Comments by "Tiago D\x27Agostini" (@tiagodagostini) on "" video.

A very first version like this one would have been okish. But the game is still horrible performance wise, but that is fault of usign UNITY on a game with attempt for real graphics.
15
@LordSesshaku Do nto think so. The vast majority of KSP players were not classic gamers with high end rigs. The game is barely playable with the most common video cards (according to steam charts) They woudl need to still DOUBLE performance to have a chance.
5
With that engine? I find it hard, there has been half a dozen releases or EA this ear of reasonably high profile games that started ruined because Unity is HORRIBLE for making games with anything other than very basic graphics and physics. KSP2 with its cartoonish graphics still runs 8 times SLOWER than DCS (a high end super realistic flight sim) on same hardware.
4
@kleinerprinz99 That is an Unity issue, it is the worst engine that exist regarding memory usage. It is a very very bad selection for a game like KSP2. A game like KSP 2 screams for a dedicated in house engine. Yes takes time and expensive but saves time and face on such fiascos as the current game performance. On the long run would have been cheaper.
4
@imviciously Why you laugh? The engine is horrible for this type of game anyone that ever developed game engines knows it. It scales HORRIBLY. It is made to be easy to train developers but is a very backwards and inneficient architecture. It works great for small scale content games. With few entities and not many concomitant resources but is get really bad as game grows.
3
@embergamedev And Physx is horrible for what this game uses ( contact and torque forces of hundreds of parts at a single large clump). I worked developing with Unity, I know how CRAPPY it is
2