Is ksp graphically outdated or on par.

[Kar]

I feel the graphics are kinda outdated as to other indie games like space engineers or The Forest. So is KSP graphically outdated or on par?

I do not think KSP graphics are outdated. They are simple, I can agree on that, and they are not that bad, I do think they fit the "Kerbal way" of the game nicely. Space Engineers graphics to be honest, are nothing special, sure they good for a block construction game, but then again it's not a Farcry or something like that. The Forest I never play it, saw some videos and...well... nothing amazing too, they are good for the game.

If you tell me, that KSP could be a bit better in terms of graphics, sure. We could have better textures, wind effects, clouds and stuff like that. But to be perfectly honest, I do hope Squad do not make the graphics a priority. For me the biggest priorities in the game are bug fixes (high priority!) and a stable 64bit.

The game is already slow and too much CPU dependent and memory dependent. Unity engine need to be better and take better advantage of the many stuff video cards can do today (and I am not even consider Windows 10 and DX 12)

To be honest, screw the graphics, get me better physics that make sense, fix the bugs, get the game stable for future updates and releases, then we can worry about graphics. We already saw that it is possible, there are mods out there that do amazing things, but when I have a PC that I can play graphical intense games in a "good" way and KSP engine is so bad that when I get a few mods the frame rate drops like hell, then I say, no more graphical stuff to be nice, lets fix this problem.

For me the answer is 64bit version and Unity making a better management of resources. After all, in today's technology the CPU's of our PC's (do not matter if you using mac or linux or whatever) are less important then a a good video card.

The same PC build with a 1GB VRAM behaves one way. Put a 3 or 4GB VRAM card on the same PC and you have almost a 90% new PC.

Of course a CPU is important, even more if games use that for advantage. Look for example Bioshock: the game looks great, it is a 64 bit game, great graphics and runs pretty well in this old PC with a HD7750 video card!

In contrast, KSP 32bits give me so much work to play that sometimes I just want to scream!!!!

Game play, bug fixes, stable game first. Graphics latter...much latter... not in a hurry.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Kar
Reason for editing? Because I wanted to. :P

[John FX]

I just can`t play stock. It`s too ugly.

Outdated or not, the graphics need a lot of work before they can be considered ready for release IMHO.

For an idea of what would be OK I`d suggest loading up EVE, Planetshine, distant object enhancement, and ambient light adjuster.

After that try some of astronomers visual packs.

Of course if you do that then your game is more likely to throw memory exceptions which is another topic entirely...

[Kar]

I just can`t play stock. It`s too ugly.

Outdated or not, the graphics need a lot of work before they can be considered ready for release IMHO.

For an idea of what would be OK I`d suggest loading up EVE, Planetshine, distant object enhancement, and ambient light adjuster.

...

Stock isn't too ugly. It is simple. Like I said, game play, bug fixes and a stable 64bit is much more important.

Do you want great graphics and crashes all the time or do you prefer the "ugly" stock graphics and be able to play hours and hours with no loss of frame rate and no crashes?

You mention EVE Online. EVE Online do not have the capacity or the support that KSP have. EVE is around for over 10 years now and CCP is a solid company. I started playing EVE in 2003 and the graphics at that time were already very good, but been a MMO you had a lot of lag issues and in a system for example like Jita the game got so slow that was impossible to get into the system.

Today EVE had a lot of changes in game play and in graphics, and even today you have issues of lag because of graphics and loss of frame rates when too much people flying around. Of course if you to null space is different.

Squad is a small company and KSP is their first game. I think is commendable and amazing what Squad managed to pull for their first game. Even the Dev's already said they are learning while making KSP. They fix something or bring something new and more bugs appear.

Now, of course I would love to see KSP with great graphics, stock parts with shinny textures, planets with storms, clouds, rain, etc. I would love to see the shores of KSC and see the sea waves hitting the shores, but to get to that point I think Squad needs to work in the game play itself and refine KSP to be stable.

Next release they already gave us a few tips of what to come, more stuff into the game, new aerodynamic model and so on.

I believe by the end of this year, maybe sooner, KSP will rock with new stuff, better stability and new graphics.

Let them work slowly and well instead of rushing and make things worse or hard to fix. This is what happens with big companies like "cough cough ea" that do not care about gaming itself or the players, the only thing they care about is to get that sequel number 4 or 5 of the same game before Christmas and collect huge paychecks. When we, the fanbase, get those games, then it is 1 year of patches and updates to fix things that should be fixed in the development of a game.

Rushing the real people that makes a game is the worst thing for us, not for a company, they just see numbers $$$, this also forces a cut in the creativity of many Dev's working for big companies.

I am really glad Squad isn't like that.

To quote one of the greatest:

When will Doom 3 be released ? - Some gaming reporter in a interview

When it's ready to release - John Romero - ID Software

Edited February 19, 2015 by Kar

[Renegrade]

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:

I've actually played Stranded Deep, and it's actually not all that stunning graphically, and is on a truly miniscule scale. It's really just you, a completely uncustomizable character (basically, two arms), about thirty models, some nice shader effects, some exploits, and a tiny tech tree. That's about it.

Can't comment on the other game. Graphics looked kinda Borderlands-y...

To quote one of the greatest:

When will Doom 3 be released ? - Some gaming reporter in a interview

When it's ready to release - John Romero - ID Software

Daikatana says hi.

[Hary R]

I've actually played Stranded Deep, and it's actually not all that stunning graphically, and is on a truly miniscule scale. It's really just you, a completely uncustomizable character (basically, two arms), about thirty models, some nice shader effects, some exploits, and a tiny tech tree. That's about it.

Can't comment on the other game. Graphics looked kinda Borderlands-y...

Daikatana says hi.

Never said it was stunning, I said unity can do better than what KSP have... with some work,(hey, I didn't say that it put KSP on a lower side of even Unity games either), but I admit Unity will never be something like say...cryengine or any other modern game engine. But still KSP with Unity can have better graphics.

Well anyway, I didn't play any AAA game in a while so i don't even know what are the standard of game graphic now day... can't say my opinion even count...

Edited February 20, 2015 by Hary R

[samstarman5]

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

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

People looking only for pretty graphics are not going to enjoy KSP because they won't be able to wrap their minds around the actual mechanics.

Maybe there is some touching up that can be done, and there is going to be more yet to come as far as aesthetics after 1.0 is released(or even with 1.0), but as KSP stands now for those who are able to enjoy the game and fathom getting a ship into Kerbin orbit, it looks just fine.

[Columbia]

Honestly, I think the graphics are pretty good for a game as complicated as KSP, and I dont think it would matter much either, compared to gameplay, but that's just what I think.

[Kar]

Honestly, I think the graphics are pretty good for a game as complicated as KSP, and I dont think it would matter much either, compared to gameplay, but that's just what I think.

Exactly.

Look for example the Call of Duty series. When it came out it had a huge success, then we saw 2,3,4,5,6,9999999 versions. With each version better graphics and little more content. Do not take me wrong, I like CoD, but lost my interest around the squeals 2 and 3. After that is more of the same.

There are many other examples out there, most games in th FPS style for example lose perspective on their content but hey, it is a new brand game with amazing graphics and explosions and so on. But what about the content?

KSP for me, it is all about the game play, the mechanics of the game, and to be honest, the difficulty (even if I do not find it difficult cause I can understand the "real" physics behind it) most people that are used to play space games (that I love btw) games like the X series (not the last on it sucks), Elite (now that one spent hours and hours playing on 80's) and so on.

Talking about Elite, just see when Elite was released back in the 80's where people where making text base games, and these guys came with a game with a infinity space to explore, thousands of stations and a cheated "3D" looks. That game was in black and white, made of with lines with no textures and sold thousands of copies! Why? Because was amazing. Oh and it fit on a 720kb floppy disk!

KSP graphics at this moment of development are more then enough for the game. I am much more concerned in bug fixes and better new content and more game play. I really do not care about graphics at this stage.

Let Squad refine the game, probably add more content with expansions or DLC's or whatever they decide and then we can worry about the graphics. We already saw that is possible, there are mods that make KSP really amazing in terms of graphics, but at this time of development I do not think KSP can handle an increase of graphics before it gets stable enough for it.

The memory problems of KSP and the way KSP uses memory it's the major limitation for KSP.

[Yuming]

The graphics are fine for me. I have a computer that pretends it's a toaster for any other game, and I have to run on min settings for those anyway. With KSP, I can play on decent settings as long as my ships do not get too large (or medium:P). I'm a minimalist anyway.

[The Yellow Dart]

KSP is a fun, cartoonish game and I think graphics fit that theme well for the most part. It would be weird if the graphics looked like whatever the most recent iteration of Modern Warfare is.

The only problem I have with KSP's appearance is the skybox. It is too bright and too low res and it just ends up being a major eyesore for me. It fails miserably at conveying the majesty of space. If that was fixed, I don't think I would have any complaints. I also wouldn't mind if the galaxy weren't perfectly aligned with Kerbin's equator. Ideally I would like it if they could do stars and planets "Stellarium-style" so you could zoom in and have stars remain as points of light, but I imagine that would be quite a large task.

[Guest]

KSP's graphics are sub-standard. The graphics don't need to be stunning, but right now they're really bland and uninspiring, completely "un-majestic". Part of this is simply the size of the planets but they're still totally uninteresting from space or the ground; no clouds where appropriate, two or three color textures, lack of surface features, just ... bland.

There's a lot of stuff that stands out in the game, though, most especially bac9 and Porkjet's contributions. Would that everything were that high-quality and well-thought out.

[Norpo]

Eh, it's not that great. Graphics aren't what make a game, but it's a lost opportunity, considering space is really majestic and stuff.

Exploring the planets should look great, and visually stunning. Lucky for us, that's what mods are for.

It just goes to show that space is great though, even without mods KSP still looks awe-inspiring in certain situations. Just look at the "Show off your awesome KSP pictures" thread for proof. While the atmospheric mods make KSP look so much cooler, it looks alright even with stock graphics, too. AND without melting my GPU.

(some mod parts)

Of course, with realism and atmosphere mods, KSP looks SO much better. Just to provide a pic for comparison:

Now, say to me with a straight face that last one doesn't look so much more epic. Original KSP graphics are nice, but they cannot hold a candle to all the expertly made mods out there.

tl;dr space looks great and KSP looks meh

Edited February 20, 2015 by Norpo

[Thomas988]

I just like to fantasize over the idea of a crossover between Space Engine and KSP. KSP2, anyone?

[Caelib]

The graphics are passable for a game with such a massive scale, but I agree with everyone else that it does need a little bit of polish in terms of clouds, etc.

[Corw]

Eh, it's not that great. Graphics aren't what make a game, but it's a lost opportunity, considering space is really majestic and stuff.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/0A2C232A-1E73-497D-BBC990D98F9AD53B.jpg

Exploring the planets should look great, and visually stunning. Lucky for us, that's what mods are for.

It just goes to show that space is great though, even without mods KSP still looks awe-inspiring in certain situations. Just look at the "Show off your awesome KSP pictures" thread for proof. While the atmospheric mods make KSP look so much cooler, it looks alright even with stock graphics, too. AND without melting my GPU.

http://i.imgur.com/TPe8cLm.jpg

(some mod parts)

http://i.imgur.com/KkapCbe.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BmiwnlD.png

Of course, with realism and atmosphere mods, KSP looks SO much better. Just to provide a pic for comparison:

http://i.imgur.com/dQdbod7.png

Now, say to me with a straight face that last one doesn't look so much more epic. Original KSP graphics are nice, but they cannot hold a candle to all the expertly made mods out there.

tl;dr space looks great and KSP looks meh

Only problem is I can't see landing site from clouds

[Renegrade]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/0A2C232A-1E73-497D-BBC990D98F9AD53B.jpg

The graphics in that game look terrible~ No HDR, no lens flares, no motion blur, and only an idiot director would even THINK of putting a color other than grey or brown in. What's that hideous blue orb on the horizon?? It's completely unrealistic! The only thing good about that is that the HUD is very subtle.

/trollface

Seriously though, the last one is very nice (especially the atmosphere on the horizon), although I actually prefer the stock sun. The stock sun may not be super realistic, but it looks nice. (and I think it's closer to the real sun than the one in the last shot - although I generally avoid looking at the damn thing. Evil daystar must die!)

Of course, the reviewers would murder it. Has way too many colors that aren't grey or brown, and and it needs a 600-element lensflare to obstruct the screen. Also I seriously doubt it supports all the attachments necessary to make a gun a gun, like various types of grips, attachments, sights/acogs/scopes, and paint jobs. On the bright side, however, movie critics will like it, it has a nice teal/orange thing going there.

Heh.

[A-Stax32]

As far as indie games go ...

At least it's got better graphics than Minecraft!

Honestly though, I do feel like KSP could have better graphics but I also think that its current state is good because for those who want amazing and very real graphics, there are mods out there that do that. Whereas for those who don't really mind the cartoony state of KSP or want to load their game up on other mods and can't afford to be using high memory visual mods KSP's graphics are fine.

[Barklight]

Given the available tools, I think KSP's graphics are alright. Not bleeding edge, but they don't need to be. As mentioned before, a lot of community mods make the graphics options open up quite a bit and things can really start looking impressive. I could be surprised with a graphics overhaul on an update after 1.0, but I don't know if we'll see much on that front until the Unity engine itself which Squad uses is improved and (possibly) stabilized for x64, which would allow more memory utilization for more high resolution textures.

Don't forget that to Squad, 1.0 means feature-complete. Not finished release. After 1.0, all of their intended mechanics are in the game and can be experienced by the players. That's when the polish and fine tuning really starts, since they will have more resources available as they move away from feature development and towards polishing their product and improving what they already have.

[TMS]

Many of the games that have switched to unity 5 have had to adapt to the way it handles light differently and, in some cases, reworked assets to take better advantage of it.

I don't see a graphics update occuring until U5 is implemented.

[The Yellow Dart]

I just like to fantasize over the idea of a crossover between Space Engine and KSP. KSP2, anyone?

I had that same idea a while back and made this:

[lajoswinkler]

If the current ugly skybox was replaced with a more realistic one (oinker's skybox), the game would look a lot better.

That, plus refurbished atmosphere (no need for resource eating clouds for now, but that awful white horizon can be changed) and better textures for some parts would make the game look a lot better. It's a small effort that would turn out great.

[Mitchz95]

I think what's needed most is a new skybox, more realistic planet textures (while retaining the cartoony charm) and optional clouds.

[MartGonzo]

Couldn't agree more on the skybox, it's terrible.

The ground texture I think is pretty good now especially compared to the earlier versions, but that water.....

There's really no excuse for such awful tiling.

[skyace65]

I think the game looks fine. But some more terrain decoration would be great, and maybe some better lighting, but you'd need to wait for unity 5 for that.

[Mitchz95]

Not sure if this counts, but they really need to fix water lag too.