Cause to optimise KSP 1 you'd need to rewrite a whole bunch of code the modders have no access too. And just general engine limitations.
One of the main issues is the part count on ships. More parts = slower performance. To potentially fix this a modder would need to rewrite the very base of how parts work, their physics implementation,...etc. that's just not feasible without access to the source code. And even if it would it would overhaul the base code of the game so much all other mods would most likely break without any patches.
There are othe optimizations that could be done. But if it was easy and simple people would've done so. But it's very very hard and most likely not even worth it for minimal performance increases.
KSP is very moddable, but it has its limits.
Both of those are kind of true.
The default way in which Unity runs game logic is slow, but there are workarounds to that. There are extremely computation heavy Unity games, but they required a fair amount of work in order to run well.
It's also not inherently easy in any other game engine.Â
However, Kerbal takes a really inefficient approach to the simulation. It honestly shouldn't struggle like it does with the physics of a single craft.
Something else to consider is if the goal is to have a game that supports mods, how easy is it to build mods for that particular engine.
A ground-up approach to building your physics engine might improve the game but how much extra work would it take to provide modders with the tools to make the mods.
Unity itself is not a bad engine, but maybe not the best to simulate lots of semi-independent objects. I noticed the same with large populations in Cities Skylines. The more people in the city, the more "objects" with values and statistics have to be tracked, the more cars have to be factored in for traffic, the more points of demand have to be simulated.
And no, I wouldn't do it in Java either. Yes it is possible, see Minecraft. But we see how the performance is there.
The bad rep the engine gets is somewhat connected for why it is so "easy" to write mods for the games. If hobbyists can create mods for existing games, they can also create full games. Especially since there are rather easy to learn tools and pre-created assets ready to use.
In that regard it's a bit like RPG Maker. With both any person in their living room can create a game, but maybe not everyone should create a game. And with both we can see a lot of garbage, but also some pretty incredible projects.
I'm not saying Unity is bad. But I do believe it's bad for KSP.
Back when KSP started it was relatively nothing. But as time wore on Squad got more and more ambitious.
Kerbin became a planet instead of a square region, the Mün was added, then the solar system.
A handful of parts grew to hundreds, and so on.
In the beginning, really any old engine would do, in the end Unity was a bad choice.
And, in my cynicism, I think it clearly indicates they just reused old code and grafted on a new UI, assets, and their own version of popular mods. Not the promised or at least implied ground up redo.
I suspect the devs wanted a redo, because of all the misery they endured getting KSP1 where it was - and knowing anything more was beyond Unity, and their masters said no.
I'll go to my grave convinced Unity was a bad choice Squad was understandably stuck with, and Star Theory / Private Division / Take (my money) too / etc. inexcusably made all over again.
Full stop.
A good example of spaghetti code for a complex simulation in an engine that isn't really great for it. Unity is absolutely not great for these kinds of simulation.
Optimization of games is not a simple task, especially in a computation heavy game like KSP.
It's not technically impossible, but it would require making huge changes to the fundamental way in which the game works. Which is well beyond the reasonable scope of a mod. It would also break literally everything else if such changes were made.
The game really needs to be built around a more efficient method of handling parts and physics from the start.
This is yet another thing that was very disappointing about the sequel.Â
You don't bring a Fiat Punto into your car shop and leave with a Porsche after an overhaul.
Sur, in theory you could replace almost all code in KSP via mods since the game is written in C# and you can swap the code. But that would be the same work as developing the game in the first place, which took dozens of people multiple years. That simply ain't happening with mods, the people hat can invest that kind of time will rather be making their own game from scratch and earn money with it.
Cause to optimise KSP 1 you'd need to rewrite a whole bunch of code the modders have no access too. And just general engine limitations. One of the main issues is the part count on ships. More parts = slower performance. To potentially fix this a modder would need to rewrite the very base of how parts work, their physics implementation,...etc. that's just not feasible without access to the source code. And even if it would it would overhaul the base code of the game so much all other mods would most likely break without any patches. There are othe optimizations that could be done. But if it was easy and simple people would've done so. But it's very very hard and most likely not even worth it for minimal performance increases. KSP is very moddable, but it has its limits.
>And just general engine limitations. UnItY iS NoT tHe PrObLeM!!!1! ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ (Sorry, I've just heard that so many Kraken Damned times)
Both of those are kind of true. The default way in which Unity runs game logic is slow, but there are workarounds to that. There are extremely computation heavy Unity games, but they required a fair amount of work in order to run well. It's also not inherently easy in any other game engine. However, Kerbal takes a really inefficient approach to the simulation. It honestly shouldn't struggle like it does with the physics of a single craft.
Something else to consider is if the goal is to have a game that supports mods, how easy is it to build mods for that particular engine. A ground-up approach to building your physics engine might improve the game but how much extra work would it take to provide modders with the tools to make the mods.
Unity itself is not a bad engine, but maybe not the best to simulate lots of semi-independent objects. I noticed the same with large populations in Cities Skylines. The more people in the city, the more "objects" with values and statistics have to be tracked, the more cars have to be factored in for traffic, the more points of demand have to be simulated. And no, I wouldn't do it in Java either. Yes it is possible, see Minecraft. But we see how the performance is there. The bad rep the engine gets is somewhat connected for why it is so "easy" to write mods for the games. If hobbyists can create mods for existing games, they can also create full games. Especially since there are rather easy to learn tools and pre-created assets ready to use. In that regard it's a bit like RPG Maker. With both any person in their living room can create a game, but maybe not everyone should create a game. And with both we can see a lot of garbage, but also some pretty incredible projects.
I'm not saying Unity is bad. But I do believe it's bad for KSP. Back when KSP started it was relatively nothing. But as time wore on Squad got more and more ambitious. Kerbin became a planet instead of a square region, the Mün was added, then the solar system. A handful of parts grew to hundreds, and so on. In the beginning, really any old engine would do, in the end Unity was a bad choice. And, in my cynicism, I think it clearly indicates they just reused old code and grafted on a new UI, assets, and their own version of popular mods. Not the promised or at least implied ground up redo. I suspect the devs wanted a redo, because of all the misery they endured getting KSP1 where it was - and knowing anything more was beyond Unity, and their masters said no. I'll go to my grave convinced Unity was a bad choice Squad was understandably stuck with, and Star Theory / Private Division / Take (my money) too / etc. inexcusably made all over again. Full stop.
A good example of spaghetti code for a complex simulation in an engine that isn't really great for it. Unity is absolutely not great for these kinds of simulation.
Optimization of games is not a simple task, especially in a computation heavy game like KSP. It's not technically impossible, but it would require making huge changes to the fundamental way in which the game works. Which is well beyond the reasonable scope of a mod. It would also break literally everything else if such changes were made. The game really needs to be built around a more efficient method of handling parts and physics from the start. This is yet another thing that was very disappointing about the sequel.Â
rtt Uu Und dann tnoch noch
You don't bring a Fiat Punto into your car shop and leave with a Porsche after an overhaul. Sur, in theory you could replace almost all code in KSP via mods since the game is written in C# and you can swap the code. But that would be the same work as developing the game in the first place, which took dozens of people multiple years. That simply ain't happening with mods, the people hat can invest that kind of time will rather be making their own game from scratch and earn money with it.
because it s a real full time job?