Concern about the level of terrain detail in KSP 2

[Ekerci]

i think KSP2 might feel the same at the beginning of the game but later on you will understand that this is bigger than KSP1 by doing interstellar, burning while fast forwarding, new systems etc.

i believe the game developed in systematic way that the game can expand and add new features however it is weak in graphics which can be improved later on. but the base of the game is steady and strong to build on top

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ekerci said:

i think KSP2 might feel the same at the beginning of the game but later on you will understand that this is bigger than KSP1 by doing interstellar, burning while fast forwarding, new systems etc.

i believe the game developed in systematic way that the game can expand and add new features however it is weak in graphics which can be improved later on. but the base of the game is steady and strong to build on top

I have the feeling that it only looks the same, it will probably play very differently right out of the gate.

[Alexoff]

On 1/24/2023 at 6:00 PM, Master39 said:

On a side note, are we getting the same information? Did you see and read about the new VAB interface, the maneuver nodes, the tutorials and all the stuff that actually matters or you all just care about graphics?

What an incredible interface? Surely it will make the game three times more interesting, just like the new maneuver editor! New sides of the gameplay! And we are here discussing what we are shown. And for some reason they show us not too impressive graphics. What's with the performance, is my 3070 enough to pull these "beauties"?

On 1/24/2023 at 6:00 PM, Master39 said:

A whole topic about the terrain texture in beta that completely missed the important part of the new terrain system, the higher resolution in the heightmap, making terrain more interesting on a planetary scale.

Yes, but where is this unusual surface? And what to do on it? Like in KSP1, can I fly to a completely empty planet, plant a flag and fly home?

[poopslayer78]

On 1/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, GoldForest said:

On 1/25/2023 at 4:47 AM, Vl3d said:

What I'm really interested in is if we can drill or melt down a probe to reach the underground ocean and search for life.

More than likely, no. 

The devs already mentioned no destructible terrain (I forget where exactly).

That said, it would be easy to implement this as a science collection dialogue: "you run your sample through the analyzer and detect complex organic compounds!".

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

What an incredible interface? Surely it will make the game three times more interesting, just like the new maneuver editor! New sides of the gameplay! And we are here discussing what we are shown. And for some reason they show us not too impressive graphics. What's with the performance, is my 3070 enough to pull these "beauties"?

I don't know you, but I don't spend my time in KSP hiking up mountains to look at the sunset, I have other games for that, I spend it building and flying rockets (or planes, or helicopters, and occasionally boats). The changes in graphics are irrelevant.

Comparing them from screenshots alone you could say that the only difference in StarCraft I (1995) and Starcraft II (2010) is the graphics too, then you try to play them both and you can feel the full difference 15 years of evolution of the medium do. This is what happening here.

 

I don't need this game to be pretty, I need it to work and with more efficient systems than the first one.

 

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

And what to do on it? Like in KSP1, can I fly to a completely empty planet, plant a flag and fly home?

What are you expecting them to fill uninhabited planets with? This is not Skyrim.

[Alexoff]

54 minutes ago, Master39 said:

This is what happening here.

Truth? Where should I see it? You could see somewhere, tell me, be kind

55 minutes ago, Master39 said:

What are you expecting them to fill uninhabited planets with?

Anything for at least some interaction. But since this is not Skyrim, then it is not necessary, the same texture to the horizon is enough. As for the height map, you're not interested in that, are you?

57 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I have other games for that, I spend it building and flying rockets (or planes, or helicopters, and occasionally boats).

It is a pity that there is nowhere to fly and swim. It’s a pity that they don’t show us how someone directly built a rocket, and then flew to Mun and sat on the pole. In my opinion, the current advertising campaign is a form of mockery.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

I don't know you, but I don't spend my time in KSP hiking up mountains to look at the sunset, I have other games for that, I spend it building and flying rockets (or planes, or helicopters, and occasionally boats). The changes in graphics are irrelevant.

Comparing them from screenshots alone you could say that the only difference in StarCraft I (1995) and Starcraft II (2010) is the graphics too, then you try to play them both and you can feel the full difference 15 years of evolution of the medium do. This is what happening here.

 

I don't need this game to be pretty, I need it to work and with more efficient systems than the first one.

 

What are you expecting them to fill uninhabited planets with? This is not Skyrim.

I wouldn't go as far to say that graphics are wholly irrelevant, I think seeing the beauty of a planet you visit acts as a draw to go see it. That said, If the game looks bad I have no doubt mods will come in. Looking at what they've done with KSP 1, I can only imagine how KSP 2 will go. Also, fully agree though that more efficiency is priority 1 as that probably can't be modded to be better (noticing a severe lack of fuel flow mods for KSP 1).

2 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Truth? Where should I see it? You could see somewhere, tell me, be kind

Anything for at least some interaction. But since this is not Skyrim, then it is not necessary, the same texture to the horizon is enough. As for the height map, you're not interested in that, are you?

It is a pity that there is nowhere to fly and swim. It’s a pity that they don’t show us how someone directly built a rocket, and then flew to Mun and sat on the pole. In my opinion, the current advertising campaign is a form of mockery.

Dude, don't buy the game, idk what else you want people to say..

Congrats, you think the game will be crap and you're set in your position. Moving on...

[SolarAdmiral]

Building a game is a balance. The team has a limited amount of resources. Limited time. Limited money. You have to pick your battles. And planets are big, there's a lot of ground to cover if you want every square meter of them to look fantastic.

Looking fantastic isn't always everything. And frankly, always putting so much time and money into having the best graphics is one of the things strangling the life out of the modern gaming industry. Those fantastic graphics are so expensive paying huge crews, so triple A needs to squeeze all the money it can out of you. The big games so often are the same old thing and following trends to be safe as they can't take any risks for fear of failing. It's why Star Citizen is going to languish forever in development hell. And why really good unique and ground breaking games like KSP1 and others now come from small indie teams. Good graphics aren't enough to make a game good alone. Bad graphics aren't enough to make a game bad alone. I'm far more happy with good gameplay than good visuals. I'd take Factorio and KSP1 over No Man's Sky or Anthem any day.

Lets not overlook that whats being complained about here is only a small part of the game. The ship parts and the ships built from them look great with the shine and the custom paint. The planets from orbit look fantastic. The shots of Duna, Joel, and Glumo look excellent. The planet shine, the darkness, the rings, and the shadows promise to make space magnificent. 

So what we're talking about is the somewhat plain look of the planets from the ground. And quite frankly, even the images at the start of this thread being used as examples of how the game doesn't look good, in my opinion still look pretty good. And for the game ksp is, what's there is probably enough to support the gameplay. The planets are a place to land, build bases, and extract resources.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Alexoff said:

It is a pity that there is nowhere to fly and swim. It’s a pity that they don’t show us how someone directly built a rocket, and then flew to Mun and sat on the pole. In my opinion, the current advertising campaign is a form of mockery.

Oh, we're back to "Everything I haven't seen doesn't exist, and I'll pretend I haven't seen half of what was showed/said" stance. I see.

 

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I wouldn't go as far to say that graphics are wholly irrelevant, I think seeing the beauty of a planet you visit acts as a draw to go see it. That said, If the game looks bad I have no doubt mods will come in. Looking at what they've done with KSP 1, I can only imagine how KSP 2 will go. Also, fully agree though that more efficiency is priority 1 as that probably can't be modded to be better (noticing a severe lack of fuel flow mods for KSP 1).

I would.

I make that choice constantly when playing. Last time I've talked about choosing VTOL VR over fancier flight sims, now I have another example, @SolarAdmiral anticipated it, I tried Satisfactory, it sucks (factory gameplay wise) and I immediately went back to Factorio and Modded Minecraft.

Gameplay rules, graphic is an afterthought. Problem is, just like my Starcraft VS Starcraft II example, you can't show the difference in gameplay (and I'm using the term extensively, including in it the stability and UI improvements) from a 10 seconds clip or a screenshot.

 

 

[Drakenred65]

Seriously wish I could just put entire threads on ignore. 

[SolarAdmiral]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

I make that choice constantly when playing. Last time I've talked about choosing VTOL VR over fancier flight sims, now I have another example, @SolarAdmiral anticipated it, I tried Satisfactory, it sucks (factory gameplay wise) and I immediately went back to Factorio and Modded Minecraft.

Satisfactory is fine for what it is. But it's limited. It's a small handcrafted map. There's a place for games like that. Satisfactory, Subnautica, Outer Wilds. They're fantastic. But they're small enough to be fantastic.

Ksp needs huge planets. Ksp can't cheat and make a few square Kilometers surrounded with a skybox. Now with colony building, ksp planets are now more like blank canvasses to build on and roam around looking for resources. 

Do you complain a Factorio map, or a Cities Skylines map is empty when you start?

I think all ksp2 needs to look really good for our purposes, are some good looking clouds, some good looking hills and mountains and cliffs, some good sunsets and sunrises, some good looking planets from orbit. Everything else is just icing on top. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Satisfactory is fine for what it is.

It's the perfect example of a game that prioritizes the graphics over the gameplay.

It looks awesome, the world it's beautifully crafted, the problem is when you start to play it.

The map gets in the way when you're building, and the factory gameplay feels like it's 2 generations older than games that preceded it.

It's cluncky, everything feels like a chore.

I've tried it, and soon went back to games that have worse graphic but a gameplay design that's several times better.

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

i would.

I make that choice constantly when playing. Last time I've talked about choosing VTOL VR over fancier flight sims, now I have another example, @SolarAdmiral anticipated it, I tried Satisfactory, it sucks (factory gameplay wise) and I immediately went back to Factorio and Modded Minecraft.

Gameplay rules, graphic is an afterthought. Problem is, just like my Starcraft VS Starcraft II example, you can't show the difference in gameplay (and I'm using the term extensively, including in it the stability and UI improvements) from a 10 seconds clip or a screenshot.

To each their own. I'm not one to put graphics as a high priority at the moment, but I felt that KSPs heavy lacking in that department held back a lot of my desire to explore the worlds in it.

I also have played Satisfactory and found it lacking in comparison to factorio, but I think thats largely an issue with the lack of an overhead view when designing a factory making placement difficult as well as the inexhaustible resources and lack of external pressures making the game feel kind of stagnant over time. I haven't played VTOL VR but am aware of it and I don't think exploration mechanics exist in that game so any graphical fidelity needed for it would just matter in the UI to better enable people to interact with the game.

Overall, I just feel a game rooted in discovery should put some effort into graphical fidelity though, realistic or not, as motivation for exploring a world can largely come from a desire to see it. I'd also like to note, I recently got the volumetric clouds update to EVE and it really changes the experience to me. It makes me feel like I am exploring a living world and was awestruck falling through the cloud layer of EVE, I still haven't gotten out to Laythe to find the volcano yet, but it's really made me realize how badly I want to see KSP bring out more effects that make it feel less static and more alive.

Again, not a top priority, the game need to run and interface with players well and that matters most, but wow those effects are really the butter and syrup on  a waffle

[Vl3d]

16 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Overall, I just feel a game rooted in discovery should put some effort into graphical fidelity though, realistic or not, as motivation for exploring a world can largely come from a desire to see it. I'd also like to note, I recently got the volumetric clouds update to EVE and it really changes the experience to me. It makes me feel like I am exploring a living world and was awestruck falling through the cloud layer of EVE, I still haven't gotten out to Laythe to find the volcano yet, but it's really made me realize how badly I want to see KSP bring out more effects that make it feel less static and more alive.

Take it even further and think about more cool weather visuals and unique cosmic events and underground / underwater exploration and waterfalls and meteor showers and and and..

Spoiler

 

 

[tstein]

On 1/26/2023 at 6:55 PM, Master39 said:

 

What are you expecting them to fill uninhabited planets with? This is not Skyrim.

That  is where science and finding specific things can add some more (for that I made the thread about  having oceans that we could explore underneath for example). Also  if the resources are specific to different location  we might have already enough reason to  do more than visit plant a flag and go home.

 

 

Also I do not get why people care for graphics in a game like KSP. Graphics  are important  up to the point they can convey the information you need (like rocks make easier to judge height with good shadows), or all engines being very  clear that they are on, but besides that, graphics are irrelevant in this type of game.

 

The only games where I feel good graphics are important are Terror games where the atmosphere is super important, and soemthign alike war thunder  realistic tank  mode because spotting someone  is half the game.

Edited January 28, 2023 by tstein

[Datau03]

1 hour ago, tstein said:

That  is where science and finding specific things can add some more (for that I made the thread about  having oceans that we could explore underneath for example). Also  if the resources are specific to different location  we might have already enough reason to  do more than visit plant a flag and go home.

 

 

Also I do not get why people care for graphics in a game like KSP. Graphics  are important  up to the point they can convey the information you need (like rocks make easier to judge height with good shadows), or all engines being very  clear that they are on, but besides that, graphics are irrelevant in this type of game.

I do think graphics are quite important because KSP is a game about space, and space is just extremly beatiful and therefore nice if a game like KSP can show us that beauty. Also KSP is supposed to be quite scientificly accurate and things like realistic engine plumes (which look absoloutely amazing) do add alot. Therefore good graphics can and will make KSP2 an even better player experience IMO

[MechBFP]

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

It's the perfect example of a game that prioritizes the graphics over the gameplay.

It looks awesome, the world it's beautifully crafted, the problem is when you start to play it.

The map gets in the way when you're building, and the factory gameplay feels like it's 2 generations older than games that preceded it.

It's cluncky, everything feels like a chore.

I've tried it, and soon went back to games that have worse graphic but a gameplay design that's several times better.

I have played Satisfactory, Factorio, and Dyson Sphere Program and you are exaggerating ridiculously. A game that is fully 3D is obviously going to have challenges that a game that is either 2D or quasi-2D don't have to deal with. Saying they prioritize graphics over game play when there is quite clearly different technical challenges as a result of adding an extra dimension frankly just makes you look salty.

[SolarAdmiral]

12 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I have played Satisfactory, Factorio, and Dyson Sphere Program and you are exaggerating ridiculously.

Well, would you agree that what we are currently seeing graphically for KSP2 looks better than what is presented in game by Factorio and Dyson Sphere Program (as two other games that need to provide massive maps). And would you also agree KSP2 doesn't look as good as Satisfactory (as that game has a small hand crafted map).

Now that you've brought up Dyson Sphere we can remove Factorio from consideration if you don't want to mix 2d and 3d in the discussion. I think even still it makes the same argument.

Let us compare only the games that present the player with the entirety of planets. For a start, we have Dyson Sphere Program, Ksp2, and No Man's Sky. Which I think still illustrates what I was talking about.

Dyson Sphere is a great game. I don't think anyone would argue it isn't as visually striking as KSP2, it's graphics are simpler. Not that it needs it and not that it harms it as a game, what it has serves it well. And in the same way, you might argue No Man's Sky looks better in some ways. But it is a bit of a randomly generated mess. Fine for that game, but the same wouldn't really serve KSP2. I'm also not very familiar with No Man's Sky. Does it even do everything KSP2 does, with clouds, scatter seen on ground and in space, planetshine?

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I have played Satisfactory, Factorio, and Dyson Sphere Program and you are exaggerating ridiculously. A game that is fully 3D is obviously going to have challenges that a game that is either 2D or quasi-2D don't have to deal with. Saying they prioritize graphics over game play when there is quite clearly different technical challenges as a result of adding an extra dimension frankly just makes you look salty.

It has nothing to do with the game being 3D, in fact, I didn't even name DSP but modded Minecraft as an alternative (which is 3D).

It's in small details in the building and in the balance itself.

A simple example:

In Factorio to feed 10 furnaces I need a single belt and 10 arms.

In Satisfactory I need 10 splitters and 20 micro-belts that require looking at the splitter at funny angles to build properly.

I dropped the game (along with a friend) when we finished building 30 machines of some sort that way and realized we needed another 30 to finish the thing we were building.

[Vl3d]

Just a reminder for people concerned about anything related to graphics in KSP2.

Mr. Nate Simpson: "It's very important for our game to be visually impressive. It needs to feel epic. There have been a number of visual mods for KSP1 that have raised the bar as far as what's possible and they continue to come in. (...) These would include things like EVE and Scatterer and Outer Planets Mods, those are all sort of things that show what the minimum should be and obviously we want to exceed that drastically." http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/ 1:12:10

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Just a reminder for people concerned about anything related to graphics in KSP2.

Mr. Nate Simpson: "It's very important for our game to be visually impressive. It needs to feel epic. There have been a number of visual mods for KSP1 that have raised the bar as far as what's possible and they continue to come in. (...) These would include things like EVE and Scatterer and Outer Planets Mods, those are all sort of things that show what the minimum should be and obviously we want to exceed that drastically." http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/ 1:12:10

Hmmm. 

That casual drop about the outer planets mod... it could be nothing, but why'd he mention it specifically? Makes you wonder. Again, could be nothing, or could have been a subtle hint. 

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

It has nothing to do with the game being 3D, in fact, I didn't even name DSP but modded Minecraft as an alternative (which is 3D).

It's in small details in the building and in the balance itself.

A simple example:

In Factorio to feed 10 furnaces I need a single belt and 10 arms.

In Satisfactory I need 10 splitters and 20 micro-belts that require looking at the splitter at funny angles to build properly.

I dropped the game (along with a friend) when we finished building 30 machines of some sort that way and realized we needed another 30 to finish the thing we were building.

Feel free to use this:

https://ficsit.app/mod/5yGWmmB8KL2Zq8
 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Feel free to use this:

https://ficsit.app/mod/5yGWmmB8KL2Zq8
 

That was just a single example, the whole experience was clunky like that.

They're great at making assets and fancy worlds at Coffee Stain, that's for sure, but their gameplay design peaked with Goat Simulator.

Why bother fixing Satisfactory when I have plenty of options in this over-saturated genre?

[MechBFP]

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

That was just a single example, the whole experience was clunky like that.

They're great at making assets and fancy worlds at Coffee Stain, that's for sure, but their gameplay design peaked with Goat Simulator.

Why bother fixing Satisfactory when I have plenty of options in this over-saturated genre?

I’m just going to roll my eyes at that last statement. Every genre in existence is over saturated if that one is. Just sounds like you are making excuses for some reason. Don’t know what happened but okay. 

[kerbiloid]

On 1/24/2023 at 6:50 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

It's not like the games code just needed a few tweaks, it needed to be rebuilt. Would you rather rebuild a unibody car with a rotted out frame and borked wiring, cutting out individual rust patches to weld new bits back in their place and file them down while retracing all the wiring through welded panels or just build a new car?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

The Tired Code theory.

The old code gets worse every year, even if it isn't changed. More than ten year old one is just insultingly disgusting and must be rewritten in any case.

On 1/24/2023 at 6:00 PM, Master39 said:

I don't know why but this reminds me of the old fad (was it in the '90s? It's before my time for sure so I don't know the details) of putting body-kits on cheap sport cars to make them look like a specific Ferrari or Lamborghini.

The Elder Scrolls  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming
A half-century obsolete scratches on the cave wall.

On 1/22/2023 at 11:59 PM, wpetula said:

It's nuked and turned into glass (trinitite).
Or has passed too close to the Sun.

Edited January 28, 2023 by kerbiloid