Jump to content

How is the New KSP2 Terrain/ GFX Engine Coming Along?

Buzz313th

By Buzz313th
in KSP2 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
Posted (edited)

I remembered this thread from March 23.  The thread died in April about a month later.  I figured this must be a big deal, so I wanted to inquire.

 

 

Is Mortoc still with the team and currently working full time on the KSP2 upgraded Terrain/GFX engine?

 

Please share... 

will it be included with "For Science" in December 23?

 

Cheers

Edited by Buzz313th
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spicat

Spicat

Posted
Posted

Yes Mortoc is still working with the team, he's the one doing the reentry vfx I believe.

Currently IG are focusing on optimizing the terrain before switching to the so called "CBT":

xF2VYyb.png

0.1.5.0 already received a big boost on the terrain performance so expect optimization to come not only in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 hours ago, Spicat said:

Yes Mortoc is still working with the team, he's the one doing the reentry vfx I believe.

Currently IG are focusing on optimizing the terrain before switching to the so called "CBT":

xF2VYyb.png

0.1.5.0 already received a big boost on the terrain performance so expect optimization to come not only in the long term.

Ohh ok.  That makes sense..

Question then..   

You guys released this video of Mortoc's Reentry FX ingame yesterday.

https://kerbal-forum-uploads.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/monthly_2023_11/reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeentry.mp4.86aaa7c517e55516c447d3183b95f9c8.mp4

It looks "Cool", but I noticed that it looks less animated than Mortoc's original Reentry FX posted in the following video a few months ago.  Why the change to a less dynamic effect?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't be surprised if they never switch to CBT. I think the current system is good enough for what's needed and it clearly still has room for optimizations, rewriting it would be a big undertaking that might not even bring the expected benefits.

Mortoc's essay was interesting but it shows why sometimes it's better to talk less, now everybody's expecting CBT to be delivered any day now and if they decide to drop it, people will be upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chilkoot

Chilkoot

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Spicat said:

0.1.5.0 already received a big boost on the terrain performance

Spot on - Playable frame rates is what everyone wanted at the end of the day, and it looks like we're pretty much there.  The new terrain system will permit a ton of new features, but unless IG is gunning for Starfield-level surface detail, it's less of a priority now than it was compared to release.  I think people were viewing it as a magic bullet for the FPS crapshow that was version 0.1.0, but it's been proved otherwise.

Based on Steam hardware survey data, the "gold standard" of min spec right now is the GTX 1070.  As of 0.1.5, the game is definitely playable on that card, so there's far less urgency for a new terrain system.  I hope Steam reviews start to reflect this dramatic performance increase soon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 hours ago, Chilkoot said:

Spot on - Playable frame rates is what everyone wanted at the end of the day, and it looks like we're pretty much there.  The new terrain system will permit a ton of new features, but unless IG is gunning for Starfield-level surface detail, it's less of a priority now than it was compared to release.  I think people were viewing it as a magic bullet for the FPS crapshow that was version 0.1.0, but it's been proved otherwise.

Based on Steam hardware survey data, the "gold standard" of min spec right now is the GTX 1070.  As of 0.1.5, the game is definitely playable on that card, so there's far less urgency for a new terrain system.  I hope Steam reviews start to reflect this dramatic performance increase soon...

Fair enough, but IMHO, performance is going to have to get 2x better to handle all the rest of the planned roadmap assets and code logic.  If you consider the last item on the roadmap being 1.0, then the game is only 60-70% finished.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brofessional

Brofessional

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 1:27 AM, Buzz313th said:

Ohh ok.  That makes sense..

Question then..   

You guys released this video of Mortoc's Reentry FX ingame yesterday.

It looks "Cool", but I noticed that it looks less animated than Mortoc's original Reentry FX posted in the following video a few months ago.  Why the change to a less dynamic effect?

 

I would guess that some things got tweaked to make it run smoother inside the game. The fluttering effect is actually a bit overdone in that older video though, if you look at real videos of Falcon 9 fairings re-entering, the plasma stream coming off of the outer edges of the vehicle is very smooth and persistent.

What's missing is the turbulence in the low pressure area behind the spacecraft, the extended tail of plasma, and maybe some sparks from ablative material burning away.  All that extra detail just to look pretty can get computationally expensive to render though, especially when it has to work on any insane object the player might throw at the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Brofessional said:

I would guess that some things got tweaked to make it run smoother inside the game. The fluttering effect is actually a bit overdone in that older video though, if you look at real videos of Falcon 9 fairings re-entering, the plasma stream coming off of the outer edges of the vehicle is very smooth and persistent.

What's missing is the turbulence in the low pressure area behind the spacecraft, the extended tail of plasma, and maybe some sparks from ablative material burning away.  All that extra detail just to look pretty can get computationally expensive to render though, especially when it has to work on any insane object the player might throw at the atmosphere.

Lets be honest Bro..  The video of the Reentry Effects ingame is pretty bad.  90% of that effect is a static texture graphics element that scales lengthwise as dynamic pressure changes and then the other 10% is an effect that is masking the texture with little flickers of negative space.  That's really it..  Subjectively if you thought the original effect was "Too much", which I personally did not, the new effect is one thousand times "Too Little".  Lets stop kidding ourselves here, if they had to "Dumb Down" Mortoc's original effect that much, to relieve rendering load, then we have a much bigger problem.  

Edited by Buzz313th
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

The video of the Reentry Effects ingame is pretty bad.  90% of that effect is a static texture that scales lengthwise as dynamic pressure changes and then the other 10% is an effect that is masking the texture with little flickers of negative space

I didn't realise 3D shaders qualified as a "static texture".

Can you define "static texture"? Cause it has nothing to do with textures as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I didn't realise 3D shaders qualified as a "static texture".

Can you define "static texture"? Cause it has nothing to do with textures as far as I can see.

I am not a texture artist, nor am I a developer, but I think you know where I am going with my last comment.  And I edited my post above to help make it more generically correct.

Care to comment on the point I was trying to make?

Edited by Buzz313th
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
41 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Do you even have a point you're trying to make in the first place?

Sure I did..

Why did they dumb down the effect so much?  And if they did so because of performance, then what does that mean for the future of KSP2? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...