not think that going super realistic for realisms sake in the models and textures is really in the best interest of the game.  Kerbal has that quintessential art style that just simply... fits.   If you want earth looking textures and cloud models, I'm sure the RSS mod will make those who desire that perfectly happy with the supposed amazing new mod friendly scene that KSP2 is boasting.   I for one am super excited!  LESS THAN 48 DAYS NOW GUYS AND GALS!!!

Found it!... In the Mun terrain work show and tell 3rd page, Nate Simpson stated this in regard to someone commenting that the clouds were gone from Kerbin while showing off the Mun:

"From build to build, stuff that's under construction tends to come and go -- that's why we try to be up-front about all of this footage being in progress."

Edited January 7, 2023 by DrCHIVES
updated info

[Bej Kerman]

19 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The clouds were looking better in some old KSC images:

Those aren't clouds, it's a skybox.

19 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Also consider KSP1 EVE Redux clouds

You'd only be making a point here if the dev of EVE had to also rebuild KSP 1 from the ground up. In my opinion, while the EVE Redux clouds look very nice while only considering the clouds, they aren't living in a vacuum. Against the art style(ish) that they exist alongisde, they look jarring, and frankly I'd rather KSP 2's clouds stay as they are than approach a realistic style.

People's hyperfixation on graphics continues to confuse me.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Deddly]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

People's hyperfixation on graphics continues to confuse me

I think I know what you mean. KSP has never been about graphics (at least, not to me). Some of the best games ever produced have graphics that could never be described as "eye candy". But at the same time, some of the grandest and most awe-inspiring sights I have seen in a game are from Kerbal Space Program; that view of the sun appearing just over the horizon on your first orbit, your first glimpse of another planet as you are working out a correction burn during an interplanetary manoeuvre, looking up at the majestic might of Jool ominously hanging over you from the surface of Laythe... those moments are unforgettable, even with the limited graphics available in stock KSP. I do appreciate that improved graphics can give an even greater impact in some situations. 

Clouds also bring an interesting challenge to gameplay; blocking sunlight to solar panels, obstructing the view of the ground when coming in for a landing, the fear of dropping out from a thick cloud layer and slamming into the side of a mountain etc. These are very cool gameplay/realism elements that clouds can offer, so it's not only about how they look.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Clouds also bring an interesting challenge to gameplay; blocking sunlight to solar panels, obstructing the view of the ground when coming in for a landing, the fear of dropping out from a thick cloud layer and slamming into the side of a mountain etc. These are very cool gameplay/realism elements that clouds can offer, so it's not only about how they look.

That's actually a very good point!

Making sure clouds correctly interface with solar panels is probably a higher priority than making them look any better, which probably isn't a goal in the first place because hyer-realism isn't what Intercept should be aiming for here, it's making sure that there's a consistent art style that the clouds respect. To take Outer Wilds for instance, its clouds (attached below) can hardly be described as realistic, but it works very well with the style of the rest of the game.

I'd anticipate that super realistic clouds like what's demonstrated in the impressive upcoming volumetrics update of EVE, not to say anything bad about it, would only serve to make KSP 2 look jankier (for a lack of a better term). It'd have the same kind of effect on KSP 2's art style that KSP 1 had when Squad started, but never fully committed to, revamping all of the parts.

[Snafu225]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'd anticipate that super realistic clouds like what's demonstrated in the impressive upcoming volumetrics update of EVE, not to say anything bad about it, would only serve to make KSP 2 look jankier (for a lack of a better term). It'd have the same kind of effect on KSP 2's art style that KSP 1 had when Squad started, but never fully committed to, revamping all of the parts.

@blackrack 

[Clayel]

This looks like a goldmine for @ShadowZone! Clouds are interesting, could use some work though

[The Aziz]

And you people only now noticing the clouds, not some over 1.5 years ago?

 

[Domonian]

17 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

And you people only now noticing the clouds, not some over 1.5 years ago?

It's only when it's not up to standard or expectations does it get noticed... or it's being compared to EVE.

I've been very excited for the new clouds and atmospheres, since "atmosphere" (literally and figuratively) adds a whole lot to a game.

The clouds in that show and tell do look MUCH better than what we see in (confirmed) gameplay screenshots, but there are a lot of reasons why that may be the case. The clouds show and tell could have been at settings that look great but don't perform anywhere near as well as the clouds we see now, and aren't going to be publicly available. I highly doubt that they would downgrade the graphics as time went on, but it would be odd to have steam screenshots at lower settings than Maximum. It could also be them tweaking certain values for that build, cause, as you stated @The Aziz, those trees popping in and the LOD in general isn't great. I just hope the clouds look more like that show and tell than what we see on the screenshots.

[Yellowburn10]

Devs: *Creating early access version of the game focused on validating the main foundations of it's code*

Everyone in this thread: Yeah but the clouds though.

[Alexoff]

49 minutes ago, Yellowburn10 said:

Devs: *Creating early access version of the game focused on validating the main foundations of it's code*

Everyone in this thread: Yeah but the clouds though.

What should we say from this video? That the aerodynamics are realistic and that the aircraft handles well? Well, in KSP2 it will be possible to make a plane and fly under the bridge, great! Is there anything else interesting to do on Kerbin? It, as in KSP1, looks completely empty.

[Yellowburn10]

3 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

What should we say from this video? That the aerodynamics are realistic and that the aircraft handles well? Well, in KSP2 it will be possible to make a plane and fly under the bridge, great! Is there anything else interesting to do on Kerbin? It, as in KSP1, looks completely empty.

What do clouds have to do with any of that? Last I saw, the fixation everyone had was on the cloud design, not whether or not kerbin will have things to do on it other than just leave it.

[Alexoff]

1 minute ago, Yellowburn10 said:

What do clouds have to do with any of that? Last I saw, the fixation everyone had was on the cloud design, not whether or not kerbin will have things to do on it other than just leave it.

Simply because there is nothing more to discuss. Well, the truth is, we've all seen KSP1 with mods, and the screenshots there are just as good. The world is empty, not all the buildings in the space center are left? Well, either the developers have not yet completed (!) or they won’t. It's hard to get excited about this. And we don’t know how the game will behave, two months before the release it would be possible to invite Scott Manley and he would show us how the game actually looks.

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

People's hyperfixation on graphics continues to confuse me.

I wouldn't say it's confusing, to me. It's a game focused on exploration and a lot of exploration is focused on taking in the scenery and enjoying the beautiful vistas. Not to mention KSP 1's graphics have always looked, to put it nicely, extremely dated and I think its understandable for people to hope for a more visually enticing game.

Personally Im not expecting something visual that's so beautified the gaming industry uses it for benchmarks, but I'm hoping when this game's finally released post BETA it will be beautiful. I think graphics are a decent reason of what has held the game back. As KSP 1 is, it's understandable for people like us on the forums to be completely enamored by a game that so well focused on making rocket science and engineering not only understandable, but downright intuitive. But I don't think that's the case for the large majority of people out there, and for a game to reach out to them and inspire them to enjoy this kind of stuff it's going to require a lot of things, beautification certainly being one.

I think a fair amount of people here are being a bit overly harsh when expressing their opinion but I'll say I also hope the clouds get better looking too, though they've still come a long way from KSP 1 which doesn't even have them.

[Alexoff]

I wonder if there are many people who first installed clouds and a scatterer, and then abandoned them? Without mods, the stock game becomes extremely dull and empty, it is completely impossible to play stock later!

[The Aziz]

There's people who want fireworks and then there's people who want to run the game on their 10 year old potato. And then there are devs who have to work in a way to make the game smooth for as many people as possible without holding it back, because sales matter.

[Bej Kerman]

27 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

There's people who want fireworks and then there's people who want to run the game on their 10 year old potato.

Don't forget the people that want the game to run properly on a state-of-the-art PC 

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

There's people who want fireworks and then there's people who want to run the game on their 10 year old potato. And then there are devs who have to work in a way to make the game smooth for as many people as possible without holding it back, because sales matter.

Isn't this why graphics settings exist though? KSP 1 is a rarity in how few graphics options it has available and its likely due to its lack of graphics. The CPU side will be the same regardless of visuals and will hopefully run smoother than KSP 1. If sales are the end goal here, I think graphical fidelity should be of high priority to attract new players.

[TomKerbal]

I also think that good looking graphics is very important even for a physics focused game. To show beauty of nature, to make the simulation look&feel realistic. For heart and soul.

[Coin]

2 hours ago, TomKerbal said:

I also think that good looking graphics is very important even for a physics focused game. To show beauty of nature, to make the simulation look&feel realistic. For heart and soul.

I'm with ya, I played KSP for years without any mods (except for chatterer), but things like Parallax and AVP were reinvigorating. KSP already had soul, but seeing the beauty of the planets and muns makes it A++!

 

KSP 2 already appears to be quite a looker, so I can't complain! But really all I've ever desired is atmosphere, clouds, weather, and FPS that stays decent past a hundred parts. It's a wet dream lol

[Vl3d]

5 hours ago, Coin said:

I'm with ya, I played KSP for years without any mods (except for chatterer), but things like Parallax and AVP were reinvigorating. KSP already had soul, but seeing the beauty of the planets and muns makes it A++!

 

KSP 2 already appears to be quite a looker, so I can't complain! But really all I've ever desired is atmosphere, clouds, weather, and FPS that stays decent past a hundred parts. It's a wet dream lol

Something like this completely changes the game. It's mind blowing!

 

[Nirgal]

I don't want to be that guy but 5 seconds into the video we see the Kerbal's head bobbing through the cockpit glass 

The contrails look amazing,  the KSC looks vast and interesting, I can't wait to try this manoeuvre with progressively larger and larger planes until.. 

[MechBFP]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:44 PM, Domonian said:

I highly doubt that they would downgrade the graphics as time went on, but it would be odd to have steam screenshots at lower settings than Maximum.

This the one thing I can’t figure out. The screenshots are very clearly lacking any kind of anti-aliasing being applied and for the life of me I can’t figure out why that would be the case. Surely the game is going to have something as basic as anti-aliasing as a setting, I hope?

[Deddly]

Is anti-aliasing a priority for a game in beta?

[Ashandalar]

Just now, Deddly said:

Is anti-aliasing a priority for a game in beta?

It's a trivial enough thing that I would expect it to have been implemented several years ago (it's probably just a flag they can set in Unity's rendering engine). It is definitely weird that they don't seem to have it turned on for promotional screenshots.