Damn it! How wonderful it is!)

[Breuss]

I want to share screenshots of my flights. I know that KSP 1 with mods looks just as good or even better. But KSP 2 already knows how to please the eye.

[Little 908]

I love how the poles of kerbin look!

[Vanamonde]

I am not able to view these.

[shdwlrd]

31 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

I am not able to view these.

Me neither, all the links are broken.

[Breuss]

3 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Me neither, all the links are broken.

36 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

I am not able to view these.

Hmm... I can't see my screenshots either. During the day they were all visible. What the hell?

[Little 908]

6 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Me neither, all the links are broken.

I can see them, weird 

 

https://imgur.com/a/a2MMwFQ

Edited March 24, 2023 by Little 908

[Periple]

I can see them and they look brilliant!

[regex]

5 hours ago, Breuss said:

I know that KSP 1 with mods looks just as good or even better.

Debatable. KSP2 looks awesome to me, the terrain looks like it has dealt with actual erosion and like it should from altitude.

Thanks for sharing!

Edited March 24, 2023 by regex

[Rosten]

11 hours ago, regex said:

Debatable. KSP2 looks awesome to me, the terrain looks like it has dealt with actual erosion and like it should from altitude.

It looks like an OpenGL landscape tutorial from 20 years ago to me, and the tree stubble from before that.  Like, even Operation Flashpoint supported LoD forests, where instead of tree stubble that vanishes at some clip distance, it would convert forests into individual trees at various distances, so distant dense trees would look much more natural.  That was 22 years ago.  Example of foliage (it changes in motion):

Versus KSP 2 foliage:

Even the texturing looks better despite that being on absolute potatoes in the early days of GPU terrain with almost no texture memory, limited sampling, and before programmable shaders.  KSP 2 has this horrible crinkle detail texture for mountains which follows obvious polygon seams.  Just doesn't look good at all compared to the ancient past, and games have come a long way since that ancient past.

[regex]

6 hours ago, Rosten said:

Just doesn't look good at all compared to the ancient past, and games have come a long way since that ancient past.

It's true, I probably focus too much on the terrain rather than the actual graphics. The detail pop-in is terrible and could be much better, even from altitude. I don't think the texturing is bad at all, it's pretty detailed up close but I do agree they need to extend that further. I do think they've done some really neat things in the game but that's subjective.

[cocoscacao]

32 minutes ago, regex said:

I don't think the texturing is bad at all, it's pretty detailed up close but I do agree they need to extend that further

Uhm, ehm... I'm not sure on this topic. How much detail is enough? Trees? I Don't care. So far, only Kerbin has them, and the major goal of this game is to get as far away as possible from it. Vegetation so far is completely fine for me. I'm more interested in collidable (?) scatter, to make landing and rovers more of a challenge.