![]() ![]() The unnecessary effects are the dust added at 1:00 in the video. Maybe they needed to render it out in order to capture the reflection in the Kerbal's helmet, but honestly in 2023, most games have some type of raytracing, this should be possible in engine, in a perfect world. There seems to be unnecessary effects added to the video as well as a pre-rendered scene of 3 Kerbals? To me it's pretty clear that the part of the 3 Kerbals getting blasted by exhaust is pre-rendered because of the depth of field, slight increase in lighting quality. To me this adds heavily to the theory that this is just developer footage, which sort of leads me onto the last thing: I hope I get used to it and come to like them, but after seeing the VFX in Squad, an 8 year old game, I feel like that has ruined all the VFX in any other game for me ( these aren't even the best ones I've seen in-game, but I can't find a good compilation of effects apart from that one)Īnti-aliasing, or the lack there of. Same with explosions, it's 2D textures layered on top of each other. The launch effects with the exhaust is made using a bunch of 2D textures stitched together and animated, it just doesn't fit into the world of super realistic looking space-craft and planets, for me at least. (Can't help myself, but, ahem, another thing that UE5 has that you can literally drag and drop into a scene, is some of the most realistic, and customizable volumetric clouds to ever grace a game engine. This is the main thing that's leading me to believe a lot of the footage could be old, and stitched quickly together to make a trailer, since the most recent thing we saw (that Discord image) looked great. One of the most recent screenshots on the Discord server has sort of given me hope here, but the clouds still just look pretty bad in my opinion, and not even stylized vs realistic bad, just in general. My point here is that I feel like there's not much point scattering rocks around if there's only a few of them every 50 metres, and those rocks seem to be blurry and have about 25 polygons in them anyway (unlike what was shown in a few of the "test scene" screenshots, which looked great ). It would legitimately look like the reveal trailer, but in real-time. I'm obviously ignoring some issues here (the biggest of which is that KSP2 was already in development before UE5 was released), since otherwise all game studios would use it, but you can get away with virtually infinite detail, and infinite objects in UE5, with incredible path traced global illumination (it's called something like that), which means no unity shadow glitchiness. I can't help but want to bang my head against something every time I see a lack of detail, now that Unreal Engine 5 is out. Vegetation and rocks' scattering seem pretty lacklustre as well. I really hope this is recorded on low - medium settings for textures, because modern games' textures, or even just updated games' textures ( COD, Escape from Tarkov, Squad, etc) have some serious fidelity to them, and I'd expect KSP2 have similar quality, especially given the price, and that it's at that price for early access alone. I also found that some textures look nice, but most of them seem to look pretty 5+ year old game-y to me. IMO it's the thing that really ties together an upgrade in graphics quality, but without it, all you see are the hugely blurred textures of the mountains in the background and a fairly flat unrealistic looking landscape (due to the lack of fog that allows you to get a feel for the distance). I want to point out the lack of distance/atmospheric scattering on Kerbin, it is really needed. just so you know), but overall I'm still excited for the game. Just to preface, I have a lot of criticising comments which I can't help but want to express (pretty much the whole reply is that. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |