So, lets talk about clouds...

[mcwaffles2003]

The discussion about these white fluffy mountains of the sky has been of particularly hot debate through many different topics in this forum lately so I figured why not make a topic about it so the other threads can stay on point and we can vehemently argue in one spot.  

I feel like the discussion really sparked when we saw this:

Spoiler

Which can seem as a reasonable reaction when we were originally shown this:

Spoiler

Which leads me to think they're sandbagging. I mean look at the big fluffy guy in the background...

Spoiler

LOOKIT HIM!!!

Gorgeous! All wispy and fluffy and contrasty with shadows, and just looking like... a cloud. And those altostratus clouds higher up... *chef's kiss*

But, most recently we got shown this:

Spoiler

And I think this picture encapsulates what is wrong with the "new" clouds, they don't resemble clouds... They resemble terrain. All edgy and low contrast and splotchy looking like it went through 2 layers of terrain generating noise... Also, all the clouds here (and in other recent pics) are wider at the bottom than they are at the top, which isn't impossible for clouds but implies the top of a cloud requires support, like the ground does. It simply defies physics. Like, just look at this guy top right of the plane! :

Spoiler

What is that?! Objectively unnatural and subjectively off putting! That's what. Still though, I don't think the devs are blind, I think they know what they're doing here and we'll see what happens when the game come out... 

Now argue (or agree, you're choice, but nowhere as fun), about why clouds may have taken this turn recently, what you assume we may see at launch, or about something off topic which another new thread may be born from. That water be looking fiiiiiiinnnne

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[Superluminal Gremlin]

No way, I just said we really needed a thread for this exact purpose.

 

Also: I think i've seen some repeated clouds. Like the old ocean texture with squares, but with clouds.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Superluminal Gremlin said:

No way, I just said we really needed a thread for this exact purpose.

glad to be of service

[Pthigrivi]

I don’t know about you guys but Im super excited to play Kerbal Cloud Program. 

[mcwaffles2003]

16 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I don’t know about you guys but Im super excited to play Kerbal Cloud Program. 

For real though, they do add a lot to the feeling of being on a planet, its a factor in making the world you explore feel more alive

[Sunforge]

Yes, let’s please move the cloud discussion hear and not have it on the hype train thread!

That said, the clouds look fine (not perfect, but fitting well with the style of the game at least) and there’s still plenty of EA time for the devs to change the clouds if there is a ton of public outcry against them. Let’s not pretend that the clouds we are seeing rn are the absolute and only form of clouds we will ever see from the game like ksp 1 didn’t go through mass texture revamps just a couple years ago.

[Vl3d]

I think the best looking clouds we've seen lately, that are an example of different artistic directions, are these.

Spoiler

These are the clouds from the show & tell video.

Spoiler

And these are the clouds from the trailer (which I consider the true benchmark).

Spoiler

I can further contribute these comparison images to the discussion (KSP1 EVE Redux volumetric clouds and KSP2 screenshots).

Spoiler

And these are just some photos I took of real life clouds.

Spoiler

My main critique of the clouds in the KSP2 screenshots is that they look like a single continuous white terrain / height map layer with transparency gradient as a function of height. That's why the look like mountains seen from above and why they're so whispy and see-through around the edges. They are not well defined like real clouds are. I think they are not true Unity volumetric clouds, but a custom implementation.

Of course everyone has their own preferences. But the takeaway is that weather visuals (not only clouds) are very important for immersion and should not be missing from the game (at least in the future).

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[intelliCom]

1 hour ago, Sunforge said:

Yes, let’s please move the cloud discussion hear and not have it on the hype train thread!

That said, the clouds look fine (not perfect, but fitting well with the style of the game at least) and there’s still plenty of EA time for the devs to change the clouds if there is a ton of public outcry against them. Let’s not pretend that the clouds we are seeing rn are the absolute and only form of clouds we will ever see from the game like ksp 1 didn’t go through mass texture revamps just a couple years ago.

I'd accept it being that way when EA releases, but they should probably change it at some point in development.

To support what @Sunforge is saying, we didn't even have clouds to complain about in KSP1. So, KSP devs, if you're reading this, don't get too caught up on visuals this early on. Get the game working and (relatively) bug-free, then we talk about how things look.

[The Aziz]

Regarding the OP...

The only thing I see that's different is the second layer. The ship in the old preview appears to be on the same altitude as the clouds, and we haven't seen anything like this since then. And the big fluffy guy? In the new one I see plenty of those around the red plane.

[Vl3d]

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

And the big fluffy guy? In the new one I see plenty of those around the red plane.

Not the same type of cloud. Not the same type of implementation. True Unity volumetric clouds seem to be missing.

Spoiler

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

My main critique of the clouds in the KSP2 screenshots is that they look like a single continuous white terrain / height map layer with transparency gradient as a function of height. That's why the look like mountains seen from above and why they're so whispy and see-through around the edges. They are not well defined like real clouds are. I think they are not true Unity volumetric clouds, but a custom implementation.

Clearly what we're seeing are the minimum graphical settings clouds (height map clouds). They might add other types of clouds (volumetric objects) for higher specs settings.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

And these are the clouds from the trailer (which I consider the true benchmark).

This alone is a huge problem.

The trailer is a cinematic, aside from the new parts shown and maybe some of the terrain assets the rest was left to the artist that made it, which is a third party studio specialized in cinematics.

[Vl3d]

49 minutes ago, Master39 said:

The trailer is a cinematic, aside from the new parts shown and maybe some of the terrain assets the rest was left to the artist that made it, which is a third party studio specialized in cinematics.

Yes, it's a 4 year old cinematic. And the parts look just as good in the game as in the cinematic. It's not a stretch to say that in 2-3-4 years the whole game will look as good and detailed.

[Thundy]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

And these are the clouds from the trailer (which I consider the true benchmark).

That's a bad and unrealistic benchmark in my opinion, but there is a better benchmark:

This was shown in a video somewhere, I forgot which one, but this is stunning and it's a pre-alpha in-game capture. why is the beta worse?

My speculation is that they're having some sort of issues that need time to work on, so they made a quick reliable cloud system to replace it until the really good one gets ready.

[GoldForest]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

And these are the clouds from the trailer (which I consider the true benchmark).

Then you will be sorely disappointed. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Cinematic trailers are just that, cinematic. They are meant to exaggerate and be a movie like experience. They are not representative of gameplay, not unless the little disclaimer pops up that says "Filmed inside the game engine." 

They show solar panels breaking off and shattering into a million pieces, along with truss structures. They show realistic ice formation on the LOX tanks. They show a kerbal flying by to grab on to a ladder, the kerbal actually reaching for said ladder. They show all this, yet we know none of that will happen in game. Solar panels will break, but not realistically. There may be ice, but it won't be realistic. Kerbals won't reach out for the ladder as they near it. 

If you hold a CINEMATIC trailer as a benchmark, then you will be disappointed. Deeply disappointed. 

15 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Yes, it's a 4 year old cinematic. And the parts look just as good in the game as in the cinematic. It's not a stretch to say that in 2-3-4 years the whole game will look as good and detailed.

No, no it won't. What we see from the sneak peeks, is what we get. They might improve the textures a little bit, but they will be nowhere as good as the cinematic trailer. Nothing truly it. 

The parts in the cinematic look 10x better than the parts in game. Why? because they're made to look pretty for the cinematic, like how you pretty a car up for a car show, or when you add photoshop to a movie to make the lighting better or the actors pop. I mean, just look at Jool in the trailer versus the Jool dive sneak peek. The trailer Jool looks way better. 

It is a bit of a stretch to say the game will match the trailer when we've been given evidence that Intercept's art style is not trying to mimic the trailer's art style. The game comes close, yes, don't get me wrong, but in order to get the fidelity of the art style and mechanics they used for the trailer, would take them working on it longer, and your personal computer would have to be top of the line, or worse, a gaming server to even run at playable frame rates of 30.

Edited February 3, 2023 by GoldForest

[tstein]

All I want to know is.. can  I  remove clouds from the game? I want the lest graphics  eye candy as possible. I do not even put sugar in my coffe.

[The Aziz]

You didn't even put the second e in your coffee.

My guess is probably maybe? I can't imagine that in planned form they're particularly taxing on GPU but you never know. In theory you should be able to lower the details to absolute minimum possible that doesn't affect gameplay.

However

Clouds are most likely an integral part of Eve navigation (as seen above) and of course Jool. Turn them off and you're left with what? Green flat texture at unknown distance below you? Even people with potato pcs are going to have some objections if that's what they'll get for $50

Edited February 3, 2023 by The Aziz

[tstein]

25 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

You didn't even put the second e in your coffee.

My guess is probably maybe? I can't imagine that in planned form they're particularly taxing on GPU but you never know. In theory you should be able to lower the details to absolute minimum possible that doesn't affect gameplay.

However

Clouds are most likely an integral part of Eve navigation (as seen above) and of course Jool. Turn them off and you're left with what? Green flat texture at unknown distance below you? Even people with potato pcs are going to have some objections if that's what they'll get for $50

Coffee is written almost the same in my language, but not exactly the same so it is one word I usually   write wrong in english.

[Pthigrivi]

Honestly a lot of what folks are responding to in most of these comparisons is the viewing angle and distance to the clouds and to lighting. Just looking at the clouds themselves in the most recent screenshot as far as Im concerned we’re looking great and I see no reason to waste a bunch of time further indulging in a relatively minor detail. It seems odd to me folks are so fixated on this. Im just imagining players posting endless strings of comparison images in every thread complaining that the cosmetic ground crew activity in the VAB isn’t sufficiently active. My theory though is it has to do with different aesthetic assumptions about what KSP is and should look like and not really noticing that nothing else in the game is photorealistic, that a certain cartoony stylization is happening everywhere. Thats why the clouds have a smoother, slightly simplified (to me more pleasing) aesthetic. I mean imagine we cared not at all about performance or visibility or actual gameplay impacts and put all the game’s resources into producing this:

Would that even make sense or look right in a game that had this?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Snafu225]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Yes, it's a 4 year old cinematic. And the parts look just as good in the game as in the cinematic. It's not a stretch to say that in 2-3-4 years the whole game will look as good and detailed.

Just to add to what @GoldForest said about cinematic trailers.

Just watch this cinematic trailer as I'm certain you know what WoW looks like.

Now, nobody was ever hoping that WoW would look anything like that ingame and for KSP 2 it's just the same.
It's just meant to create hype and a basic idea what the game will be like (not looks wise) but more the setting and grand scheme features at most. 

[Vl3d]

I will avoid having a conversation on this and other similar topics about visuals with anyone not planning on playing KSP2 on Ultra graphics settings. Please play the game the way you want. I consider this thread to be for people who actually care about visual fidelity.

[Snafu225]

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

I will avoid having a conversation on this and other similar topics about visuals with anyone not planning on playing KSP2 on Ultra graphics settings. Please play the game the way you want. I consider this thread to be for people who actually care about visual fidelity.

Okay, let us have a conversation then, as I care about visual fidelity and most likely will play at the highest possible settings and most likely will install mods that will enhance the graphics.


 

[Pthigrivi]

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I will avoid having a conversation on this and other similar topics about visuals with anyone not planning on playing KSP2 on Ultra graphics settings. Please play the game the way you want. I consider this thread to be for people who actually care about visual fidelity.

But do you understand my point about stylization? Look at Animal crossing or wind waker. Look at Journey, or Hyperlight Difter, or Book of Travels.  This is not a linear scale between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ graphics measured by how photo-real it is. Each game has its own internal style and aesthetic and so long as that’s maintained things look cohesive and beautiful in their own particular way. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Each game has its own internal style and aesthetic and so long as that’s maintained things look cohesive and beautiful in their own particular way. 

I agree with you, but I don't like that wanting good visuals is frowned upon.

Did you understand my point about the clouds being just a height map and not truly volumetric?

15 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:

Just to add to what @GoldForest said about cinematic trailers.

Just watch this cinematic trailer as I'm certain you know what WoW looks like.

Now, nobody was ever hoping that WoW would look anything like that ingame and for KSP 2 it's just the same.
It's just meant to create hype and a basic idea what the game will be like (not looks wise) but more the setting and grand scheme features at most. 

Ashes of Creation on Unreal 5 is actually starting to get close to looking that cinematic.

But the KSP2 trailer is a more reasonable benchmark. Some screenshots from the launch pad actually look very close to the quality seen during the rocket launch in the trailer.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

8 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I agree with you, but I don't like that wanting good visuals is frowned upon.

Did you understand my point about the clouds being just a height map and not truly volumetric?

 

I don’t actually see much difference from the most recent screenshot and this image. You’re just seeing it from a distance rather than passing through it. I do like the higher, wispy layer in the image below. Maybe thats there sometimes, or maybe they removed it for visibility, or maybe its just above the camera in the spaceplane shot. Either way this no kind of dealbreaker. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I don’t actually see much difference from the most recent screenshot and this image. You’re just seeing it from a distance rather than passing through it. I do like the higher, wispy layer in the image below. Maybe thats there sometimes, or maybe they removed it for visibility, or maybe its just above the camera in the spaceplane shot. Either way this no kind of dealbreaker. 

This cloud is volumetric, not height map based. You can tell because the fluff is 3d instead of just a 2d surface (it has fluff over fluff). It does not have the limitation of bijective surface functions that have a single Y value for every X, Z.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d