Space engine and KSP. They'll be different but ksp could be much better

[iaureee]

I am a big fan of ksp already. The most exciting part about it for me is getting to a other worlds, seeing the beautiful planets and moons from man (or call it kerbal) point of view. And more importantly knowing that you've achieved all of it with your own spacecraft, and a mission that you had to execute yourself. There's something incredible for me about being able to walk on other planets, not just look at it as some kind of ball floating in black space. Then I saw a mod which adds loads of other planets, and I really wanted to download it just because I really wanted to land on a planet with rings and see it from the ground as a tiny kerbal. Not because of a challenge or because I was bored of existing planets.

Then I saw space engine... It already has way better rendering, real scale (matches real world unlike ksp), endless space with endless scientifically accurate objects, with so much better procedural generation, atmosphere rendering, clouds, and so on. You can view everything from any angle, even from man's point of view on the planet, the views are breathtaking and can feel amazing. And they're planning to add another core element that ksp has and SE does not yet. Being able to fly across the universe (and land on objects) in spaceships in a realistic way, just like ksp.

Now I know ksp will have career with research, economy and even prestige. It'll have way more variation in spacecraft. And these things are very welcome and I can't wait for them. I've already said why I love ksp, but it seems that SE has got almost everything I want from ksp, only the final bits are left to add to turn it into a game.

I'd simply wish SE and KSP would somehow merge together to make a perfect game for me. But it'll be either be SE adding proper ksp-like gameplay. In which I am going to miss all the fun of building your own missions and spacecraft.

Or it will be ksp, since as I understood plans are to add procedural universe, but I am very afraid ksp will never reach such graphical beauty and perfection in general. And most importantly the scale will be kept down to make gameplay easier.

So what are your thoughts on SE (space engine)? Do you think squad will make ksp very similar to it in terms of procedural generation and scale, rendering? (that's what I am sort of suggesting and asking you as well) Or will ksp be not so scientifically accurate objects, with only few (maybe proceduraly generated) solar systems and small scale?

One of the long-term goals for the space engine: (copied from their website)

$35 000 - Single player space exploration game

Gameplay based on space flight simulation, space exploration, research and building

Realistic spaceflight physics with both hardcore fully manual controls and handy semi-automatic controls

Various spacecraft models

Build ships, space stations, and bases on planets

Collecting data about celestial objects using probes and satellites

Edited January 28, 2014 by iaureee

[crazyewok]

If KSP went on to the scale of space engine I would pay Squad £1000 right here and now.

[Themohawkninja]

As much as everyone who plays both games (including myself) want KSP to have the same level of texture quality, lighting quality, and sheer scale that Space Engine does, that would be impossible on at least two counts.

1. KSP runs on Unity, whereas Space Engine runs off so some sort of terrain generator (I believe it's a known-engine, but it may be written from scratch). I may not be a dev, but I doubt Unity could support such high levels of texture and lighting while keeping the frame rate high. I'll see if I can find the blog post by C7, but when the night lighting was implemented for the KSC, he wrote about just how resource intensive lights are in Unity, which is why the KSC building's windows aren't true light sources.

2. KSP lags as much as it does when you get into 300-400 part ranges (if you have a very good computer) with optimization + relatively simple textures + simple lighting. Space Engine, unlike KSP has (I think) higher resolution textures (at least the spaceships do), very complicated lighting, and judging by the stage of development, may not be as optimized. Space Engine also has thousands upon thousands of light sources, because the sky is actually filled with stars/galaxies/nebulae/planets, whereas the sky in KSP in just a .png image, and whatever Kerbol system bodies that you can see.

[Captain Sierra]

I think by nature, KSP solar systems will never be procedural. That's just how KSP is set up. Now, does the graphical quality need work? Probably. Remember, the game is still technically in alpha and last I heard, the earliest date even being considered for a beta release (KSP 1.0) is well into next year (March to May). There is a LOT of development left to do, lots of things still on the table. Don't forget that better aerodynamcs, reentry heating, resource mining, and asteroid belts are coming, and there is talk of said belt being off rails! Can SE let you capture an asteroid? Once things like these and better physics come in, then massive IP ships cease to be space worms and KSP goes to a level which I don't think SE can match.

[iaureee]

As much as everyone who plays both games (including myself) want KSP to have the same level of texture quality, lighting quality, and sheer scale that Space Engine does, that would be impossible on at least two counts.

1. KSP runs on Unity, whereas Space Engine runs off so some sort of terrain generator (I believe it's a known-engine, but it may be written from scratch). I may not be a dev, but I doubt Unity could support such high levels of texture and lighting while keeping the frame rate high. I'll see if I can find the blog post by C7, but when the night lighting was implemented for the KSC, he wrote about just how resource intensive lights are in Unity, which is why the KSC building's windows aren't true light sources.

2. KSP lags as much as it does when you get into 300-400 part ranges (if you have a very good computer) with optimization + relatively simple textures + simple lighting. Space Engine, unlike KSP has (I think) higher resolution textures (at least the spaceships do), very complicated lighting, and judging by the stage of development, may not be as optimized. Space Engine also has thousands upon thousands of light sources, because the sky is actually filled with stars/galaxies/nebulae/planets, whereas the sky in KSP in just a .png image, and whatever Kerbol system bodies that you can see.

I don't know what sort of magician the developer of SE is, but the game is optimized incredibly stupidly good, you can fly across the universe like crazy and jump from planet to planet and the game just accepts it and deals with it very efficiently. And yes SE has and incredible lighting system. So even planets give off light and can lit moons very brightly.

I had a feeling KSP won't have this due to technical limitations, that's why I am leaning towards SE.

[Themohawkninja]

I don't know what sort of magician the developer of SE is, but the game is optimized incredibly stupidly good, you can fly across the universe like crazy and jump from planet to planet and the game just accepts it and deals with it very efficiently.

That doesn't mean it's optimized, that just means that the game can compute things efficiently. The code itself could still be quite inefficient.

[EnigmaRaptor]

I wouldnt want KSP to go for hyper realism. It's better with keeping a cartoony feel to some extent. That's where the Kerbals belong.

[FenrirWolf]

I feel like KSP and SE have different, albeit overlapping goals in mind. Space Engine started off as a universe browser where you hop around from place to place to take in the view. Meanwhile KSP has a smaller, but still quite massive scope since it primarily deals in the personal discovery and exploration of the game's solar system.

SE has adopted spaceships and all, but they have a different approach from KSP where the focus isn't just to build your own ship, but to build your own space program more or less from scratch. It starts smaller and builds out from there while SE seems to have started massive and is kinda working backwards to fill in the blanks.

Its pretty interesting to compare the two games though, and chances are they will both overlap each other more as development goes on too. I doubt a true merger would be possible for the technical reasons already outlined, but maybe a future game will be able to outdo them both one day.

Edited January 14, 2014 by FenrirWolf

[OrbitusII]

I wouldnt want KSP to go for hyper realism. It's better with keeping a cartoony feel to some extent. That's where the Kerbals belong.

I agree. One of my friends says he would like KSP more if it had more realistic textures, but I can't agree. Cartoony green men in super-photorealistic rockets going to super-photorealistic places is a bad clash in art styles and wouldn't keep that same feeling that KSP has now.

[KN_Namida]

Or it will be ksp, since as I understood plans are to add procedural universe, but I am very afraid ksp will never reach such graphical beauty and perfection in general. And most importantly the scale will be kept down to make gameplay easier.

Well, I don't know where you read this, because I think Squad has not planned to add procedurally generated planetary systems into the game, because they want it so everyone can have the same experience, visiting the same planets and moons, and not just some cool place that you only can visit ad no one else could.

I'd still lik to see a slightly more complex solar system, preferably by september/october of this year... you know, an asteroid belt where Dres's orbit is... second gas giant... refurbished Jool moons and GP2 moons... don't know how much of that will actually be in 1.0, but I'm sure Squad will know how to amaze us in the right way.

[Clockwork13]

I'm on a Windows 8 computer that is about a month old and Space Engine pretty much melts my computer.

[Kasuha]

Space engine sure is beautiful but I'm kinda missing the game element in it. I can fly around and visit all kinds of stars and planets and objects, but that's it.

[AlamoVampire]

Well, I don't know where you read this, because I think Squad has not planned to add procedurally generated planetary systems into the game, because they want it so everyone can have the same experience, visiting the same planets and moons, and not just some cool place that you only can visit ad no one else could.

I'd still lik to see a slightly more complex solar system, preferably by september/october of this year... you know, an asteroid belt where Dres's orbit is... second gas giant... refurbished Jool moons and GP2 moons... don't know how much of that will actually be in 1.0, but I'm sure Squad will know how to amaze us in the right way.

simple enough to answer where he may have gotten this:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features

[Superfluous J]

Well, I don't know where you read this, because I think Squad has not planned to add procedurally generated planetary systems into the game, because they want it so everyone can have the same experience, visiting the same planets and moons, and not just some cool place that you only can visit ad no one else could

simple enough to answer where he may have gotten this:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features

Could you link exactly to (or at least copy the wording here of) the planned feature of procedurally generated planets and systems? I searched for all 4 of those words separately and none of them came up with anything close to what you are at least implying is there.

[iaureee]

Space engine sure is beautiful but I'm kinda missing the game element in it. I can fly around and visit all kinds of stars and planets and objects, but that's it.

But as I said they're working on actual lander ships and flights with timed burns and fuel just like in ksp.

[crazyewok]

It's better with keeping a cartoony feel to some extent.

Attitudes like this keep ruining games fro me

[crazyewok]

because they want it so everyone can have the same experience, visiting the same planets and moons, and not just some cool place that you only can visit ad no one else could.

Absoluty stupid idea and squad should have a mental health check if they go through with it. The best games keep thinsg random with new and unexpected things. Keeping everything the same leads to boredom!

[Kasuha]

It's not a real problem to have things procedurally generated using cascaded random seeds which will make sure everyone gets the same procedurally generated universe.

And I don't think the idea that everyone should have the same system is bad. Games which generate their universe randomly have their beauty but kinda don't allow sharing the experience. Challenges and multiplayer are based on everyone having the same playground.

[Superfluous J]

Attitudes like this keep ruining games fro me

You bought a game where little green Despicable Me Minions fly wobbly rockets that they found in dumpsters to planets named Gilly and Bop, and you don't like games with a cartoony sense of humor? These attitudes aren't ruining the game, they're the basis for its style.

Absoluty stupid idea and squad should have a mental health check if they go through with it. The best games keep thinsg random with new and unexpected things. Keeping everything the same leads to boredom!

I've played this game far more than I've played any "random" game except maybe FTL, and that's just because I knew about FTL longer. I've still got so much to accomplish in this game I'm not even remotely concerned with the lack of randomness.

[regex]

But as I said they're working on actual lander ships and flights with timed burns and fuel just like in ksp.

Will I be able to build my own ships LEGO style and launch them to collect science, money, and reputation?

I think these two games are trying to do two very different things and comparing them will go badly depending on what you like in a game.

[AlamoVampire]

@5thhorseman i dont recall where it is but i think it was harvester who said that procedural planets and the like make an all ready random game too random in terms of how we can all identify with the game and each other. It takes the ability for me to say hey i saw this at here go look, but you cant see this here because it was procedural.

[iaureee]

Will I be able to build my own ships LEGO style and launch them to collect science, money, and reputation?

No and I have already stated this in the original post, no need to repeat that. That's why I am saying it might be very cool if ksp somehow managed to get to the level of SE. Instead of just playing SE itself instead of ksp.

[FenrirWolf]

Absoluty stupid idea and squad should have a mental health check if they go through with it. The best games keep thinsg random with new and unexpected things. Keeping everything the same leads to boredom!

KSP is as good as it is precisely because it doesn't use an RNG to determine if you are having fun or not. Every failure or success is determined by a complicated set of interactions that can seem random to us, but ultimately are things that follow ceetain laws that can be accounted for and corrected.

That being said, it is worth noting that the terrain in KSP is already procedurally generated. It just uses constant seeds to produce the same results every time. IIRC the same holds true in Space Engine.

Edited January 15, 2014 by FenrirWolf

[regex]

No and I have already stated this in the original post, no need to repeat that. That's why I am saying it might be very cool if ksp somehow managed to get to the level of SE. Instead of just playing SE itself instead of ksp.

Well, then I'll just reiterate:

I think these two games are trying to do two very different things and comparing them will go badly depending on what you like in a game.

[KN_Namida]

Absoluty stupid idea and squad should have a mental health check if they go through with it. The best games keep thinsg random with new and unexpected things. Keeping everything the same leads to boredom!

No it doesn't. In KSP the challenge is building, launching and landing succesfully the rockets and spacecrafts that you create. It's a sandbox with a nice degree of simulation, not a rogue-like where everything must be randomized or else it "leads to boredom". Having a consistent solar system gives you the opportunity to master all the different techniques that you'll need if you don't want to fail miserably at the game. Plus, this is good for multiplayer, because all the players will play in the same playground, thus incresing the competition in a possible competitive multiplayer, and making things easier in a possible co-op.