Is ksp graphically outdated or on par.

[boxman]

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

That is definitely true. Gameplay should always be first priority which is what kerbal space so far has done well.

But better graphics and more details would have really also helped immersion and such for me. The planets look right now barren and dead even for a "dead planet" so better graphics and more details would have really helped that which would make it more fun to actually explore the envirionments.

[Renegrade]

One thing I must add here is that lens flares can stuff it. JJ Abrams can stuff it too.

In real life, they're caused by interactions between multiple lenses - the light reflects off the different elements in the lens, back and forth, and makes little mirages on the film. This cannot happen to a fluid-filled eye, as the differences in refractive index are too low (or zero) for any significant reflection to occur.

Also it's the hallmark of a crappy lens. Good lenses minimize that, usually with optical coatings in between elements. Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc, all spend millions every year on new coatings and designs to try to eliminate it completely.

In actual space, the only lens flare you would see would be the reflection of your face on the inner surface of the helmet in EVA. Unless you're some hideous long-eyed robotic Terminator, with hugely telescopic eyes that have thirty elements in them. Then you'd see one of those anime/Abrams lens flares that cross the entire screen with twenty+ weird ephemeral glowing shapes that block your vision, and then Linda Hamilton would crush you in a hydraulic press or something while you were blinded.

We don't want to be crushed in a hydraulic press, do we?

We have entire planets with little variation. Once you've seen the texture and terrain scatter of a few biomes, that's it. You've seen all there is to see with that planet. The textures themselves are quite bland. More variety all round is what's needed. Giant crystals anyone? Lava lakes? Dust storms? These all have the benefit of allowing for varied gameplay as well as aesthetics.

This sounds interesting - I'd love to see more variety like that.

Above everything else, the two effects I'd like to see that I think would have the biggest effect on the game's appearance are reflections and new atmospheric shaders. Atmospheric shaders are particularly important in a space game, as they give us a sense of scale, and a feeling of how different atmospheric and vacuum bodies are.

I wouldn't mind seeing that improved either.

I don't want junk like DoF, Lens Flares, color tint or other "cinematic effects".

Agreed. All that junk can stuff it too (especially DoF and Lens Flares though... cancer of the eye)

The more realistic a game looks the more it suffers from the "Uncanny Valley". For example I have no issues believing a purple ocean in a cartoon-ish world, but in a realistic world I'd be questioning why it's purple. Or I have no issues with the way cartoon-ish characters behave (movement style, speech, etc) whereas in a realistic game I'd be annoyed and jarred out of my sense of disbelief if the animation was less than "human" or the lipsync not quite matched up.

STRONGLY agree.

Also I find the more photorealistic something is, the more jarring it becomes when something un-photorealistic happens.

[wumpus]

I recently got KSP running for my nephew. It was an "all-in-one" job with a minimal GPU and really couldn't handle KSP at native resolution (it kinda-worked by dropping it down to something like 1440-900). Fortunately, his father's laptop seems to work better (and is typically where he can use it), but I'd like to thank Squad for not overdoing the graphics. If mods exist for great graphics, why make things more difficult for older machines?

I suppose that KSP would make me more happy with more realistic textures (read inhabited) for Kerwin, but what I really want for 1.0 is far less crashes, more sane contracts, and as much of the "1.0 list" that Squad can do. Better graphics really won't make or break KSP. Gameplay and bugs will.

[pizzaoverhead]

but I'd like to thank Squad for not overdoing the graphics. If mods exist for great graphics, why make things more difficult for older machines?

In the past, Squad working on the graphics has resulted in higher efficiency and lower minimum system requirements, as well as a better looking game. Having an extra "Ultra" setting that you don't use could end up making your game run better.

[r_rolo1]

Well, in my opinion the game would have so much to win if it was possible to put more of the graphs being done in the GPU instead of cluttering the CPU, but the game engine constricts things a lot ( thanks Unity for your myriad limitations ). Oh well ...

On the topic, well, it is hard to judge KSP compared with the competition, given that KSP is pretty much alone in it's genre ( the only game that is even close is Space Engineers , and even that is quite far away ). Given that, the only real standart is to check if the graphics detracts from the main game core ... and I would say that, from quite a while ago, even KSP stock graphics are not a repulsive factor in the game experience. Sure, they could be better ( that is why there are so many beautifying and parts mods around ), but this is far away from the ASCII art some other famous *cough*Dwarf Fortress*cough* indie-ish games have

[comham]

Everything feels like a placeholder. Some of the better stock parts have very nice animations and a decent colour palette, and obviously bac9's assets are world-leading, but they are the exceptions to a sea of bland.

[worir4]

I think the parts, kerbals and buildings are fine. I understand it is supposed to have a sort of cartoon style to it. I would however like to see improvements to the atmospheres and re-entry and mach effects on craft. These would make some awesome screen shots.

[FlyingPete]

I think the parts, kerbals and buildings are fine. I understand it is supposed to have a sort of cartoon style to it. I would however like to see improvements to the atmospheres and re-entry and mach effects on craft. These would make some awesome screen shots.

It's a game where the home planet is populated by cartoonish little green men with debatable intelligence and an apparent love of explosions. The graphics have to be a bit cartoony or it wouldn't work. Orbiter it ain't.

[Robotengineer]

My thoughts on graphics.

Parts.

Some of the parts are top notch, and fit the game really well, PJ's parts. The other parts are outdated, they work, but they are not something I would mention when recommending this to a friend. They will/would work for 1.0, but I don't think they would be received well.

Buildings.

bac9's space centre is the best graphical thing in the game, it looks like a real space centre. The career mode buildings are worse than the parts. They don't seem to follow a main progression through upgrades, and have missing textures in areas, etc. I hope they get a graphical upgrade in 1.0.

Planets.

Planets are pretty good from orbit with high graphics settings, but look terrible on low graphics settings. Clouds would make a huge difference, as well as a retexture on some planets, Jool in particular. Planets just aren't as cool without clouds and nice textures. The skybox also should be upgraded.

UI.

Pretty good, I prefer it to the base Unity one in plugins. The right click part menu is ok, but could use improvement.

Summary.

On the whole, the graphics are not that good. It's not game breaking, but it makes the game a lot less engrossing.

[TeddyDD]

Space Engineers have pretty bad optimalization. It this case KSP is way better.

Only thing I miss in KSP graphics are good looking planets surfaces and clouds. Currently planets looks terrible.

[NecroBones]

Buildings.

bac9's space centre is the best graphical thing in the game, it looks like a real space centre. The career mode buildings are worse than the parts. They don't seem to follow a main progression through upgrades, and have missing textures in areas, etc. I hope they get a graphical upgrade in 1.0.

My biggest issue with the new buildings is that they're all painted in dark colors, which doesn't show up well because of KSP's lack of dynamic brightness. At high noon, they're almost black, with the stock ambient lighting.

I just wish they'd make a better dynamic ambient lighting system, AND make the color scheme of the new buildings work better.

[micha]

One thing I've seen a couple of times is requests for city textures on Kerbin.

Please NO!

Why you ask?

Well, because people would of course (crash)land in a city. And if said city was then just a flat smear of pixels on the ground instead of a huge set of nice 3d buildings with vehicles and Kerbals ambling about it would be FAR more jarring to the consistency of the environment. I like it just the way it is now, until if/when it can all be believably procedurally generated.

Until then I'm happy to believe that Kerbals live primarily underground with the majority of their infrastructure. Which is why I don't really like the all-too-human look of the space centre and wish the models could be replaced by modders. (something I've mentioned before).

For me, it's all about the consistency.

Clouds would be a nice (optional for the low-gfx-card users) addition though.

[Motokid600]

One thing I've seen a couple of times is requests for city textures on Kerbin.

Please NO!

Why you ask?

Well, because people would of course (crash)land in a city. And if said city was then just a flat smear of pixels on the ground instead of a huge set of nice 3d buildings with vehicles and Kerbals ambling about it would be FAR more jarring to the consistency of the environment. I like it just the way it is now, until if/when it can all be believably procedurally generated.

Until then I'm happy to believe that Kerbals live primarily underground with the majority of their infrastructure. Which is why I don't really like the all-too-human look of the space centre and wish the models could be replaced by modders. (something I've mentioned before).

For me, it's all about the consistency.

Clouds would be a nice (optional for the low-gfx-card users) addition though.

The city textures ive seen fade away after a ceratin altitude. They don't persist down to the ground so its like your walking on a giant pixel. But other then that yea your right. The average Joe who just started the game would wonder why the cities disappear.

Whats the game needs in that reguard is KerbinSide stock'd. That mod with everything it has to offer gives the game an amazingly finished feeling. KerbinSide adds so much that you could fly in any direction and would soon find another facility in no time. I love it. And I hope its the next mod to be incorporated.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Motokid600

[Gerandar]

Graphics dont make the game, dont be like those The Order 1886 people with there crappy gameplay and decent graphics.

[KerikBalm]

I stopped caring about graphics in gams about 10 years ago.

They were good enough 10 years ago to serve their purpose... and there have been a lot of games with flashy graphics since then that have gameplay I just don't care for.

The games I've liked the best often are of such a scale that they can't have top of the line visuals, because its too demanding on the computer.

Anyone remember Operation Flashpoint, or its successors Armed Assault and ArmA2?

The maps were 100 km^2 islands... not some arena of other first person shooters. The level of freedom gave it an immersion way better than the games with better visuals.

They may have had better visuals, but the limited world size made it feel almost claustraphobic.

[klgraham1013]

The graphics debate lost all meaning when it became an argument for or against gameplay. "Graphics don't make the game." Well, no, but neither does gameplay. You need them both and it's not a sliding scale or a venn diagram. Art, sound, writing, gameplay. It's all important.

KSP is certainly enjoyable as is, but, I think we can all agree that being a little bit prettier could only enhance the experience.

I feel like I've seen these same arguments when I express my desire for action movies with good stories.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not the flashy graphics fault that the gameplay is bad.

[Renegrade]

The graphics debate lost all meaning when it became an argument for or against gameplay. "Graphics don't make the game." Well, no, but neither does gameplay. You need them both and it's not a sliding scale or a venn diagram. Art, sound, writing, gameplay. It's all important.

Text adventures and MUDs want to have a word with you~

Seriously though, it is a zero-sum game. A dollar spent on graphics cannot also be spent on gameplay or writing or sound or art or sending execs to rehab. You gotta pick and choose at some point, and most AAA games tend to spend all of their money on the first and last things on that list, even though they're actually in better position to be strong in all areas, given their huge budgets.

Irony here is that these AAA guys could probably cut their graphics budgets in half, and still have 90% of the graphical nonsense as before, freeing up a lot of money for the other things.

KSP's graphics are kinda mediocre, but they get the job done. Investing heavily in them at this point would be a mistake. Investing lightly in 'em, fine (I don't think a minor tune-up and some clouds and weather would really kill too much dev time, or say touching up the problems with the existing buildings and the barn).

[Tank Buddy]

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

The graphics in KSP fit its style very well.

In addition to that: Considering that KSP is a spaceflight "simulator" and it focuses mostly on physics calculations, I would say the graphics are by no means bad. Compared to Orbiter and some other simulations, it is at the top of the line.

I have never doubted the graphics, I personally think they're pretty good, but I feel like the resolution of the part textures could be a little better. The graphics hardly ever interfere with game play anyways so I can't complain.

[Sidereus]

I'm also running an Athlon X2 with no issues (save the RAM overload) BUT... I recently swapped out my old ATi 3450 for an R9 270, before I did that I was getting huge FPS drops just on the space Centre screen with low settings.

Contrary to popular belief, GPU power does indeed affect KSP performance quite a bit. To test this I downclocked my CPU to 1ghz and while the physics processes were slower on large part counts, the frame rate didn't change from when it was running at the full 2.3ghz.

I then switched back to my 3450 with the CPU at 2.3ghz and the game was unplayable.

I'm running with an nVidia 9100m. Which means it's sharing memory with the CPU. Still playable, albeit at the lowest settings.

[klgraham1013]

Text adventures and MUDs want to have a word with you~

Why aren't more books interactive? I think it's a really interesting medium that's barely been touched. I have messed around with Twine a bit, personally.

edit: I wouldn't mind clouds and an art pass on the old fuel tanks (Saturn > Oil drum), otherwise, I don't have to many complaints with KSP's art.

[NathanKell]

In addition to that: Considering that KSP is a spaceflight "simulator" and it focuses mostly on physics calculations, I would say the graphics are by no means bad. Compared to Orbiter and some other simulations, it is at the top of the line.

Yes, let's do please compare it to Orbiter.

[Corw]

Yes, let's do please compare it to Orbiter.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/images/2015/compare/florida5_new.jpg

if I remember correctly (it has been quite some time I've played Orbiter), that may look nice on screenshot, but when you are actually fly above it, you clearly see that you are flying over a photo plastered on a ball. So no, KSP still feels better.

[Hary R]

I have to say that for the indi game standart, it is on part but indi game tend to be not that good graphically speaking.

As for the game engine... They are a lot of game out there on unity that are far more appealing graphically then KSP, Yes Unity can do way better:

Well...(still not Cry engine)

Where i'm going is that Ksp can be prettier with some improvement here and there. But the cartoon (ish?) style of the graphic fit KSP theme so for me it's good enough as it is now.

[NathanKell]

Corw: That's from Orbiter 2015. It's a graphics update, because the 2010 version *was* graphically outdated (despite some excellent work from our own asmi).

[Corw]

Corw: That's from Orbiter 2015. It's a graphics update, because the 2010 version *was* graphically outdated (despite some excellent work from our own asmi).

Cool. I'll have to check it out then