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

[lipatden]

Atmospheric flight simulation is already there. There's "modular spacecraft building" planed too. The fact that KSP is pretty much stalled into simplistic things because of the subpar target audience, dev's lack of experience or just bad choices doesn't mean every game works the same.

Wow, this just ballooned into a huge post. I guess I have a few things to say on this matter...

"modular spacecraft building" is almost undoubtedly not going to include connections made of chewing gum and the discovery of struts long after you've achieved orbit and amazed you got that far without them. Unless Space Engine want players to experience failure (and in comical, blasty-awesome ways) it will never go in the direction of KSP. This game is very story-driven (nixing procedurally/randomly generated systems too) and will only become more so as character development is included. I have no need of prettiness, this is basically a 3D cartoon. I really, really like this cartoon.

As for actual prettiness and SE doing graphics better than KSP...

Unity was never designed for this use case - as the devs have explained they don't even use the stock surface and gravity features because they're not spherical. Orbits are basically done from scratch and they've been learning as they go. I think the result is fantastic. Sure the graphics can be better but for an alpha this is just fine, and mods already add eye-candy. I'm surprised nobody has requested features from Universe Sandbox.

Frame rate is another issue entirely. There are two kinds of jitter/lag people experience and from all my testing graphics rendering quality has little impact. Modern GPUs (even the simpler ones in laptops etc) can more than easily handle the simple planetary and atmospheric renders, and as the mod community has shown there is potential for more. Squad made a choice of engine for the game based on what must have been a very different expectation and feature set than the one they have now, and I'm perfectly fine with their choice. The focus here is fun, not pretty.

The first jitter case I've noticed is recalculating the surface meshes after high warp in low orbit - for up to five seconds the blocky, simplistic hills and coastlines resolve to a better fidelity. This is tolerable, and an acceptable performance/memory tradeoff since storing render and collision meshes for all objects all the time is wasteful (or even all of a given object) or even impossible given the RAM constraints. nobody complains about this but this is the only "graphics" problem I can find.

The second is high part count and this is where most frustration comes from. As I mentioned something like SE is unlikely to implement bendy ships that break in physically-semi-realistic ways. Modelling bodies such as the ships we all build is a complex undertaking and still relatively unoptimised. I saw a post suggesting frame rate is inversely proportional to the exponent of part count, pretty much the worst case you can think of, but makes sense when you consider one part's motion/inertia/rotation can influence every single other part. Many other programs model this sort of thing, but without looking at Squad's source I think judgement is way too premature.

Related to this is the collision mesh, and I don't see anything in SE about handling both interplanetary transfer burns, landings accurate down to the centimetre and rovers trundling along a surface that is apparently entirely sane (collision mesh is coherent and matches the scene - easier said than done). This is a heck of an achievement, and the lack of anything comparable is why Squad have had to do so much from scratch.

There is room for improvement with multithreading, but multithreading is hard! From my conversations with developers of other games the Windows (and other platform) threading model is simply not deterministic enough or too expensive (in terms of resources) to be used when a realtime result is required - when you've got a frame to render on a deadline. Lots and lots of research has gone into this, and modern kernels have gotten better, but it's still a pervasive problem in the industry. I wouldn't advise Squad go down that road until feature completion, and even then they're likely to get as much benefit by optimisations such as assembler blocks and better compile-time optimisations to account for branch prediction. They're simply not there yet.

A major block for the implementation or requirement of multithreaded (and therefore multicore) systems is that a single-core user will have a very different experience to a quad-core user, and if everyone gets their way on quality and framerate the minimum specs for this game will get bloated and confusing - is 2x3GHz system going to be as ok as a 4x2GHz system, and how do you get a user to determine that?

Squad are doing just fine by my books, and having a Kerbal stand in one of those scenes from SE would, frankly, look silly. There are excellent flight simulators out there that do a better job because that's what their primary focus is, and mission-based space games that do that game type better, but nothing remotely like KSP in terms of fun, accessibility and the opportunity to customise and watch it blow up - or white knuckle WASDs on the dark side of a remote planet with tons of expensive hardware at stake that is uniquely mine.

This isn't a space flight simulator, it's still just an addictive sci-fi cartoon. I can't put it better than this:

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.

[KvickFlygarn87]

KSP lags as much as it does when you get into 300-400 part ranges (if you have a very good computer)

No. I have a decent computer, and in .23 it runs a 500 part craft like nothing.

Specs:

Intel Core i5 760 (4 cores) stock clock (2.8GHz)

4GB DDR3 RAM

660Ti

500GB HDD

120GB SSD drive (although KSP is on my normal HDD)

Not too badass, but not terrible. But then again, KSP isn't meant to run on a 2005 PC with 512MB RAM and a Celeron.

[vetrox]

I would love ksp to have the graphics from space engine as my pc isn't from the dark ages.

[kiwiak]

This thread encouraged me to finally check out space engine.

I entered planetarium, landed in some random solar system. After a while i notied that spacecraft orbits planet im focused on... it, looks like venture star from avatar.

I can rotate it to face prograde retrograde etc, but engines itself seems to do nothing... probably i has to use them with some timewarp to see effects, im not in toy solar systemm from ksp anymore.

Iv been using hyperspace drive to jump between planets and every time i i landed on collision trajectory... probably my craft keeps orbital velocity from planet before whith is too low to maintain orbit on planet i warped into.

Once i figure out how to navigate without hyperspace jumps it might be fun to fly in n-body physics system... well craft is indestructable anyway, i managed to land on sun.

Graphics seem better in some aspects from ksp, from the other hand randomly generated surface of planets sometimes seem clunky. And its quite strange that surface of the sun is not animated, its like still object. Well ksp is not better in this aspect too. Also, there seems to be no IVA

Edited January 21, 2014 by kiwiak

[iaureee]

Space Engine is to a game as Unity is to KSP. Space Engine is just a tool for generating a universe. It happens to have ships in it now, but it will not be like KSP, and never will be. KSP will conversely not be like Space Engine.

It might look like a tool for generating a universe, but for me it was the best experience of, exploring and discovery in a video game I've ever had.

Holy crap, Space Engine is Eye-meltingly beautiful. I dream of seeing Kerbals in these graphics.

My point exactly. KSP does not have to copy everything but It is not cartoony at all. The planets in ksp are a little though but improvements to rendering and terrain variety would do a lot.

This thread encouraged me to finally check out space engine.

I entered planetarium, landed in some random solar system. After a while i notied that spacecraft orbits planet im focused on... it, looks like venture star from avatar.

I can rotate it to face prograde retrograde etc, but engines itself seems to do nothing... probably i has to use them with some timewarp to see effects, im not in toy solar systemm from ksp anymore.

Iv been using hyperspace drive to jump between planets and every time i i landed on collision trajectory... probably my craft keeps orbital velocity from planet before whith is too low to maintain orbit on planet i warped into.

Once i figure out how to navigate without hyperspace jumps it might be fun to fly in n-body physics system... well craft is indestructable anyway, i managed to land on sun.

Graphics seem better in some aspects from ksp, from the other hand randomly generated surface of planets sometimes seem clunky. And its quite strange that surface of the sun is not animated, its like still object. Well ksp is not better in this aspect too. Also, there seems to be no IVA

Why are you talking about a feature as if it was already finished and complete. Planetarium is all about jumping from place to place and flying trough space in any ways you want. It's nothing about spacecrafts, they're just some sort of early buggy alpha toys.

You can always keep the cartoon feel everyone's chatting about, but you can't deny that SE does a way better job at making terrain interesting and at creating a sense of enormous scale and epicness.

or at rendering space stuff (those are shadows from the rings)

Edited January 28, 2014 by iaureee

[8749236]

If I recall correctly, I remember DEV team refuse (seen somewhere in the forum) to do a conversion to other engine =S...

[Mefi282]

I guess the 3 points that i don't like in KSP are nicely done in SE:

1. The planet/moon surfaces in KSP are too uninteressting and flat with nothing to explore..

2. Real exploration: In KSP everybody know what is where, in the map view you can see every planet before the first spaceship has flown, in SE you have a limiteless world where all the people go in different places, maybe you find you favorite planet and nobody knows about it.

3. Engine: Unity was holding KSP back too long. As somebody mentioned the devs had to build everything from scratch. Why not use an engine that already supports 64 bit and n body physics?

[vger]

As cool as SE is, if KSP WAS going to switch engines, I'd rather it be Infinity.

[GusTurbo]

If I recall correctly, I remember DEV team refuse (seen somewhere in the forum) to do a conversion to other engine =S...

I think "refuse" is kind of the wrong word. Moving to a new engine isn't a simple task -- it would almost be like restarting the game from scratch.

[Nemrav]

hmm, a flame fest thread, let's have a shot at it....

devs view on procedural :

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/23/kerbal-space-program-dev-on-random-solar-systems-the-joy-of-failure-and-the-cult-of-steam/

reasons for unity : most time saving features, tiny builds, started with it (you want to go back to 0.7.3 by switching engines then go ahead).

reasons why I don't want eye candy : as it is intel hd graphics suffer from 2x anti-aliasing (had to turn it off)

and settings manually set in the config (lower than lowest in the menu).

anyways they stated they NEVER will...

let's make a KSP metaphor that people should recognise for this : its like saying "Danny should talk, Scott Manley is awesome because he talks" when we all know that it simply wouldn't be funny anymore listening to Danny make witty remarks at his failures... no he should continue to use text, its better that way... A better suggestion would be like "Danny should make a 1 hour video of his craziness".

More content sure, but changing how he makes it is a big no-no...

Also unless a super turbo and nitro charged Kraken drive were to be implemented stock, so that you aren't cheating, how would you get to all these places...

[Shna_na]

I believe I have a solution to the "more planets" problem. Allow me to explain:

You know the random crater generator they used for the mun craters? You know, HarvestR went and made a thing that randomly generates craters and tosses them about the Mun. Well, the devs of KSP want everyone to have exactly the same experience, with no randomness whatsoever. Random crater generation was the only way to have better craters, but would break this aim. So what they did, is they generated some craters onto the Mun and saved that one generation as the persistent Mun. Now everyone has the same Mun and better craters.

Why is that relevant you ask? Well, they could do the same thing. Space Engine uses procedural generation* to create the planets, stars, moons, dwarf planets, gas giants, comets, asteroids, etc., everything in the ̶g̶a̶m̶e̶ simulation. What KSP could do is apply the crater technique to this. They could make a random solar system generator that includes planets, asteroids, etc. (more can be added as updates. but I'll get to that later) in it and use polish it off until they're pleased with it. Then, they can use a random name generator to name the objects etc. and make the galaxy persistent in the same way they did the Mun and its craters.

Now, we all know that Space Engine has some pre-generated objects thrown in there. This ranges from certain star systems to easter eggs (such as SPOILER Pandora, the moon that is featured in Avatar that orbits a gas giant with rings). Well, this shouldn't really be a problem for KSP. I would think that the random generation system would work around this, simply regarding the already existing planets etc. as part of the generation. Also, with regards to the addition of new celestial body types in future updates, the dev team would have to re-render out a new galaxy, changing the previous one completely. Right? Wrong. As I mentioned, "the random generation system would work around this, simply regarding the already existing planets etc. as part of the generation". So they could just whip up the current galaxy, randomly generate the new stuff, save it as the new persistence, pump it out.

Job done. As far as I know, this would work. The question is, would it be too demanding in terms of performance? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure the devs do. In any case, I feel that this is a viable option for giving us the endless exploration we need. I'd love it, we could finally have what Spore's space stage could have been. Maybe on a smaller scale, though.

*granted, there are some bodies that are put in specifically, but I get to this later on.

Let me know if you see a flaw here or would like me to address a related issue.

[Shna_na]

As cool as SE is, if KSP WAS going to switch engines, I'd rather it be Infinity.

WHOA! That is fantastic. Want. Want. Want. Want...

There's a kickstarter coming up for it, apparently, this year. I'm getting in on that.

[iaureee]

People that like XYZ thinks that every other game is like XYZ. If ABC is not like XYZ, it should be like XYZ, because of these reasons on why XYZ is better than ABC, even though ABC is a completely different game with different goals altogether.

This is the sole reason on why not every gamer is qualified to be a game developer...

this is not a talk about copying things from one game to another and squishing them into identical games. I am talking about how ksp could potentially grow into something bigger and more awesome while embracing some parts of SE that are done perfectly there. Not making ksp into a game to explore procedural universe, but a game about rocket science, space program, AND with as beautiful as possible universe to explore while doing those core things ksp is meant for.

[VrIgHtEr]

SE is about exploring the universe.

KSP is not so much about exploration (you can see all the planets in the map view before you ever launch your first rocket), but rather about building a space program. Building your rockets, testing them, launching them, launching space stations and satellites, going to other places in the solar system to gather science, and more.

I honestly couldn't care less about the graphics, I actually like KSP's rendering as it is. One thing that would absolutely ruin the game would be the n-body physics simulation. Imagine trying to launch a satellite network (for example, trying to copy gps, launching 24 satellites). With n-body simulation, the orbits will change slightly due to a passing moon or something like that. This coupled with time-warp, would mean that orbits decay quite quickly in game. So you'd have to periodically correct each satellite's orbit manually. Which is fine if you're trying to play a spaceflight simulator, but KSP is really a Space Program Simulator. And you're a single player, a real space program has thousands of employees. N-body simulation would make the game unplayable, imo

[Kamsko]

WHOA! That is fantastic. Want. Want. Want. Want...

There's a kickstarter coming up for it, apparently, this year. I'm getting in on that.

SO infinity isn't dead? This is AWESOME NEWS! Been following this since 07, painfully I might add.

[Nemrav]

don't necro, let this thread go to the bottom of the list FAST

[cantab]

Space Engine certainly looks gorgeous - but I wonder if it would still look so gorgeous on my underpowered graphics card. (Since I don't have a current Windows install because I needed the disk space, I shan't be finding out any time soon.)

However while KSP might learn something from SE regarding the detail and interest on individual celestials, it can't try and copy SE's scale. Not if we want to stick to realistic modern technology and sensible mission lengths. (A space probe capable of running for a zillion years is in any case not "realistic modern technology"). At most we could explore Kerbol's neighbourhood with plausible technologies like nuclear pulse propulsion, but even then there's a game balance issue - it's quite hard to make a drive that makes interstellar travel reasonable without making interplanetary travel trivial, with the only real option being something with miniscule thrust and extreme specific impulse, and attendant overhauls to the timewarp system (which want doing anyway mind, the current system is a mess IMHO).

And as mentioned by others, Space Engine does not attempt to simulate a rocket comprised of dozens or hundreds of separate components all of which have their own mechanical properties and some of which exert forces on the whole thing. It's that physics simulation that typically limits KSP's performance.

So you'd have to periodically correct each satellite's orbit manually. Which is fine if you're trying to play a spaceflight simulator, but KSP is really a Space Program Simulator. And you're a single player, a real space program has thousands of employees. N-body simulation would make the game unplayable, imo

This could be handled with an automatic stationkeeping system, that keeps your ships on their Keplerian orbits at the cost of a slow draw of fuel.

Overall, perhaps the best result would be if Space Engine, or its procedural generation system, could be used as a planet creation tool to help make new worlds for KSP. Squad would have to come to an agreement with Vladimir (Space Engine's developer) to do that though, and balancing detail between the current handcrafted worlds and the new generated ones may be difficult - even SE doesn't really do that with the real planets VS the generated ones.

[rkman]

If the random generated maps are seeded then cant everyone be happy? Those that want to play the same map over and over again can and those that want randomness can get there way? Everyone happy then?

How quickly would you become bored if you'd have at least a couple of hundred solar systems to explore?

There'd be plenty variation between those even if it is the same universe every time the game is loaded.

So it does not need to be random (nor is it) in KSP or Spaceengine.

[Minerscale]

Yeah. It would be pretty nice to see Ksp go for massive solar expanses. I wonder whether or not unity is capable of doing such a thing. In the way ksp has been built, loading times may or may not be massive. Not to mention the game crashing every time you load more than 4gb of planets on to the RAM, but I suppose that's what the x64 version is for.

[sdj64]

Have any of you played with any planet packs that use Space Engine exported planets? Mine is one of them (link in my sig). The textures are good, but not quite stockalike. As a counter-example, Outer Planets Mod uses hand crafted textures that look more like stock planets even if they are less "realistic" by Space Engine standards.

Procedural planet generation would only be possible if KSP could load and unload planet textures based on what planet you're nearby. It would be a big memory-saver if KSP could only load the planet you're near when you're there but it would make loading take longer when you go to a ship that's landed or in orbit there. Possibly keep Kerbin's texture loaded all the time, so you can return to space center and launch rockets without waiting for it. KSP already uses PQS mods (terrain noise-generators) to generate height for all planets and terrain colors for most, which avoids the need for height maps and already goes most of the way to creating procedural planets. You would just need an algorithm to intelligently select settings for the PQS mods.