KSP 2 metallic parts look amazing

[B_Pascal]

I've seen a lot of people say that you can recreate a lot of what makes KSP 2's visuals so dazzling in KSP 1 but nothing comes close to the unpainted parts. Maybe I'm just hyped for starship but I'm an absolute sucker for unpainted metallic spacecraft and the art designers did a fantastic job of making them look amazing in almost any lighting environment. 

[Guest]

I love the way the parts look in general, with or without paint -- and the paint schemes let you do all kinds of cool stuff to them. The designs are just beautiful too, while being functional and "believable." The artists are doing amazing work!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

Yup.  I’m doing a lot of orange/bare metal.  Really like the paint options in the game…

[Socraticat]

I spend a LOT of time just playing with the colors.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLrcuGyk_FPPjUnINXt3dOcfzsRtoIe81

 

[Dakitess]

I really really don't like the way the parts reflect the light, the shininess, the specular. And I very disappointed by the parts details as well, same as KSP1, a close up would immediately show that a cylindric part is actually made of about 20 faces, very visible  

Yeah, parts being 90% taken from KSP1 with no major enhancement + same flaws + very weird lightning, not a plus of this game unfortunately, to me.

[Heretic391]

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

I really really don't like the way the parts reflect the light, the shininess, the specular. And I very disappointed by the parts details as well, same as KSP1, a close up would immediately show that a cylindric part is actually made of about 20 faces, very visible  

Yeah, parts being 90% taken from KSP1 with no major enhancement + same flaws + very weird lightning, not a plus of this game unfortunately, to me.

Would be nice if we could tweak the shine on parts

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dakitess said:

I really really don't like the way the parts reflect the light, the shininess, the specular. And I very disappointed by the parts details as well, same as KSP1, a close up would immediately show that a cylindric part is actually made of about 20 faces, very visible  

KSP forums: "KSP2 runs like donkey, it needs to be optimized"

Also KSP forums: "I demand unlimited vertex counts on my part models"

[Dakitess]

Dakitess: "I think it runs poorly while it also looks bad which is nonsense"

Periple: "Reductio ad absurdum"

[Polaris0352]

10 hours ago, Periple said:

KSP forums: "KSP2 runs like donkey, it needs to be optimized"

Also KSP forums: "I demand unlimited vertex counts on my part models"

Just went through a MAJOR upgrade on my PC to bring it into the current decade of parts technology. It actually runs pretty well now. Time will tell once I get in to the game more now that it is playable if large part counts affect anything, but looking at the ground no longer puts me into seconds per frame territory, so there's that. Optimization would definitely be a good thing, and more vertices would be nice, but I still think it looks pretty stellar (HA, see what I did there?) as is. I'm just waiting for science to be a part of the game, then I can really get back in the groove.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:35 AM, Dakitess said:

I really really don't like the way the parts reflect the light, the shininess, the specular. And I very disappointed by the parts details as well, same as KSP1, a close up would immediately show that a cylindric part is actually made of about 20 faces, very visible  

Yeah, parts being 90% taken from KSP1 with no major enhancement + same flaws + very weird lightning, not a plus of this game unfortunately, to me.

Still not stopping having fun…

[Spicat]

On 6/20/2023 at 10:35 AM, Dakitess said:

And I very disappointed by the parts details as well, same as KSP1, a close up would immediately show that a cylindric part is actually made of about 20 faces, very visible

You need an extreme close up to see that though (except if you're looking for it, you don't see this), adding vertices for something this unnoticeable don't outweigh the drawbacks on performances. And you can see this with other games too (Even cyberpunk has those jagged curves on roads, vehicles, ...).

I agree ksp 2 needs some tweaking on the graphics but on parts, I respectfully disagree (whether it's on parts details, shininess or even texturing). If they kept them like this, I won't be mad.

Spoiler

[Ruedii]

I particularly like the parts that get a soft glare (semigloss anodized metallic parts.)

While harsh glare on many things IS ABSOLUTELY  realistic for space (near zero atmospheric scattering), sometimes there question of aesthetics.   This is why while national space agencies normally have everything coated in foil for maximum performance, your commercial agencies will use various anodized scattering paints that get almost the same level of reflection with none of the glare.   When they shoot footage from webcams they put up on their equipment they want it to look good, and the level of glare you get on foil coating in space does not look good at all.

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Ruedii
Moar details.

[dr.phees]

> but nothing comes close to the unpainted parts.

Try TUFX in KSP 1. You can even define the reflectivity of unpainted metallic parts or change the metal color from aluminum to titan, gold, copper etc.

And using the BobRoss textures allows you very detailed and tailored coloring or parts. Absolutely amazing and much better in my opinion than the current KSP 2 coloring.