Increasing Emersion Should Be A Priority

[samhuk]

Hello KSProgrammers,

I'll try and keep this short.

Firstly, I think that now the game has seen the addition of career mode, they should try to polish that as soon as possible.

However, what then?

Well, I think KSP developers should focus on increasing the interaction between the player and their creations. And OK, this may have been already suggested from day-one of KSP, and yes, they tried (and did quite well!) will IVA and EVA, however they are rather quickly made, desperate placeholders and I think they are finally ready for a bit of an update. I'll just give a hint, what made Minecraft explode in popularity? It was the ability to almost live in the world you created, and share it with friends on a multiplayer map.

If the developers want more enthusiasm on KSP, trust me, immersion is what is desperately needed, and that can be achieved by for example adding; "getting in and out of ship" animations, first person EVA view, ability to move around in single command pods, ability to move between several command pods internally that have been viably by docking port, or by direct connection. Any of these and more.

For me, the engineering is where most of the fun is in KSP, but when you send a ship up, dock stuff, do other things...

What is there to do?

I hope this gets out there, it is one of the big aspects of KSP I think the developers just simply forgot about.

Sam

Edited November 14, 2013 by samhuk

[Supernovy]

On "getting in and out of ship" animations: The devs have been asked about this before, and it's simply infeasible considering the amount of situations a command pod can be in.

On ability to move around in single command pods, ability to move between several command pods internally that have been viably by docking port, or by direct connection: This is actually on the [thread=36863]what not to suggest list[/thread], under "Enhanced IVA / moving around in stations or rockets".

On first person EVA view: I know it can be done via mods, but I don't know what the dev's opinions are on it.

[TimMartland]

The exit animation shouldn't be that hard - there's zero-G and ln atmosphere/landed (maybe 3-4 variations to account for gravity, but these are minor tweaks).

[samhuk]

Thanks for your response 'novy.

FYI, those were just "examples", not a literal "this has to be implemented" sort of statement, just examples to get the point of increasing player-creation immersion across. Sorry if that was not initially clear.

EVA first person view is semi-possible but only by coding loopholes in KSP code, and they don't work very well, and look rather odd.

I am no game-design professional by any means so I couldn't argue either way about in/out of cockpit animations, first person or not.

For the Enhanced IVA example, I apologize, I am rather new and haven't got an eidetic memory to remember every list element straight away.

Sam

[Sirrobert]

First person EVA sounds like an epic pain to manouver. It's already a pain when you can see the rocket around the Kerbal, rather than just infront of him. It's not like you are walking on something and just move forward.

PS: you don't have to remember the list, just check it before you make a suggestion

[Galacticruler]

actually no, emersion should NOT be a priority, performance on older systems should be.

[pizzaoverhead]

For moving kerbals around craft, there's a good analysis of the situation here.

On "getting in and out of ship" animations: The devs have been asked about this before, and it's simply infeasible considering the amount of situations a command pod can be in.

Do you remember where you saw this? I'm interested in seeing what they said. I'm sure there's more than one way of achieving this. For example: an inward swinging door. The kerbal would grab the door's outer side while inside of the craft, and hang onto it while the door closed. That would allow a fixed animation that finished with the kerbal in the same position as the current setup.

actually no, emersion should NOT be a priority, performance on older systems should be.

While performance in general should be a priority, the developers shouldn't let compatibility with ancient computers stagnate development.

[Algiark]

For example: an inward swinging door. The kerbal would grab the door's outer side while inside of the craft, and hang onto it while the door closed.

Isn't this how real airlocks work anyway?

[pizzaoverhead]

Isn't this how real airlocks work anyway?

Using the door to push someone outside of the craft? Not that I know of, though it may have been done somewhere.

[samhuk]

actually no, emersion should NOT be a priority, performance on older systems should be.

Ok, let's bring you up to date with KSP and performance. It is a 32-bit program that can only access about 3.6GB of RAM, and can only access about one core's worth of your CPU's total processing power. KSP is based on unity, which is mainly in 32-bit, and their 64-bit versions are unstable (64-bit would enable greater CPU-power and RAM usage). The fact is, unity getting up to speed and getting a 64-bit environment sorted is not KSP-Dev's fault, they have little control over what unity do.

So moan to unity about the fact that you need a new computer, not KSP developers, or me.

Sam

[Sirrobert]

actually no, emersion should NOT be a priority, performance on older systems should be.

I have a good idea for a priority: finishing the game

Isn't this how real airlocks work anyway?

Not exactly. You need to pull them toward you to open, but after that it still swings outside. Or atleast that's how airplane doors work, and those are also airlocked

[pizzaoverhead]

I have a good idea for a priority: finishing the game

Technically Squad, like Mojang, could call the game finished at any point, even now.

From the terms:

Please keep in mind: Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.

[Sirrobert]

Technically Squad, like Mojang, could call the game finished at any point, even now.

From the terms:

I know. But asuming they still like us enough to expand KSP more, let's follow the alpha beta thingy. First finish the game, than optimize it

[Wahgineer]

To those who complain about optimization for older computers: please stop

It's 2013, for crying out loud. If you have a computer that's from 2005 that you use to play KSP, it's time to upgrade. I didn't wait until my family got a new computer until I bought KSP. Yes, the computer was bugging out and nearly dead, but it was 10 years old. I understood that ksp wouldn't run on it, and that it would be pointless to get the game and then complain about it to the Devs. It's like complaining to a car company about not making spare parts for your car that has been out of production for the past 55 years. If your computer can't handle ksp, try looking at the date of manufacture as to a clue why. The rest of us on the forums who have competent computers hate it when people suggest optimizing the game for an old or out-of-date or crappy system. We don't want a crummy game meant for new and old computers. We want an awesome, beautiful, and amazing game for awesome, beautiful, and amazing computers.

[Dunbaratu]

To those who complain about optimization for older computers: please stop

For the people who incorrectly think that a more modern computer fixes the limitations of the Unity engine, please stop. When it won't use multiple cores, and won't use 64 bit, then there's an upper limit to how much your modern computer will help. Modern computers get about the same performance as ones that are 6 years old on KSP because of those limits.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Steven Mading

[Galacticruler]

My PC is roughly from 2008 or 2009, and it runs it fine. I'm more concerned with load times, and everything being dumped into the RAM all at the start.

[ElJugador]

Technically Squad, like Mojang, could call the game finished at any point, even now.

From the terms:

Yes, but abandoning development of KSP now would be like shooting yourself in the foot.

Scratch that, like shooting yourself in both feet.

[Supernovy]

Do you remember where you saw this? I'm interested in seeing what they said. I'm sure there's more than one way of achieving this. For example: an inward swinging door. The kerbal would grab the door's outer side while inside of the craft, and hang onto it while the door closed. That would allow a fixed animation that finished with the kerbal in the same position as the current setup.

I believe it was one of the very old dev streams, the ones that were on the old twitch channel instead of KSPTV.

[Rockhem]

Ok, let's bring you up to date with KSP and performance. It is a 32-bit program that can only access about 3.6GB of RAM, and can only access about one core's worth of your CPU's total processing power. KSP is based on unity, which is mainly in 32-bit, and their 64-bit versions are unstable (64-bit would enable greater CPU-power and RAM usage). The fact is, unity getting up to speed and getting a 64-bit environment sorted is not KSP-Dev's fault, they have little control over what unity do.

So moan to unity about the fact that you need a new computer, not KSP developers, or me.

Sam

Except that the KSP-devs can do something about it. Optimization so their game uses as little of the single core and 3.6 gb of ram as it can. Getting a new computer won't fix anything about it. If a computer can't run on a $500 or less prebuilt, it is too taxing for it to be sucessful.

[Superfluous J]

Except that the KSP-devs can do something about it. Optimization so their game uses as little of the single core and 3.6 gb of ram as it can. Getting a new computer won't fix anything about it. If a computer can't run on a $500 or less prebuilt, it is too taxing for it to be sucessful.

Well Kerbal Space Program is proving you a bit wrong, there, because by all indications they're pretty successful.

They actually ARE optimizing the game a bit for 0.23 which is a move I'm not sure is warranted considering how much other work still needs done, but unlike many I'm willing to assume that they know a little bit more about the process than I do.

[samhuk]

Except that the KSP-devs can do something about it. Optimization so their game uses as little of the single core and 3.6 gb of ram as it can. Getting a new computer won't fix anything about it. If a computer can't run on a $500 or less prebuilt, it is too taxing for it to be sucessful.

Urgh, the "optimize to use a little less CPU and RAM" thing. They have already optimized it almost to maximum efficient use of CPU and RAM for 32-bit, you must read the dev blogs and articles, then you'll know how efficient they have got things to run on 32-bit. Something like KSP shouldn't even be able to run on 32-bit, but because of their hard work it does work. So you have got to quit moaning "optimize it more, more more", and do your part.

They have optimized it as far as a 32-bit program will (pretty much) go, so get off your butt and actually do something yourself like upgrade your computer.

Sam

[Dun Kirk]

I think it'd be nice... that if you have say a hitchhiker and a cupola attached, you could click the doorway and move to the cupola.

I assume with upcoming tweakables you may be able to move crew around parts hab parts without having to eva. But they didn't stipulate that, it may be the ground work.

[Dartonal]

I think the devs are doing fine, I heard that they are doing optimization in .23 to decrease load times, and tweakables are a great idea so not all landing gear turn or are motorized, or anything else like that.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Dartonal

[Sirrobert]

Except that the KSP-devs can do something about it. Optimization so their game uses as little of the single core and 3.6 gb of ram as it can. Getting a new computer won't fix anything about it. If a computer can't run on a $500 or less prebuilt, it is too taxing for it to be sucessful.

It's an ALPHA. That means content first, optimization later