Idea for the coolest game performance optimization

[Breuss]

Greetings to all KSP 2 lovers and developers! Sorry for my English, I'm using google translator. I hope he translates correctly.

The fact that optimization is extremely important for KSP 2, and that everyone really wants it, has long been known to everyone. But I want to touch on a more specific topic. Where exactly is the very border when optimization can be considered sufficient?

I personally think that optimization should be such that owners of not the most top-end computers can build orbital stations, planetary bases or interstellar motherships from 1500-2000 parts without a critical FPS drop. Someone will say that I've lost my mind, but ... we really are all waiting for interplanetary flights and colonization, aren't we? And how do you imagine a starship of 50-200 parts? In my opinion it would be a rather dull sight. In the first part, with mods for interstellar flights, a decent interstellar ship cost me about 1200-1500 parts. And yes, I played with 3-5 fps. In CPS 2, with such crafts, there should be at least 25-30 fps.

There are many, many lovers of building complex, grandiose, large crafts. Yesterday I launched a rocket as close as possible to Saturn 5. With a lander and a command module. The craft consisted of 275 parts and I played with 7-11 fps. It's not bad. Before the release of the patch, it was even worse. But... it's only 275 parts. What happens if I want to build an orbital station with 1000 parts? As I liked to do in KSP 1.

1200-1500 parts in crafting at 30 fps, I propose to make it the very bar to which we should strive to optimize the game.

Another question is how to achieve this? I have a suggestion. But I suppose the developers may not like it, because. this will require a major overhaul of the game. Now all parts in crafting are physical. Those. each piece carries a rigid body component. I'm right? It turns out that if a rocket consists of 300 parts, then during its flight the physics of 300 components is simultaneously calculated! And their interaction with each other! This is a performance disaster! And most importantly, this is absolutely not necessary for the game. It doesn't help the gameplay in any way. It just brings dangling, flexible rockets like sausages or jelly into the game. And he forces everyone to use uncomfortable struts that only irritate and spoil the appearance. Physics is not needed on every detail!

And what is needed? We need one common rigidbody component for the whole craft! The rocket consists of 300 parts, but the rigidbody is one for everyone, common! If a stage separates from the rocket, it has its own rigidbody. Now we have two rigidbody on stage. Not 300, but only 2! If some part undocks, shoots back, falls off, gets damaged, overheats, it gets a rigidbody component and behaves like a separate physical body. But until the craft fell apart - it has only 1 rigidbody component for all its parts. Those who work in the Unity probably understand what I mean.

How should parts be attached to each other, if not with the help of physics? With the help of inheritance to each other! Everything is simple! As soon as the part should fall off from crafting, it ceases to be a child for crafting and the rigidbody is activated for it.

Why is it necessary? Productivity will increase not by percentages, but at times! Many times! It will be possible to create crafts from 1000-2000-5000 and even possibly 10,000 parts! And this is much more important for the game! Do you agree?

Players will be able to build epic interstellar ships, huge bases on planets, complex rockets with complex payloads, cool orbital stations!

[Moons]

That would defeat the whole purpose of even having  advanced physics and things out of lots of parts? Honestly this would ruin the game - if your system cant handle things with lots of parts in KSP2 why not just play KSP1?

And what would even be the point of having 10.000 parts when none of them matter? With the same logic you could just build a rocket out of three parts and pretend it consists out of 10.000 parts.

Sorry but this would seriously reduce KSP1 to just another one of those spaceflight sims without any depth. If your main target is building there are games made for that - for example Space Engineers on Steam. The key aspect of this game is the physics simulation - if you dont care about that you are probably way better off with other games.

 

 

I wonder - did you play KSP1?

Edited March 19, 2023 by Moons

[Breuss]

11 hours ago, Moons said:

That would defeat the whole purpose of even having  advanced physics

Why would it destroy the main idea? Orbital mechanics, trajectories, aerodynamics - all this remains. Without this, the game is not conceivable. But the connection of parts in the rocket will be implemented differently and this will give a performance gain. And also rockets or orbital stations will stop hanging out like sausages. Everything else remains.

11 hours ago, Moons said:

And what would even be the point of having 10.000 parts when none of them matter?

Why did you decide so?  But the same interstellar mothership, which includes an all-terrain vehicle, a heavy cargo landing module, a constellation of satellites for creating communications and scientific equipment - this already draws on a very serious amount of detail. Just over 1000.

11 hours ago, Moons said:

Sorry but this would seriously reduce KSP1 to just another one of those spaceflight sims without any depth. If your main target is building there are games made for that - for example Space Engineers on Steam. The key aspect of this game is the physics simulation - if you dont care about that you are probably way better off with other games.

I play exactly KSP, not space engineers. Because physics is just as important and interesting to me. Orbital physics. But the physics of rocking the rocket like jelly - this is clearly not good for the game. Or do you really like it when craft hangs? Does it give any thrill to the game? In any case, it hurts performance much more seriously. I repeat once again. Orbital physics and aerodynamics remain in place in my proposal!)

 

11 hours ago, Moons said:

I wonder - did you play KSP1?

I have been playing KSP 1 since 2014. I have visited all the sink planets many times. And in recent years I have been playing with mods and even adding my own models to the game. I'm also a Unity game developer. And I know what I'm talking about.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IJCgl8c3V7JWZSiFoj1wKpKj1IPsdcnF?usp=sharing

It's enough?)

I also want to add that in the CIS countries a very small percentage of the population can afford a powerful computer. I have a $2500 gaming laptop. And I have 3 more years to give a loan for him. All my friends have laptops for 300-400 dollars and very old ones. Those. among my environment I am the richest. Although a resident of the United States, for sure, can buy a PC for $ 2,500 in 2-3 months, and not on credit for 3 years. Those. outside of Europe and the US, with poor optimization, people won't be able to play PCB 2 at all.