Weather visual effects

[Vl3d]

This post is not about simulating actual weather systems or gameplay altering systems like wind - it's just about the visuals.
I know there's not enough performance budget for this in KSP2 at the moment, but just look how immersive the game becomes with weather visuals.
This is amazing, I hope KSP2 also gets this sooner rather than later.

 

[Majorjim!]

This will definitely be modded into the game but the way things are going I highly doubt it will be added by the developers. 

[MarcAbaddon]

Speaking for myself, I would not want a weather system limited only to the visual. Either have it affect gameplay where plausible (i.e. strong winds) or leave it out entirely. Visual/gameplay discrepancy make me feel less immersed in the game. Of course, other people may think otherwise, but that is my opinion on it. I'm not even a fan of the Dres ring at the moment for the same reason.

[Guest]

I’m also very much of the “gameplay first” school. Everything visual should serve a gameplay purpose. Otherwise it just becomes a distraction.

Weather could make for some cool challenges but it would have to be carefully balanced to make sure it stays fun. Kerbin’s equator could have constantly mild weather so it doesn’t complicate things for new players, but other planets and other areas could be different.

To really work it would require a whole set of systems though, not just wind or rain. You’d want wind speed and direction heat maps, forecasts, cloud formations that let you get an idea of the conditions, wind affecting vegetation so you can see the wind, and so on. It’s a big job!

[Tapeta]

Rather than weather effects I would rather see patch which will solve cross feed from upper stage problem, docking ports issues - like vessel destroyed after undocking or this one when you undock your conics from maneuver planner are not displayed, ship exploding from no reason, wings falling off, changing AP PE values just from vessel rotation, and so on ...

Weather simulation is opportunity for modders, but for game which is about space and where you are moving most of the time through vacuum  it can not be a priority.

[Poodmund]

16 hours ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Speaking for myself, I would not want a weather system limited only to the visual. Either have it affect gameplay where plausible (i.e. strong winds) or leave it out entirely. Visual/gameplay discrepancy make me feel less immersed in the game.

3 hours ago, Periple said:

I’m also very much of the “gameplay first” school. Everything visual should serve a gameplay purpose. Otherwise it just becomes a distraction.

With reference to the above, would you be happy with all the rocket parts being solid pink cylinders and cubes, the sky be jet black and the ground be plain white? Arguably having parts textured serve no gameplay purpose, having normal maps to simulate ground visuals serve no gameplay effect, having stars in the skybox serve no gameplay effect.

I wonder where this line sits and what you'd be happy to retain and what you'd be happy getting rid of?

I'd love to see weather effects in KSP even if they are visual only.

[MarcAbaddon]

39 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

With reference to the above, would you be happy with all the rocket parts being solid pink cylinders and cubes, the sky be jet black and the ground be plain white? Arguably having parts textured serve no gameplay purpose, having normal maps to simulate ground visuals serve no gameplay effect, having stars in the skybox serve no gameplay effect.

I wonder where this line sits and what you'd be happy to retain and what you'd be happy getting rid of?

I'd love to see weather effects in KSP even if they are visual only.

 That's a bad argument.

The reason why I don't a weather system without gameplay effect, isn't that I think every visual needs to have a gameplay effect, it's that I - as I wrote - do not like a discrepancy between visuals and gameplay, which means not having an interaction with gameplay where you would expect an interaction. Strong wind would have an effect on your rocket. A thunderstorm such as in the OP's video definitely would. The Dres ring is a problem to me since you see rocks flying past, which would impact your rocket but don't (but devs said they want to update this at some point). 

A skybox is nothing where you'd expect an impact, so it's obviously a good thing. Things not having an effect on gameplay is fine, unless you would logically expect there to be an interaction.

To go back to your example, I would mind my rocket fuel tanks have wood textures, since wood is obviously not a suitable material.

I'd be perfectly fine with a weather system that affects gameplay, but OP was writing about having just the visuals.

Edited March 6, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[KSK]

I think we’ve been around this block before. My own view (for whatever that’s worth) on weather-as-gameplay-feature is that it’s mostly pointless at best and un-fun at worst.

Mostly pointless because, as in real life, the answer to any weather problem is likely to be ‘scrub the launch and wait a few days’ or ‘change the reentry path to avoid the bad weather.’  Neither of those is a particularly interesting gameplay mechanic.

Un-fun in the edge case where bad weather blows up just as you’re launching or (especially) landing. Losing a mission because Random Weather Roll says ‘no’ is not my idea of fun.

YMMV of course. 

 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

With reference to the above, would you be happy with all the rocket parts being solid pink cylinders and cubes, the sky be jet black and the ground be plain white? Arguably having parts textured serve no gameplay purpose, having normal maps to simulate ground visuals serve no gameplay effect, having stars in the skybox serve no gameplay effect.

But the visuals do serve a gameplay purpose! The part shapes communicate what the parts do, the colors will be super important for multiplayer so you can see who's built which craft, and building cool-looking rockets is a core gameplay activity! Same thing with the ground: it has the same relationship with two other core activities -- exploration and base-building. Ditto for stars in the skybox. 

56 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

I wonder where this line sits and what you'd be happy to retain and what you'd be happy getting rid of?

I'd only want to get rid of things that detract from or distract from gameplay activities. The rest is a matter of priorities: I would prioritize things that support gameplay activities over things that neither support nor distract/detract from them. 

56 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

I'd love to see weather effects in KSP even if they are visual only.

Me too! Maybe the tech art team at some point will have finished everything they need to do that supports gameplay activities, so then they'll have time to get to that sort of thing. Even better, I'd like to actually see weather be incorporated into meaningful gameplay!

(Although I have to say... I'm not sure I'd like it if there was a visual hurricane going on but take-off or landing was completely buttery-smooth. I think that would create a dissonance that's distracting.)

Edited March 6, 2023 by Guest

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, MarcAbaddon said:

I'd be perfectly fine with a weather system that affects gameplay, but OP was writing about having just the visuals.

IMO environment systems that alter gameplay should be discussed separately. I created a new thread for it:

 

Also I think that environment visuals (!) enhance immersion more than anything else and it's a fascinating topic to discuss especially when thinking about other planets and how, for example, entering the atmosphere during a storm would look like. It makes the game look much more interesting and attractive.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Also I think that environment visuals (!) enhance immersion more than anything else and it's a fascinating topic to discuss especially when thinking about other planets and how, for example, entering the atmosphere during a storm would look like. It makes the game look much more interesting and attractive.

I very much expect (and would like!) to see environment visuals improve a great deal over what we're seeing now. I'm all for beauty in all of its forms!

My only very mild objection to cosmetic-only weather is the possibility of dissonance between the visuals and what you're feeling. I think it would feel "off" to be landing in a beautifully-rendered thunderstorm without any wind effects on your craft, or have a beautiful snowstorm with no snow piling on your craft, or with snow piling on your craft but things like solar panels still working like nothing's the matter, or, for that matter, see beautifully-rendered ocean waves but not bob on them.

On the other hand everybody's gotten used to driving through boulders in terrain scatter and that's pretty immersion-breaking too. (They do want to make scatter configurable though, which indicates something about how they feel about it.)