Concern about the level of terrain detail in KSP 2

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Just sounds like you are making excuses for some reason. Don’t know what happened but okay. 

One can't just not like a game?

We tried it, it was sub par compared to the other similar games we play, we went back to those instead.

The game doesn't need to be catastrophically flawed to be discarded, just worse of what's already on the market now, even marginally.

The same is going to happen with KSP2, if the game bugs out just as often as KSP1 (a thing I don't believe possible, but we'll see) and doesn't provide new gameplay to justify the switch I'm going to be back to KSP1, waiting for fixes and updates.

 

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

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

?

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

?

Fifty years old code. Still being learned and partially used.

***

Let alone the FORTRAN math libraries.

***

But of course, any legacy project is a torture for creative people. It's always better to rewrite.

[SciMan]

I remember seeing something a while back about the terrain for KSP 2.

FOUND IT:

Yes, it's an unlisted video, yes I found the link on Reddit, but think about it like this. If this is the "test scene for asset review" as the tiny disclaimer subtitle says, why do you think we'd be getting anything less than what's shown? Sure, they'll probably reduce the RESOLUTION of the textures used a little bit to help it run on consoles within the given VRAM limit, but I can't see them toning down the amount of polygons of the surface scatter (not when you're close up anyways, terrain LOD's can load lower res meshes right along side lower res textures, and that's a good thing).

But my point is this: Why would they even put that video on YouTube at all if they didn't want to aim for that level of detail in the finished game?

And as far as why all those screenshots in the OP looked low-res and similar to KSP 1, well I have an explanation for that as well: The game's not done yet. Specifically, the terrain scatters aren't done for all the planets.
On launch, I'd expect they have good high res terrain scatters for (as shown in the video I just linked) Gilly, the Mun, and Pol at the very least.
However, we might also get Duna and/or Ike.

Remember, the re-do on the Mun's texture and geometry for KSP 1 was one of the last things they put in the game before everyone started working on KSP 2 (and easter eggs hinting at KSP 2).

So as far as what I'm expecting from KSP 2's surface scatters, I'm expecting something similar to what you get from Parallax 2's AMAZING physics-enabled surface scatter (if a bit toned down to make it easier to actually navigate the surfaces of the various planets given "normal" wheels and not "wheels made of robotics parts and grip pads" like you seem to need when navigating the terrain you get with Parallax 2).
Similar "high visual fidelity and accurate collision modeling" as Parallax 2 at least. Physics-enabled ground scatter for sure (maybe able to be turned off as a difficulty option, but I don't really think we're gonna get that option with how the surface scatter looks).

I also remember them doing a video or article where they went into greater detail on how they're making all these "sites of interest" that will cover all the planets (eventually, they might not be all in there on day 1 that we can even play the game in any form).

I expect we will have more than enough interesting planets to visit to sate our desire to explore the solar system until they put in the stuff on the next step of the roadmap. I also don't think the roadmap steps will take even 6 months for each one to run its course.
Depending on how difficult each roadmap step is (from both a "coding" and an "game art asset creation" point of view, certain roadmap items lean more on one or the other of those pillars), and how much they have ready beforehand for each roadmap step, they could take as little as 3 months to complete a step on the roadmap (so that they can gather adequate feedback from players and testers), or 6+ months (if they don't have much finished on that particular roadmap's goals), but I expect they're working on all of them a little at a time so that they can maintain a coherent gameplay experience.

I'm sticking with my estimate that most roadmap steps will take from 3 to 6 months to complete per each goal.
OK maybe the first roadmap step gets completed quick because "Yep, it's a game, and it works pretty well and isn't a buggy mess like we feared it might be, so let's move forward" or something like that.

But the major point I'm making is that even if the game is a little bit bland when it releases into EA on Feb 24th, I'm sure that as roadmap goals get completed we'll get a more and more complete solar system (and eventually multiple solar systems).

Bottom line is, I have no concerns about the level of terrain detail in KSP 2. I'm sure it's gonna be fantastic. And if it's not, well the planets of KSP 2 are supposed to be easier to mod than KSP 1 right? So the mods can fix it (or the mods can get rolled into the base game, just like was done with some select mods in KSP 1).

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Fifty years old code. Still being learned and partially used.

***

Let alone the FORTRAN math libraries.

***

But of course, any legacy project is a torture for creative people. It's always better to rewrite.

The joke you quoted was more about KSP1 being able to look like KSP2 with the right "body kit" and seen from a distance.

But I agree with you, not reinventing the wheel is an important rule in programming.

The problem with KSP1 is that the wheels don't work in the game and the people that designed them, for all their passion, had only a vague idea of how a wheel is supposed to work.

To go back to your mention of The Elder Scrolls and BSG, I'm constantly baffled by how seriously the gaming community started taking the jokes about the bugs and reusing the old engine.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Master39 said:

The problem with KSP1 is that the wheels don't work in the game and the people that designed them, for all their passion, had only a vague idea of how a wheel is supposed to work.

Whoever designed the collision also seems to think gear-up landings almost always lead to the landing airplane dissolving into the concrete. Just saying, KSP 2 should have mercy on parts that are travelling at high speeds but with little vertical velocity.

[Guest]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Whoever designed the collision also seems to think gear-up landings almost always lead to the landing airplane dissolving into the concrete.

This is a particular example in which I hope they went for a new approach instead of trying to replicate the exact behaviour of KSP1.

I'd like more parts having a "damaged" state that prevents them from being reused without spending resources to fix them (for recovered crafts) or that gives back a reduced amount of resources when scrapped.

(And obviously stop working at all for the remainder of the mission)

[Alexoff]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:19 AM, Master39 said:

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.

Apparently the developers use the same approach, let the fans themselves come up with a wonderful surprise waiting for them somewhere, they just don't show it. After all the surprises with delays and early access.

On 1/27/2023 at 2:01 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

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...

In the modern world, if you are ready to eat crap, then you will receive it. Because it is profitable - less costs, but the profit is the same. Because of such fans, we will get what we agree to.

[SolarAdmiral]

7 hours ago, Alexoff said:

In the modern world, if you are ready to eat crap, then you will receive it. Because it is profitable - less costs, but the profit is the same. Because of such fans, we will get what we agree to.

Yeh. But I'm willing to wait and see what the game actually is before crying that the sky is falling. They aren't even taking pre-orders. So they're putting zero pressure on you to pay up front. Everyone can see what the game looks like with their own eyes before giving them any money. Either on YouTube and twitch as the game releases, or by buying it and trying it out in steam's 2 hour refund window.

Keep in mind these aren't even polished trailers. These are just photos and videos the devs are sharing to show off some of their work.

Edited January 29, 2023 by SolarAdmiral

[Missingno200]

26 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

They aren't even taking pre-orders. So they're putting zero pressure on you to pay up front.

I'd argue that EA is technically a form of pre-orders, with the pre-order bonus being the ability to play one or multiple builds of the game early, but that's besides the point.

[SolarAdmiral]

2 minutes ago, Missingno200 said:

I'd argue that EA is technically a form of pre-orders, with the pre-order bonus being the ability to play one or multiple builds of the game early, but that's besides the point.

In some ways yes. But it's not a pre-order in the way that's meaningful to this conversation though. You get the game when you buy it. Steam gives you 2 hours of play during which you can refund it. You will get to see the graphics in the game as is with your own eyes on your own pc before you decide to keep it.