KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Bej Kerman]

On 11/4/2023 at 10:23 AM, Vl3d said:

Yeah but it's not this now, is it?

Are we still pulling images of handcrafted scenes from Google and proclaiming them a standard for planetary scale games like we were in 2020/2021?

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Are we still pulling images of handcrafted scenes from Google and proclaiming them a standard for planetary scale games like we were in 2020/2021?

Yes anything short of "what we can see on Mars and the Moon with current photographic technology" is subpar and must be derided as "so early 2000s"

[PDCWolf]

Lots of people lying to themselves here.

ED has planet sized planetary bodies, for example (Horizons launched 2015):

Spoiler

No Man's Sky launched 2016, has Kerbal-sized planets:

Spoiler

Space Engine launched 2013, has planet-sized planets:

Spoiler

That the game looks dated is an objective observation. Whether you take the cartoony style into account or not.

[Jaypeg]

Really

[The Aziz]

5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

ED has planet sized planetary bodies, for example (Horizons launched 2015):

Aside from cool details like particle effects and trails left behind the wheels, it's not much different from what KSP2 should offer if they stick to the level of detail shown prior to release.

5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

No Man's Sky launched 2016, has Kerbal-sized planets:

NMS has only several types of planets, once you've seen them, you've seen the entire galaxy. And tbh they are quite boring, after 3rd hill you won't expect anything new, it's same old hills, valleys, flying islands and whatnot. And the way the game looked back in 2016 also left a lot to be desired, it didn't look like that from day1 either.

5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Space Engine launched 2013, has planet-sized planets:

Looks cool until you get down to the surface. Cuz up close is eeeeeeh. And SE is full procedural, regardless if it makes sense to have pointy peaks on a body with barely any atmosphere or not. And again, once you've seen a piece of a planet, you know exactly what to expect on the other side of it.

[Periple]

The sentiment on Reddit has shifted pretty dramatically. Out of 854 votes on a recent poll, only 67 are absolutely negative about KSP2's future. The dominant sentiment now appears to be "cautiously optimistic" -- reserving judgment until 0.2.0 or 0.3.0.

It appears that the hardcore hater contingent is a vocal minority even on Reddit!

 

[The Aziz]

Always has been.

[Dakitess]

11 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Remember the big text at the bottom in the trailer? I'll remind you

I rather remember what I've seen in many prerelease footages, it was impressive enough, considering...
 

That what you describe is usually handcrafted, at scale reaching some dozens kilometers at most. Forgot we're dealing with literal planet-sized bodies? Nobody's going to do that by hand, ever.

Hum, no, no. Stop with this argument. There is PLENTY way to get proper scenery, while not doing them handcrafted. Obviously, thanks captain.

Examples were given. There is probably many others. You'll say that KSP is a way smaller team, that it's not using the good engine to do so, etc : yes, and that's part of my point. It won't get get good enough even with time. It might get correct-ish, and enhanced by mods. But not something that would set it apart from KSP1, from the old decade scenery, which is, to me at least, very VERY a shame.

That's it.

And yeah, trailer, not actual gameplay, blabla, the debate has been treated a thousand time, it's fine if you don't see any promise in it, no expectation, no engagement, if you can show whatever you want as long as you mention the magic phrase for the whole show, etc. Not my opinion, by any means. You show me a BIG focus on terrain and scenery ? I don't expect it to be the way it looks in the trailer, but I expect it to be a major thing in the game. You show me a BIG focus on the per-part physic destruction ? I expect something related in the game, which is not. Etc. This is not a gimmick, a transition, a camera work, a cut-scene, a context, that would be legit to give a nice continuity to the video, a global enhancement, etc. No, it was a specific "LOOK AT IT ! SCENERY ! TERRAIN ! TOPOLOGY, look, look ! The wheels bumps dinamycally on a rough terrain ! Look, mountains, valleys, sharp canyon, you'll set in a proper scenery which rich details, at high-medium-low scale ! Look ! The 'Splosions, the destruction, so detailed, gonna be amazing, you'll love it !! It's MILES BETTER than KSP1 and we show it to you, proudly !"

Nah ? You just see a nice 3d render fan-made video ? Cool.

[Vl3d]

3 hours ago, Periple said:

The sentiment on Reddit has shifted pretty dramatically. Out of 854 votes on a recent poll, only 67 are absolutely negative about KSP2's future. The dominant sentiment now appears to be "cautiously optimistic" -- reserving judgment until 0.2.0 or 0.3.0.

It appears that the hardcore hater contingent is a vocal minority even on Reddit!

 

There's always a risk of assumptions about the future made by people who don't play the game daily and don't intimately know it's state. There is no reception arch - the game was playable from the start with very small craft and avoiding bugs. Now it's playable on more PCs with more parts while avoiding fewer bugs.

Would I play KSP2 daily instead of KSP1? No. Is the base game in a polished state? No. Will For Science fix all the fun-braking bugs while adding all the missing features to bring it up to parity with KSP 1? Also no.

New features, more bugs. What the game needs most right now is polish. Otherwise players will complain again at the first bug they encounter and will be "disappointed".

The community and core audience that has supported the devs and been partners in bug hunting and making suggestions is not the silent majority on Reddit and, I assume, doesn't dream of "redemption". We're all just kicking the ball forward a little bit every day. That's succes.

51 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

Hum, no, no. Stop with this argument. There is PLENTY way to get proper scenery, while not doing them handcrafted. Obviously, thanks captain.

Examples were given. There is probably many others. You'll say that KSP is a way smaller team, that it's not using the good engine to do so, etc : yes, and that's part of my point. It won't get get good enough even with time. It might get correct-ish, and enhanced by mods. But not something that would set it apart from KSP1, from the old decade scenery, which is, to me at least, very VERY a shame.

That's it.

And yeah, trailer, not actual gameplay, blabla, the debate has been treated a thousand time, it's fine if you don't see any promise in it, no expectation, no engagement, if you can show whatever you want as long as you mention the magic phrase for the whole show, etc. Not my opinion, by any means. You show me a BIG focus on terrain and scenery ? I don't expect it to be the way it looks in the trailer, but I expect it to be a major thing in the game. You show me a BIG focus on the per-part physic destruction ? I expect something related in the game, which is not. Etc. This is not a gimmick, a transition, a camera work, a cut-scene, a context, that would be legit to give a nice continuity to the video, a global enhancement, etc. No, it was a specific "LOOK AT IT ! SCENERY ! TERRAIN ! TOPOLOGY, look, look ! The wheels bumps dinamycally on a rough terrain ! Look, mountains, valleys, sharp canyon, you'll set in a proper scenery which rich details, at high-medium-low scale ! Look ! The 'Splosions, the destruction, so detailed, gonna be amazing, you'll love it !! It's MILES BETTER than KSP1 and we show it to you, proudly !"

Nah ? You just see a nice 3d render fan-made video ? Cool.

I don't care what anyone says, in the end KSP2 has to deliver what it's cinematic trailers promised. I see highly detailed terrain, awesome wheels, weathering of part textures, impressive atmospheric visuals, collidable scatter and debris etc. - I need it!

Edited November 7, 2023 by Vl3d

[The Aziz]

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Will For Science fix all the fun-braking bugs while adding all the missing features to bring it up to parity with KSP 1? Also no.

New features, more bugs. What the game needs most right now is polish. Otherwise players will complain again at the first bug they encounter and will be "disappointed".

Which is why, according to news, the update is already in a locked state, going through QA processes. So that it doesn't come out a month and a bit later and some stupid bug squeezes through the cracks unnoticed.

Then again, it's possible, and I'm speaking as QA here - our team, the other team, even the internal QA of the dev team wasn't aware of one quite gamebreaking bug occuring on day 1 for many players because it never, ever happened during our tests. And we've been sitting on said game for months if not longer. You'd think that it would be something hidden - on the contrary, reproduction steps included starting a new save. And that's it. We didn't catch it because it never happened to us, and we've been through hundreds of new savefiles.

So even the most polished thing in the world, once released to the public, can have splinters.

[Periple]

22 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I don't care what anyone says, in the end KSP2 has to deliver what it's cinematic trailers promised. I see highly detailed terrain, awesome wheels, weathering of part textures, impressive atmospheric visuals, collidable scatter and debris etc. - I need it!

If you take a cinematic trailer as representing what’s eventually going to be in a game, you are setting yourself up for a disappointment. Always were, always will!

[Vl3d]

2 minutes ago, Periple said:

If you take a cinematic trailer as representing what’s eventually going to be in a game, you are setting yourself up for a disappointment. Always were, always will!

What exactly do you see in the cinematics that could not be added to the game? (except for randomly failing parts - which can be left to mods)

[cocoscacao]

4 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

What exactly do you see in the cinematics that could not be added to the game?

The soil of the Mun being fine grain dust.

Edited November 7, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Vl3d]

16 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

The soil of the Mun being fine grain dust.

Footprints, tire marks, blowing dust when landing, even creating a small crater or scorched terrain decal - all this can be in the game.

What I'm not sure about is the big front shields on the interstellar ships. I mean, having interstellar debris to account for would be amazing, but I thought Nate was on the fence about it. Or maybe that's just a design used for atmospheric deceleration.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Vl3d

[The Aziz]

52 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

except for randomly failing parts - which can be left to mods)

Ah! But that can happen even now.

Though, it's more due to joints being way too weak, not game design.

[Vl3d]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Ah! But that can happen even now.

Though, it's more due to joints being way too weak, not game design.

Also with decouplers and clipping.. you never really know.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Vl3d

[PDCWolf]

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Aside from cool details like particle effects and trails left behind the wheels, it's not much different from what KSP2 should offer if they stick to the level of detail shown prior to release.

NMS has only several types of planets, once you've seen them, you've seen the entire galaxy. And tbh they are quite boring, after 3rd hill you won't expect anything new, it's same old hills, valleys, flying islands and whatnot. And the way the game looked back in 2016 also left a lot to be desired, it didn't look like that from day1 either.

Looks cool until you get down to the surface. Cuz up close is eeeeeeh. And SE is full procedural, regardless if it makes sense to have pointy peaks on a body with barely any atmosphere or not. And again, once you've seen a piece of a planet, you know exactly what to expect on the other side of it.

What happens in NMS happens in KSP as well. Moho is the desaturated red ball, eve is the purple ball with metal oceans, Kerbin is the one with the most variety because it has a desert and poles but that's it, Duna is the red ball and the only variation is the frozen poles. Dres is so boring that most people meme it doesn't even exist, Jool is a gas giant so you can't land on it, and so far the cloud layers aren't anything to write home about, vall is the ice ball, laythe is the sand and water ball, tylo is a big mun, bop and pol are just asteroids like Gilly, and Eeloo is the mun but ice.

Every planet is just one biome, with 2 or 3 bodies including frozen poles. Every planet has no more than 1 or 2 memorable spots. After you go past one or two hills it's just more barren wasteland of the same color and there's little hint so far that any more care has been put in KSP2s planet other than disjointed discoverables/easter eggs.

You should try the latest versions of Space Engine, the surface looks decent now, whilst still being completely procedural, and Vova is implementing weather systems for data like winds and temperature to make sense.

[Bej Kerman]

53 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Or maybe that's just a design used for atmospheric deceleration.

Whatever it is, interstellar vessels are not meant for going anywhere near atmospheres (if the dV saved could approach the dV left from an interstellar transfer).

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

What exactly do you see in the cinematics that could not be added to the game?

Pre-render quality graphics for a start.

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Whatever it is, interstellar vessels are not meant for going anywhere near atmospheres (if the dV saved could approach the dV left from an interstellar transfer).

True. Then idk. If there's one thing I hate in KSP it's a part with no gameplay function.

[Dakitess]

Well RolePlay is a thing as well, to me. I'm totally fine with HUGE massive shield that would be required to protect an interstellar ship against the very high speed and micro-meteor encountered during the trip. Even it would not protect from anything in game because not implemented. I would actually find a bit deceiving to not get them. Obviously, it would be 10x better to get gameplay integration, like some kind of... Of heat, actually, a gauge that would represent the damage endured by the front facing parts, something very simple that would be an equation with apparent cross section, speed, distance traveled

 

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Footprints, tire marks, blowing dust when landing, even creating a small crater or scorched terrain decal - all this can be in the game.

There's a short moment when landing legs in the trailer touch the surface of the Mun and the dust displaces very realistically around it. That cannot be done 

Footprints and tire marks would be cool, even if short lived. I'd rather put priority on adding more rocks and scatter, rather than having a barren wasteland.

[Periple]

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

What exactly do you see in the cinematics that could not be added to the game? (except for randomly failing parts - which can be left to mods)

I could list a few things, but it's not so much about any individual thing you see in the cinematics, but the way they together add up to a level of visual and physical fidelity that's simply out of reach for a studio the size of IG for a game like KSP.

Like, you could do (non-physically-simulated, FX only) ice falling off a rocket, but that and destructible parts that fragment into physical objects, and lively, contextual kerbal animations like the guy holding onto a ladder, spinning, and screaming, and an aerodynamics simulation that produces physically plausible shock cones, and FX fidelity where light sources light up volumetric smoke clouds, and terrain as rich, varied, and detailed as in the Mun and Duna sequences, and footprints, tire tracks, deformable terrain (the landing leg sinking into Munar dust), and dust/re-entry scorch marks on vehicles, and having it all not be a total slideshow on reasonably accessible hardware... yeah, that's hard.

A team the size of IG could reach that level of visual (not physical) fidelity in a relatively small game with relatively little bespoke programming (think Senua's Sacrifice; Ninja Theory is about 100-150 heads I believe, only 2-3 times bigger than the KSP2 team), but for something as big, sprawling, and unique as KSP, you'd need a much bigger headcount and even then it'd be a gamble.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Periple

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

What I'm not sure about is the big front shields on the interstellar ships. I mean, having interstellar debris to account for would be amazing, but I thought Nate was on the fence about it. Or maybe that's just a design used for atmospheric deceleration.

Given the distances you’d be covering interstellar space at max timewarp. At that point colliding with a small moon will be a challenge, compared to flying straightthrough it. Unless there is automatic wear & tear interstellar debris is unlikely to interfere — and if it does it likely will annihilate the ship?

[The Aziz]

10 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Moho is the desaturated red ball, eve is the purple ball with metal oceans, Kerbin is the one with the most variety because it has a desert and poles but that's it, Duna is the red ball and the only variation is the frozen poles. Dres is so boring that most people meme it doesn't even exist, Jool is a gas giant so you can't land on it, and so far the cloud layers aren't anything to write home about, vall is the ice ball, laythe is the sand and water ball, tylo is a big mun, bop and pol are just asteroids like Gilly, and Eeloo is the mun but ice.

This tells me you don't have the game. Cuz you're describing KSP1 very well, I'll give you that.

[Bej Kerman]

10 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

You should try the latest versions of Space Engine, the surface looks decent now

I meant to address this much earlier, but I've just flown around a bit in SE, and the surfaces really aren't that detailed. Obviously there's gonna be a bias in favour of SE because you don't spend most of the time near the surface just a meter above it where those tiny details from orbit or mid-landing become massive topological features.