Of course parts with novel functionality will take a little more work, but it's still not all that difficult. Get your model, your VFX, your sounds, your specs in a config and boom: new part. From a development perspective, adding parts to the game is the easiest thing to do. Some people have been complaining that the game has less parts than the original. I think the original reveal trailer skyrocketed peoples expectations about the graphics, which leads back to the poor communication thing. They pretty much HAVE to get it optimised to get it to work on PS5 and Xbox series X. KSP 2 is eventually coming to console after all. ![]() My guess is that we are still only at the start of the 'getting it working fast' phase. If you have any experience in software development then you know that the first step is to get the thing working, and only after that you start worrying about getting it working fast. To me a lot of the muddyness in the videos seems like a result of poor screen capture settings and YouTube compression, not the graphics of the game itself.Īs for the poor performance, the easy answer is that this game is early access. Lastly, from what I can tell, whoever set up the screen capture software on the gameplay event computers hasn't done a good job. I agree that modded KSP 1 does look better than stock KSP 2 right now, but the fact that we are already comparing modded to stock is a win in my book. that they have completely forgotten what the stock game looks like. I'm willing to bet that almost everyone who has been saying that KSP 1 looks better, has gotten so used to Scatterer, Parallax, Restock, etc. The difference between KSP 1 and KSP 2 in this regard is night and day, KSP 1 doesn't even come close. Engine plumes, atmospheric scattering, the ocean, clouds, surface materials, part materials, dense terrain clutter. The reality of it is that this game is leagues ahead of stock KSP 1 in pretty much every single way. First off is the 'bad graphics' argument. Now for the criticisms I don't think are fair. It should've been clear from the start that that those specs are for version 0.1.x specifically, and that the recommended specs were for 1440p at high settings and not 1080p. The whole thing with the minimum/recommended specs could've been communicated better. The game was set for 2020 originally, which was completely unrealistic. There have been other criticisms that can be basically abbreviated to poor communication from the developers, which I agree with. People know the game is in early access, but I believe that the price makes them them think 'early access' means a basically finished game with some bugs here and there. The €50 price tag has set expectations that an early access build could never realistically meet. This subreddit seems to be in a meltdown right now because of the KSP gameplay videos.Ī lot of the criticism is fair. Send us a message with proof, and we'll give you some flair to show it! Disable header animation Enable header animation Δ | Support/bug reports | KerbalAcademy | ConsoleKSP Last contest's winner: forteefly1998! Have you developed a mod? ![]() See this page for more infoĬommunity Teamspeak Server Refrain from submitting images that involve real life space disasters that resulted in loss of lifeĭon't post/discuss mirrors or torrents of any version of KSP See the discussion on misc posts for more info No posts unrelated to KSP or memes and image macros. Please remain kind and civil at all times
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |