5 ms·

The problem is not graphics, but rather, the limitations of Unity that make it unsuitable for anything else but lowest common denominator multi-platform games w

The problem is not graphics, but rather, the limitations of Unity that make it unsuitable for anything else but lowest common denominator multi-platform games with clearly defined limits. Space Engineers is another game hampered by Unity.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
KSP is nowhere close to the limits of Unity, though, as proven by the modding community which (~1 - 1.5 years ago when I was last playing) provided better textures, atmospheric effects, better particle systems, and even shader-based atmospheric scattering. It would be entirely possible to incorporate all of that, in a more polished form, into the base game, given enough development time and will. I mean, this is how my modded KSP looked back in time of 0.25C: https://i.imgur.com/yBahDMr.png https://i.imgur.com/yBahDMr.png. I could name AAA space sims that look worse (esp. in terms of immersion).
- ferongr 9y ago
  Graphics are irrelevant, I'm talking about physics. Stock KSP graphics are "good enough".
  - eriknstr 9y ago
    Your original comment read as if you were saying that Unity was to blame for what the graphics look like.
    - Fifer82 9y ago
      Again I would say that if he did say that, he would be correct. Sit me down in a room of 20 games, and tell me to identify unity games by simply playing each computer. On the 20% chance that I can't instantly tell by looking, a wee swipe of the mouse and the complete lack of responsiveness finalizes all I need for 100% success rate.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        I could do the same, and I could also tell you which games were made with Unreal Engine, which with Source Engine, etc. Game engines have distinctive traits that are hard to eliminate from a game but easy to notice while you play. That isn't an argument against Unity per se.
        Fifer82 9y ago
        It is with Unity because it equals bad performance. It isn't like other games which, if you throw a beefy rig at it, you get more performance for the most part. It has a "It is 2001 and my Flash Player Animation is running at 24fps and the fans are burning out" feel to it.
        adanto6840 9y ago
        It is most definitely possible to achieve great results, including performance, with Unity. It requires creating the game from the ground up with code, though -- and that does not seem to be the audience that Unity markets towards the most. That said, it's not easy though it is certainly doable; it basically means you're using Unity largely as a "rendering pipeline" which may or may not be overkill, depending on the use case/game in question.
        Fifer82 9y ago
        Finding any information on "Pure Code" setups for unity is impossible. As in, I think http://jacksondunstan.com/ http://jacksondunstan.com/ has the only article on the internet.
        adanto6840 9y ago
        I know this is an old(er) post now, but thank you very much for the link. We actually had not seen that site before, and it's a treasure trove of fantastic information -- some of which we've found out ourselves, much of it new to us altogether. You're right -- there's very little written on the topic. Though Unity has a fantastic community, and a large swath of information & user help to be found, a lot of it is directed at the newer/simpler developer (or mobile specifically). Much of our work, and findings, has been derived from running our own tests & benchmarks as well as reading research/white-papers. In general, we've kind of found that many [advanced] game dev related topics are not well publicized or are fairly tightly-held. Our best source of information for things like highly advanced pathfinding, or low-level & high-volume multi-agent modeling/simulation strategies, have come directly from published academic research which has also been a treasure-trove of information. We've read more research the last year or two than we did through all of school and the first ~10-15 years of our careers combined! =)
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    I wonder how much of that is really true. there are unity games that show much complex physic than this, which has custom movement for orbital mechanic and uses physics mostly as a glorified stacking problem within connected rocket parts of which there aren't that many really. I guess most of the physic slowdown is some improvised custom code around joints that makes the solver choke
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    I disagree with you here. I think it's the physics that are "good enough", and the graphics are what really need improvement. I'm playing with lots of graphical mods now, and the game is just more fun. Going to different planets is more meaningful because they're just gorgeous. Landing on Kerbin is more fun because it isn't just a flat green plain with a repeating background texture and a limited number of different biomes. Better graphics also help to widen the appeal. Say what you will about No Man's Sky, but that game was gorgeous, which contributed in no small part to its widespread interest. Now imagine how fantastic a game with those graphics but with KSP's mechanics would be.
- Fifer82 9y ago
  Lol @ this. The very act of double clicking the icon to boot up unity === terrible performance. "Maybe she's born with it" was a funny joke I recall when working in Dundee on a Unity Project. I remember moving to a temporary role (More to fill the team for the investors to smile) and they were using Lumberyard and what a total difference. Unity is a poor mans game development solution and that might have perks, but a game the scope of KSP deserves way way way way more respect.
martindevans 9y ago
Space Engineers isn't made in Unity, it uses their Custom VRAGE engine. Unity can do far better graphics than KSP has e.g. https://unity3d.com/pages/adam https://unity3d.com/pages/adam. The fact that there are numerous mods which vastly improve the graphics of KSP is pretty good evidence of this! Where Unity can be blamed for KSP problems is the constant stutters due to GC - Unity uses an ancient garbage collector. Hopefully that's going to get better soon - apparently there was some licensing problem keeping Unity on an ancient version of Mono, now that MS own Xamarin that's probably not a problem.
- talldan 9y ago
  The parent said it's 'not graphics' that's the problem. I agree that it's not really the graphics that are an issue in KSP, but most likely the physics engine. Essentially, most (unity) games don't allow their users to create content, whereas the essential part of KSP is the creation and simulation of lots of bodies. I've definitely experienced a substantial slowdown when many entities are on the screen at the same time. I'm not sure if KSP makes use of the normal Unity physics engine, a third-party one, or something developed in-house.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    When they were on Unity 4, they were using Unity's physics engine - that made the game perform badly for bigger constructions (e.g. large rockets, or space stations), because the physics engine was single-threaded and the game is CPU-bound on physics. After switching to Unity 5, things got better. I haven't been up to date with KSP for the past year, so I don't know if they switched to some other physics engine (though I highly doubt it).
    - erik 9y ago
      Unity uses a modified version of PhysX. Unity 5 updated to a newer PhysX build that supports at least some multithreading.
      - 9y ago
moron4hire 9y ago
It's not Unity. It's the art assets. When you go to download Unity or Unreal, they have all these gorgeous photos of games made with their engines. That doesn't mean using their engine is going to make your game gorgeous. It means that you can pay money for a good artist to create good art and it will run in their engine. Well-crafted art assets are far more important to the look of a game than the specific engine that is used. The reason some "lesser" platforms like WebGL or the various open source game engines look so bad is because they are far more accessible to beginners, beginners who don't have access to good assets.
Artlav 9y ago
I remember Felipe saying that he regrets not being aware of other game engines out there back when Unity was picked.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

KSP is nowhere close to the limits of Unity, though, as proven by the modding community which (~1 - 1.5 years ago when I was last playing) provided better textures, atmospheric effects, better particle systems, and even shader-based atmospheric scattering. It would be entirely possible to incorporate all of that, in a more polished form, into the base game, given enough development time and will. I mean, this is how my modded KSP looked back in time of 0.25C: https://i.imgur.com/yBahDMr.png https://i.imgur.com/yBahDMr.png. I could name AAA space sims that look worse (esp. in terms of immersion).

ferongr 9y ago
Graphics are irrelevant, I'm talking about physics. Stock KSP graphics are "good enough".
- eriknstr 9y ago
  Your original comment read as if you were saying that Unity was to blame for what the graphics look like.
  - Fifer82 9y ago
    Again I would say that if he did say that, he would be correct. Sit me down in a room of 20 games, and tell me to identify unity games by simply playing each computer. On the 20% chance that I can't instantly tell by looking, a wee swipe of the mouse and the complete lack of responsiveness finalizes all I need for 100% success rate.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I could do the same, and I could also tell you which games were made with Unreal Engine, which with Source Engine, etc. Game engines have distinctive traits that are hard to eliminate from a game but easy to notice while you play. That isn't an argument against Unity per se.
      - Fifer82 9y ago
        It is with Unity because it equals bad performance. It isn't like other games which, if you throw a beefy rig at it, you get more performance for the most part. It has a "It is 2001 and my Flash Player Animation is running at 24fps and the fans are burning out" feel to it.
        adanto6840 9y ago
        It is most definitely possible to achieve great results, including performance, with Unity. It requires creating the game from the ground up with code, though -- and that does not seem to be the audience that Unity markets towards the most. That said, it's not easy though it is certainly doable; it basically means you're using Unity largely as a "rendering pipeline" which may or may not be overkill, depending on the use case/game in question.
        Fifer82 9y ago
        Finding any information on "Pure Code" setups for unity is impossible. As in, I think http://jacksondunstan.com/ http://jacksondunstan.com/ has the only article on the internet.
        adanto6840 9y ago
        I know this is an old(er) post now, but thank you very much for the link. We actually had not seen that site before, and it's a treasure trove of fantastic information -- some of which we've found out ourselves, much of it new to us altogether. You're right -- there's very little written on the topic. Though Unity has a fantastic community, and a large swath of information & user help to be found, a lot of it is directed at the newer/simpler developer (or mobile specifically). Much of our work, and findings, has been derived from running our own tests & benchmarks as well as reading research/white-papers. In general, we've kind of found that many [advanced] game dev related topics are not well publicized or are fairly tightly-held. Our best source of information for things like highly advanced pathfinding, or low-level & high-volume multi-agent modeling/simulation strategies, have come directly from published academic research which has also been a treasure-trove of information. We've read more research the last year or two than we did through all of school and the first ~10-15 years of our careers combined! =)
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  I wonder how much of that is really true. there are unity games that show much complex physic than this, which has custom movement for orbital mechanic and uses physics mostly as a glorified stacking problem within connected rocket parts of which there aren't that many really. I guess most of the physic slowdown is some improvised custom code around joints that makes the solver choke
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  I disagree with you here. I think it's the physics that are "good enough", and the graphics are what really need improvement. I'm playing with lots of graphical mods now, and the game is just more fun. Going to different planets is more meaningful because they're just gorgeous. Landing on Kerbin is more fun because it isn't just a flat green plain with a repeating background texture and a limited number of different biomes. Better graphics also help to widen the appeal. Say what you will about No Man's Sky, but that game was gorgeous, which contributed in no small part to its widespread interest. Now imagine how fantastic a game with those graphics but with KSP's mechanics would be.
Fifer82 9y ago
Lol @ this. The very act of double clicking the icon to boot up unity === terrible performance. "Maybe she's born with it" was a funny joke I recall when working in Dundee on a Unity Project. I remember moving to a temporary role (More to fill the team for the investors to smile) and they were using Lumberyard and what a total difference. Unity is a poor mans game development solution and that might have perks, but a game the scope of KSP deserves way way way way more respect.

martindevans 9y ago

Space Engineers isn't made in Unity, it uses their Custom VRAGE engine. Unity can do far better graphics than KSP has e.g. https://unity3d.com/pages/adam https://unity3d.com/pages/adam. The fact that there are numerous mods which vastly improve the graphics of KSP is pretty good evidence of this! Where Unity can be blamed for KSP problems is the constant stutters due to GC - Unity uses an ancient garbage collector. Hopefully that's going to get better soon - apparently there was some licensing problem keeping Unity on an ancient version of Mono, now that MS own Xamarin that's probably not a problem.

talldan 9y ago
The parent said it's 'not graphics' that's the problem. I agree that it's not really the graphics that are an issue in KSP, but most likely the physics engine. Essentially, most (unity) games don't allow their users to create content, whereas the essential part of KSP is the creation and simulation of lots of bodies. I've definitely experienced a substantial slowdown when many entities are on the screen at the same time. I'm not sure if KSP makes use of the normal Unity physics engine, a third-party one, or something developed in-house.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  When they were on Unity 4, they were using Unity's physics engine - that made the game perform badly for bigger constructions (e.g. large rockets, or space stations), because the physics engine was single-threaded and the game is CPU-bound on physics. After switching to Unity 5, things got better. I haven't been up to date with KSP for the past year, so I don't know if they switched to some other physics engine (though I highly doubt it).
  - erik 9y ago
    Unity uses a modified version of PhysX. Unity 5 updated to a newer PhysX build that supports at least some multithreading.
    - 9y ago

moron4hire 9y ago

It's not Unity. It's the art assets. When you go to download Unity or Unreal, they have all these gorgeous photos of games made with their engines. That doesn't mean using their engine is going to make your game gorgeous. It means that you can pay money for a good artist to create good art and it will run in their engine. Well-crafted art assets are far more important to the look of a game than the specific engine that is used. The reason some "lesser" platforms like WebGL or the various open source game engines look so bad is because they are far more accessible to beginners, beginners who don't have access to good assets.

Artlav 9y ago

I remember Felipe saying that he regrets not being aware of other game engines out there back when Unity was picked.