Is ksp graphically outdated or on par.

[ouion]

I feel the graphics are kinda outdated as to other indie games like space engineers or The Forest. So is KSP graphically outdated or on par?

[Randazzo]

I feel the graphics are kinda outdated as to other indie games like space engineers or The Forest. So is KSP graphically outdated or on par?

In comparison to other games that are similar to KSP, I'd say KSP is at the top of the curve.

[boxman]

I feel the graphics are kinda outdated as to other indie games like space engineers or The Forest. So is KSP graphically outdated or on par?

Compared to space engineers it comes nowhere close when it come to graphics itself, but they are also very different since space engineers is a scifi building game using blocks. But it really depend on the indie game... There are far worse looking indie games out there.

[r4pt0r]

depends. I think borderlands looks like trash, but I dont like the style its in. KSP's graphics are pretty good, I play with all settings maxed because I can. My qualm is with the texture quality of some of the older parts.

[sal_vager]

Graphics don't make a game great, while it's not photo-realistic it has its own style and still looks good.

Games these days don't have to be using the top-of-the-range graphics either, we're seeing a resurgence in 2D games, pixel art, sprites, voxels, low polygon count 3D.

Few of these new "old style" games are particularly "old" looking though, their graphics and style suit their themes.

The days of all games having to look as real as possible seem to (thankfully) be behind us

[Sirrobert]

No clue about those games, don't have them. I don't really care either, games are about gameplay. Graphisc are secondary

(KSP looks awesome though)

[Alshain]

Nah, the graphics are fine, the lack of polish is not. Clouds, weather (storms, fog, dust storms, etc.), planetshine, better skybox, lens flares, auroras. All of these things are provided by mods but should be stock. A little polish can go a long way.

[TheSaint]

I don't think it's graphically outdated, I think it's graphically undeveloped. Download the Renaissance Compilation and you'll get a feel for what it could look like if Squad put the time into it, which I really hope they do before the 1.0 release.

[Sirrobert]

Graphics don't make a game great, while it's not photo-realistic it has its own style and still looks good.

Games these days don't have to be using the top-of-the-range graphics either, we're seeing a resurgence in 2D games, pixel art, sprites, voxels, low polygon count 3D.

Few of these new "old style" games are particularly "old" looking though, their graphics and style suit their themes.

The days of all games having to look as real as possible seem to (thankfully) be behind us

Yea. Nowdays it's either try to get out of the uncanny valley on the realistic side (and often spend way to much money and fail), or just stay comfortably on this side and spend that money on gameplay

[FishInferno]

While I personally think the game needs an art overhaul, The quality of the graphics are fine. Heck, look how popular Minecraft got.

[Nitrous Oxide]

If you use EVE and PlanetShine, KSP is graphically gorgeous.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

With EVE, distant object enhancement, and planetshine, it looks amazing. The stock game looks like a pile of crap though.

[Renegrade]

Graphics don't make a game great, while it's not photo-realistic it has its own style and still looks good.

Bingo. I thought the old graphics (pre-0.18) were particularly repulsive, and that would have impacted gameplay. The current ones aren't super-duper AAA-grade, but they're perfectly serviceable and don't impact gameplay*.

Top of the line graphics would actually detract from gameplay as game performance would suffer heh.

* - well, the icons in the VAB could be a bit clearer. A tall grey tank looks like the next tall grey tank, and the categories aren't very distinctive. Some fixups are needed and I still think Porkjet's parts look too polished and slick compared to everything else

Games these days don't have to be using the top-of-the-range graphics either, we're seeing a resurgence in 2D games, pixel art, sprites, voxels, low polygon count 3D.

I wish they'd stop making 8-bit crap. 16-bit era pixel art/sprites have the right blend of retro and not-ugly, IMO. Say YES to Amiga/Atari/SNES/Genesis and NO to C64/2600/NES/Master System. Also, I miss the days of flat shaded/lightsourced polygons...

[MartGonzo]

In comparison to other games that are similar to KSP, I'd say KSP is at the top of the curve.

Other games similar to KSP?

you're going to have to help me there

Nah, the graphics are fine, the lack of polish is not. Clouds, weather (storms, fog, dust storms, etc.), planetshine, better skybox, lens flares, auroras. All of these things are provided by mods but should be stock. A little polish can go a long way.

This^

Graphics don't make a game great, while it's not photo-realistic it has its own style and still looks good.

Games these days don't have to be using the top-of-the-range graphics either, we're seeing a resurgence in 2D games, pixel art, sprites, voxels, low polygon count 3D.

Few of these new "old style" games are particularly "old" looking though, their graphics and style suit their themes.

The days of all games having to look as real as possible seem to (thankfully) be behind us

couldn't disagree more

we're all already enjoying the game and because we're active on the forum we know these visual improvements are there if we want them.

On release there's going to be a ton of people deciding whether to buy the game and many if not most are going to base that judgement on first impressions

and I'm sorry if this offends people but stock KSP looks awful.

especially that skybox

Edited February 17, 2015 by MartGonzo

[cpast]

I don't think it's that it's outdated; that (to me) says that it looks bad because of things that were common issues for older games (e.g. very low model resolution). The issue I have is that it's graphically somewhat monotonous at small and medium scales. At big scales, things are fine; planets look perfectly nice from orbit. At small scales (i.e. when around a landed craft, but not when you're actually moving some distance over the surface), there's some variation, which is not quite enough but isn't awful. But when you're moving over the surface, you quickly notice that you get whole swaths of obviously patterned ground, with no real landmarks or variation (or at least, not enough). To some degree that might be hard to avoid when "some actual distance" means "several kilometers at least," but I think it could do a better job.

Mart: While people decide based on first impressions, I'm not sure how much that's a problem with the particular graphics issues of KSP: you could probably take plenty of perfectly fine shots, and it's more obvious while playing.

The one thing that definitely does seem old-style is the obvious terrain texture patterns. Just looking out from KSC at the water, I can see that it's obviously a single texture repeated endlessly; there are rows in the water. Something to break the monotony would be nice. It wouldn't even have to be physical or persistent - just something to break monotony.

[TMS]

Very relevant video that I always link in these discussions.

For the record, KSP has average graphics but, more importantly, it has a confused aesthetic that is the result of different artists contributing at different stages of development.

KSP probably needs a period of aesthetic harmonisation, to get everything up to a singular colour palette and style.

Watch it...

[EtherDragon]

I don't think the graphics are outdated at all. I do agree that they can be developed a little further though, as we know some of the art and capabilities are second-pass assets.

The visual style for KSP is highly internally consistent, which actually makes for a better and more modern graphic design. Hyper-realistic games also need to have a consistent art and design style or the extra detail actually seems jarring and off-putting.

For me, I prefer the current design, which is a bit on the toy side. I like the idea that we're playing with toy people (Kerbals) with their toy rockets to navigate their toy solar system to find out the answer to the ultimate question - What is this mystery goo, and where did it come from?

[problemecium]

Yes and no.

On one hand, I think the atmosphere rendering and skybox are due for an update, but I've heard that 1.0 will address this.

On the other hand, this thread reminds me of a lot of Minecraft threads that used to pop up asking why Minecraft had such "primitive" graphics, and the universal answer was that A, the graphics were retro-styled on purpose to match the blocky aesthetic at the core of the game; and B, Minecraft actually had really advanced graphics - seeing 100 meters into the distance in all directions can involve rendering millions of blocks and thus millions of polygons, a feat that can bog down even next-gen game consoles. Both of these statements are true of KSP - making it more realistic would involve not only making it look more realistic but have a more serious atmosphere and a great deal more complexity making the game hard to play, and the current graphics advancement is easy to see from the performance drop when playing older (and less optimized) versions or when using any visual enhancement mod.

[Flixxbeatz]

I feel the graphics are kinda outdated as to other indie games like space engineers or The Forest. So is KSP graphically outdated or on par?

Graphics doesn't matter if the game is good.

[Randazzo]

Other games similar to KSP?

you're going to have to help me there

Actually, you quite got the point.

There's nothing comparable.

[MartGonzo]

snip

Mart: While people decide based on first impressions, I'm not sure how much that's a problem with the particular graphics issues of KSP: you could probably take plenty of perfectly fine shots, and it's more obvious while playing.

The one thing that definitely does seem old-style is the obvious terrain texture patterns. Just looking out from KSC at the water, I can see that it's obviously a single texture repeated endlessly; there are rows in the water. Something to break the monotony would be nice. It wouldn't even have to be physical or persistent - just something to break monotony.

Yes that's true, I have seen some pretty good stock pics and I agree on the water, the tiling is very obvious

That should be a failry simple thing to fix without adding to the CPU/memory load much.

Graphics doesn't matter if the game is good.

That's easy to say when you've played it extensively

what about people deciding whether to buy the game when it's released?

[Spartwo]

How about with these?

Ven's Stock Part Revamp

Astronomer's Visual Pack: Interstellarn V2

Planet Shine

[PB666]

I don't think it's graphically outdated, I think it's graphically undeveloped. Download the Renaissance Compilation and you'll get a feel for what it could look like if Squad put the time into it, which I really hope they do before the 1.0 release.

Others have mentioned other programs. The problem here is that peeps also talk about 30 minute load times for those addons and memory issues.

Space, in large part does not have clouds, nor haze, etc.

I'de leave the graphic refinements alone. I don't want 30 minute load times.

[Randazzo]

I'd leave the graphic refinements alone. I don't want 30 minute load times.

This.

This is always the other side of the graphics argument. Yes, there is a lot of optimizing that needs to be done (particularly since we can't expect a 64-bit version), but PC performance is an issue that bears considering. Yes, people with hamster powered PCs still count as customers.

[SRV Ron]

Given the limitation of needing to have KSP portable across platforms, the graphics are quite good with modders proving that they can be even better. When KSP 1.0 gets released, I would not be surprised to see it become available for X-Box, WII, Sony Playstation, and other gaming systems.