So, lets talk about clouds...

[KSACheese]

11 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

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.

I'm confused how you got to the conclusion that the clouds that we see in the other screenshots aren't volumetric. Looking closely, they have very similar 3D "textures" (for lack of better words).

Also, the show and tell, as well as the previous Dev Episode are from a completely different perspective than the screenshots we've been getting more recently. Surprise, surprise, the bottom part of the cloud won't be visible from 40,000 feet.

There is no indication from what we have available that the clouds aren't volumetric.

[Pthigrivi]

20 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

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.

But look in the foreground of the spaceplane image. Its the same process. You’re just further away. There’s clearly an LOD factor there for distant objects. 

[Guest]

2 hours 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.

A cinematic can afford hours* per frame to render, a game has to run at 60 FPS on the minimum requirements.

Unless you're claiming that PC hardware became 215000 times faster* in the past 4 years how old the cinematic is doesn't count.

 

_{*: Yeah, I know, render farms, and probably not actually taking hours, and surely they didn't render the trailer on the potatoes most player will expect the game to run on, the math is all over the place but it gives the idea.}

[Vl3d]

27 minutes ago, KSACheese said:

I'm confused how you got to the conclusion that the clouds that we see in the other screenshots aren't volumetric. Looking closely, they have very similar 3D "textures" (for lack of better words).

Also, the show and tell, as well as the previous Dev Episode are from a completely different perspective than the screenshots we've been getting more recently. Surprise, surprise, the bottom part of the cloud won't be visible from 40,000 feet.

There is no indication from what we have available that the clouds aren't volumetric.

@t_v Do you care to share your opinion?

True volumetric clouds look like this.

And also look at that terrain and lighting quality!

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[tstein]

39 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

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.

Well  in a static show you can never tell if something is truly volumetric.  I can paint with oils  far more realsitic clouds than that and they are not volumetric at all One needs to see a video to  judge it.

[KSACheese]

6 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

@t_v Do you care to share your opinion?

True volumetric clouds look like this.

 

To clarify: are you referring to a technical definition of "volumetric"? I was referring to the more general "volumetric", i.e. having volume.

I have absolutely no technical background, so I defaulted to my more general understanding of the word volumetric.

[Vl3d]

15 minutes ago, KSACheese said:

To clarify: are you referring to a technical definition of "volumetric"? I was referring to the more general "volumetric", i.e. having volume.

I have absolutely no technical background, so I defaulted to my more general understanding of the word volumetric.

https://blog.unity.com/technology/experience-true-volumetric-clouds-with-hdrp-unity-20212

[SolarAdmiral]

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

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

What kind of cloud are you going to make first when it comes out? I'm thinking cumulonimbus. But I might be tempted by some nice Cirrus.

 

It was kind of a controversial choice for them to add rockets and planes and stuff for the sequel. But idk maybe it will be fun to fly them around our clouds at least a couple times until they get boring. I can't help thinking maybe it would have been better for them to just focus on the clouds.

[The Aziz]

Oh how could I forget! KSP2 has True™ Volumetric clouds!!

 

[Vl3d]

16 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh how could I forget! KSP2 has True™ Volumetric clouds!!

 

Totally forgot about that. Devs sure (still) know how to troll us.

I just don't know what to expect from the game anymore.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Vl3d

[mcwaffles2003]

38 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

What kind of cloud are you going to make first when it comes out? I'm thinking cumulonimbus. But I might be tempted by some nice Cirrus.

 

It was kind of a controversial choice for them to add rockets and planes and stuff for the sequel. But idk maybe it will be fun to fly them around our clouds at least a couple times until they get boring. I can't help thinking maybe it would have been better for them to just focus on the clouds.

It's settled, my rockets will all be cloud shaped now

[tstein]

28 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh how could I forget! KSP2 has True™ Volumetric clouds!!

 

That is more than volumetric, that is the first game with THICK clouds.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

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.

Not only are clouds aesthetically pleasing, they're the only sign that the KSP universe isn't effectively static. It makes the world we're in feel alive like, like things actually happen in it aside from the kerbals. Idk, in KSP 1 planets just feel dead and clouds are the one thing so far changing that. I like the game for making rockets, but I also like it for exploring space and exploring space is more interesting in a world that feels alive and actually has things to see.

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

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.

It's not about photo realism necessarily, they just don't even really look like clouds, as I mentioned earlier they look like white terrain.  I don't think we want photo realism but just clouds that look like, well clouds.... Just make them look cool and not half hearted "we threw it in there so people would shut up", you know? I mean, you don't wanna fly through some nice clouds and pop out the other side? Idk, irl my favorite part about flying on a plane is when we're taking off/landing and the pilots are navigating around big clouds and you just see these mile high monsters go by 200 yards from your window, I've personally put a bit of study towards them and just plain enjoy them so they are a special place for me. It was such a cool day for me when I finally figured out why low cumulous clouds are flat on the bottom and I always thought they looked like big pastries on a glass sheet in the sky. Rockets are fun but I want to explore

  

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

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:

 

I feel like this is strawmanning a bit, like people wouldn't be happy with stuff like this:

Edited February 3, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[GoldForest]

47 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh how could I forget! KSP2 has True™ Volumetric clouds!!

 

That's not a cloud, that's a giant popcorn. 

[Vl3d]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

Rockets are fun but I want to explore.

Amen!

[The Aziz]

21 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It was such a cool day for me when I finally figured out why low cumulous clouds are flat on the bottom

It's an actual complaint around here from some people, mind you.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, The Aziz said:

It's an actual complaint around here from some people, mind you.

I don't think I've seen anyone complain that some clouds have flat bottoms... In OP I mentioned displeasure that they all had pointy tops though, which is very not cloud like.

[shdwlrd]

I just find this whole cloud discussion amusing and annoying at the same time. The clouds seen so far are actually very passable for real life. I'm not lucky enough to fly when it's a perfect, sunny day. Whenever I fly, it's either partly cloudy, to full overcast, to rain/snow showers. (Free roller coaster rides anyone.) With both low and high level clouds. There's really nothing that has been shown recently that screams "this doesn't look right."

I'm sorry, but this obsession with the clouds and how they look is getting really stupid. Go fly somewhere and look out the windows at some clouds. You'll notice that what KSP2 has shown so far is very similar to what you will see in real life.

PS. I'm not a pilot or a professional/business traveler. I just end up flying every couple years for vacation or work.

[Vl3d]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I'm sorry, but this obsession with the clouds and how they look is getting really stupid.

Considering how many comments are along the lines of "KSP doesn't need graphics we can play it in the Terminal", I don't think it's a "stupid" conversation at all. Some of us want a visually impressive and modern game that's immersive for exploration. I personally really want to experience quality alien weather. What's "stupid" about that?

[The Aziz]

Just now, Vl3d said:

alien

Guess that settles it then? Kerbin is very much an alien planet despite having some similarities to Earth. Perhaps the alien climate forms clouds like these. We, as humans, haven't seen much of non-Earth cloud systems up close, gas giants destroy any spacecraft before it can get anywhere near them, on Mars it's either a dust storm or nothing, Venus and Titan are too inhospitable to get any closer look, and even on the surface there isn't much aside from single hue haze, as we know from Huygens and Venera.

[mcwaffles2003]

16 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

The clouds seen so far are actually very passable for real life.

They're really not, and it's not about fidelity, but basic shape. Please find me a picture with a bunch of pointy top clouds.  The manner in which they're making them is how you would make procedural terrain

[MechBFP]

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

They're really not, and it's not about fidelity, but basic shape. Please find me a picture with a bunch of pointy top clouds.  The manner in which they're making them is how you would make procedural terrain

Just Google cumulus clouds. The main difference is the ones in KSP2 lack the fine detail of real cumulus clouds which is what makes them stand out. 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Considering how many comments are along the lines of "KSP doesn't need graphics we can play it in the Terminal",

Can you point me to the screenshot with KSP2 graphics being a terminal?

Because at worse here people is saying that the graphics from the screenshots are "good enough" for the game, and that the game shouldn't focus too much on it.

On the other hand I've seen plenty of photos of IRL clouds or cinematic stuff used as the target the game should be aiming for.

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Just Google cumulus clouds. The main difference is the ones in KSP2 lack the fine detail of real cumulus clouds which is what makes them stand out. 

i did, and i know my clouds... they dont have pointy tops. Please show me otherwise though.

6 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Can you point me to the screenshot with KSP2 graphics being a terminal?

He didn't say that...

41 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Considering how many comments are along the lines of "KSP doesn't need graphics we can play it in the Terminal"

He said people are saying they would play it in terminal, which I have seen.

[The Aziz]

One thing nobody seemed to notice was the fact that the clouds are dynamic. They change shape, get smaller and larger, so the "pointy" bits may appear for 5 seconds and be gone (while the effect is very much exaggerated by some).