Environment visuals yardstick

[Vl3d]

Some interesting visuals:

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Vl3d

[PDCWolf]

Graphics are probably one of the biggest elephants in the room right now. The game doesn't look "2023" in any aspect, and much less do the hardware requirements feel justified by graphical prowess. Whilst one can like the cartoony plastickyness, the game just falls short on impresiveness except for a singular situation, which is terrain from orbit. Even then, when the game looks its absolute best, it is still easily surpassed by mods on the first, and by any of its contemporaries.

I still don't think it'd be worth $50 if it looked anything like that as the game is now. I simply wouldn't pay $50 for a graphics remaster, of any game.

[Alexoff]

A non-anti-aliased game from one of the biggest publishers in the world for $50 in 2023. A year ago, this would have sounded like a stupid, unfunny joke, but this is the harsh reality of the development of KSP2

[Spicat]

Those are mostly from one mod: blackrack's clouds, it's quite different for non-atmospheric bodies.

They already stated that they wanted to improve "clouds, atmosphere and water", I think that will come with the implementation of HDRP (So it will take a while obviously). That's definitely not the priority and I can understand that.

Graphics is for me one of the most important feature to let me want to explore, ksp2 is not quite there yet even if for instance the topology are miles better, it's killed by some weird lighting.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Spicat

[Alexoff]

16 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Those are mostly from one mod: blackrack's clouds, it's quite different for non-atmospheric bodies.

They already stated that they wanted to improve "clouds, atmosphere and water", I think that will come with the implementation of HDRP (So it will take a while obviously). That's definitely not the priority and I can understand that.

I think by the time the developers improve the look of the game, the mods will have improved a lot too.

[Dakitess]

Topology (Macro - Mid - Micro) remains very very very lacking, it's barely superior to KSP1 while it should be something absolutely crucial to represent an incentive to land, explore, drive, hoover, etc. It would be a challenge for landing precision, for rover design, for piloting skill and so many other things, just thanks to the terrain.

It's... It's just mandatory for a game like KSP to be as beautiful, as scenery rich, as challenging as possible !... And it falls a light year off the target. It's technically bad, it's visually really weird, it's artistically not homogenous neither pleasing by any means, this is not a "choice" here, a take. There is nothing to save about it. It would be fine for KSP1 as an evolution of a game that lasted for 10 years, it's not for a 2023 game being developed for 4-5 years by a Pro Team, enjoying new techs, new hardware era, etc, and bragging on a "From Scratch Dev". Really... It's so sad.

It will improve. But even if (that's a big IF) it improves by 100%, like doubling the visual impact, whatever it would means, it will still be short by a long mile, clearly. The basis, the foundation, are so wrong

[Alpha_star]

Sorry for anyone who thinks that I'm white knighting the game. To be clear, I am not praising or saying bad words about anyone or anything. This is just MY opinion.

For me, KSP2 clouds actually look better  in some cases. Now, KSP2 clouds uses a custom volumetric clouds implementation, so there's (almost) no point in comparing KSP2 with EVE-redux in terms of technical details.

Most people say that EVE-redux looks better because they are more "cloud-alike" and are not flat-bottomed like clouds on Kerbin in KSP2. Flowmaps, godrays and a custom particle system makes it look even crispier. Well, people are allowed to have their own opinions, so I'm not trying to persuade them for this. Indeed, I think EVE-redux clouds are better, especially on Jool and Eve (the planet) in most cases.

However, I believe that in some cases, KSP2 does better. Take Kerbin for example. As shown with many videos and images, KSP2's clouds have some huge VARIATION IN CLOUD HEIGHTS, which is something not so commonly seen in EVE-redux. I know the existence of anvil clouds, but they are a bit rare. Apart from that, volumetric cloud layers in EVE-redux seems a bit too flat with almost no protruding visible. They also look a bit off when viewed from space. As a conclusion, it's a bit hard to have this "cloud mountain" effect in EVE-redux, something that I believe KSP2 is doing pretty great.

KSP2 is also (to me) somewhat better on Eve. The clouds are just EXTREMELY whispy. This means that, with the correct configuration and cover map, they could be realistic cirrus clouds-something that EVE-redux has yet to do.

Still, I don't like flat-bottomed clouds, and I believe that there could be a way to combine the good of both, such as using standard unity volumetric clouds as the bottom of the cloud and use KSP2's volumetric clouds on top of that.

Again, just my very own opinion.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Alpha_star
I don't know why I didn't finish writing.

[Alpha_star]

And as a plus, here's a general comparison between modded KSP1 and KSP2. Of course, since they are only MY points, it remains in the category of "for reference only".

1. Parts: If we're just comparing the stock/vanilla games here, I believe that most people would think that KSP2 parts look much better than in its prequal. However, as we are comparing stock KSP2 and modded KSP1, it would be natural to have some kind of part revamp mod into the earlier game.

As far as I've seen, there are a total of three part revamp mods in KSP1, namely Ven's Revamp, Stock Replacement Assets (this one is a bit unpopular and incomplete) and Restock(+). Since the first two are pretty old and incomplete, I'd be comparing Restock and stock/vanilla KSP2.

(Searches "restock".)

The Restock art style is (to me) pretty close to the post-1.4 Squad revamps. They remain the cartoon-ish look of stock/vanilla KSP1 parts but adds realism on top of that. A look at the Restock album on Imgur will give you an Idea.

KSP2 parts, however, is a different story. They have a different art style from Restock, even if mostly being made by one person. What I have noticed is that KSP2 parts have very detailed textures, even having the nails visible on most parts and complexed endcap models. Of course, like most other graphical stuff in KSP2, they look a little too shiny, but nothing inacceptable for me.

It's also worth noting the plumes. KSP2 plumes have much more complexed textures compared to most default waterfall, which is not necessary good or bad for either of the games. On the good sides, the graphics are crispier (for me), but on the other hand they take up a lot of resources.

In general, KSP2 parts look better than in KSP1 to my eyes.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Alpha_star
My grammar is so bad……

[Alpha_star]

(Continuing the last post)

2. Ground: In terms of terrain shaders, this is where modded KSP1 blow its sequel out of water. Specifically, what I'm talking about here is Parallax.

Ground shaders in Parallax has depth masks, which means that it can simulate small terrain bumps with just the ground shader, decreasing the amount of ground tessellation needed for the same effect. Comparing to this, KSP2 ground shaders does not have the same function, making it look worse in my opinion. Of course, the shininess looks a bit weird, but nothing too bad.

In the terms of object scattering, both are on the same level. I know that there are large boulders in KSP2 and crystal spikes in Parallax, these are all technically just different configurations. Thus, I believe it is a tie.