• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2697 Excellent

About blackrack

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

5398 profile views
  1. Yes, same reason. You could try removing AA and downsampling instead but I haven't tried that in KSP in a while. I should probably make the depth-based transparency togglable for this reason. No they're not supposed to be visible, all good. I did a small cosmetic tweak on the extinction tint but don't remember consciously changing mieG, thanks for testing.
  2. So I'm in need of some testers for the new effects. Things to keep in mind for this (preview) version: -New effects include: Water refraction and depth-based transparency, contact foam and underwater surface and "fog", there are some new parameters in the ocean tab to control them -If you disable refraction, underwater effects may not work, this will be fixed. -Ocean lights compatibility will break all the new effects, disable it for now. This will be fixed. -Sunflares still render underwater, this will be fixed. -From orbits around 70-160km, when you have refractions on, you might see outlines around the shore, this will be fixed. -I haven't made configs for laythe or EVE oceans so they'll get the default values. -The setting for alternate SQRT is removed, it should not be needed anymore, please report if you still get issues with the "leaking halo" around planets. -There used to be a very obvious line around 300m in front of the camera where the postprocessing effect starts, this is fixed. -I haven't tested with EVE or any other mods, I expect the clouds might be visible through the underwater surface, please tell me if this is the case. -NearClipPlane parameter is back in the config file, I don't recommend messing with it. -When the camera is just at the water surface level there may be some artifacting, a bit lower or higher everything should work well. Report any new issues and let me know what you think of the new features. Have fun!KBgjhQgY!A3ccBD_YyURyanNrmu9i2DTNXuM3-KKQ8-Wu11Z7PwM
  3. That's just me forgetting to update the version number. Although i might have released a bugfix or two which are bundled in that SVT version (can't remember what they were frankly).
  4. Sorry I thought you had the white ball not the purple ball? Can I see a screen and a log? Also try starting in dx11 or opengl if you haven't already. It's nothing that elaborate, at the moment it's just checking the depth buffer to see how close the surface is behind it. ie it doesn't leave a trail after a ship has moved, so no such a thing as decay or collider checking or anything. You can see it here around the base of the plane: If the plane moves there appears to be a bit of foam around where it touches the water but it will not leave a trail, that's a bit more complicated.
  5. i haven't tried the newest version of EVE yet (in fact didn't know a new one was released). The fixed files you see above are for a very old release (september), you don't need them for the newer versions. The current scatterer cloud integration is meant for the version of EVE released in october (second one in the downloads above). Maybe get that one or disable the cloud integration from scatterer and see if it helps. You don't need the fixed dlls
  6. Thanks, I've learned a lot in the two years I've been working on this mod. The best part now is playing other games and being able to see why certain technical choices were made or how a certain effect is achieved. All in due time.
  7. I just went 1 km deep and it seems everything is working fine.
  8. Basic underwater surface + distance "fog" (only applied to water surface at the moment). Shading to be improved. That would be a very rookie mistake to make. Should I just make it a separate, minimal mod?
  9. I'm using the fresnel equations but I think there is a problem somewhere in the refracted ray calculation. Basically when debugging the fresnel value visually I noticed that the "snell's window" seems twice as large as in the image above, yet my refracted ray seems to be hitting maximum angle sooner. I probably messed up something stupid in the transformation from ocean space to world space or whatever. If you look in the first image, you'll see 3 distinct zones, the center zone where you can see the sky, then the dark blue zone, then the outer, black zone at the edge of the screen. When debugging the fresnel value, zone 3 should be where we have total reflection and zone 1 and 2 are the same zone of refraction, where the refracted angle never reaches as low as the horizon. However what's happening up there is that in zone 1 the angle is refracted to go towards the sky, in zone 2 the angles are refracted towards the horizon or lower, which is why their shading is messed up, and zone 3 is total reflection. Plus there are these weird white spots and the whole look is off making me think something is off with the normals or whatever Anyway, I'm sure it's something stupid, I was tired last night and experimenting with something new. For the reflected component I haven't really thought about it yet but probably something similar to the distance fog you mentioned and if I can figure it out, some kind of light scattering depending on the viewing direction and the angle of the sun. I'll just have to research it and experiment a bit. Edited: Here's what debugging the fresnel value looks like, in red transmission and blue reflection, notice how much bigger it is than the one above.
  10. I'm trying to nail the look of the underwater surface look first, I can't put my finger on what it is exactly but something is wrong, and the view feels restricted to a very small angle, smaller than I expected. The surface seems a bit plastic-y as well. Not sure what's wrong, maybe it just doesn't pop like this I'll try again tomorrow. What galileo said, it's kerbin underwater.
  11. Yeah this is not totally what I expected when I wanted to make the water surface render from below, but it's a start