[WIP][1.9.x-1.12.x] Scatterer-atmospheric scattering (0.0838 - 14/08/2022) Scattering improvements, in-game atmo generation and multi-sun support

[blackrack]

2 hours ago, *MajorTom* said:

 KSPRC, x64 , scatterer 0.02182   (in 0.021b no bugs)

It's stated everywhere that there's a bit of z-fighting, please don't keep reporting issues that are already reported.

[*MajorTom*]

ok ,sorry, my fault. i install different version just trying to help (test).

I just notice that this glitch wasn't in the previous version, then just need to find the difference between them and correct. Through the scatterer menu I've failed to do this... (and in 0.021c it bigger effect than in 0.021b)

[blackrack]

19 minutes ago, *MajorTom* said:

ok ,sorry, my fault. i install different version just trying to help (test).

I just notice that this glitch wasn't in the previous version, then just need to find the difference between them and correct. Through the scatterer menu I've failed to do this... (and in 0.021c it bigger effect than in 0.021b)

There's nothing to correct, I added a fake ocean in the postprocessing shader, the real ocean disappears and the simulated ocean appears instead in the postprocessing shader. This eliminates the bug where looking at the ocean from orbit causes artifact soup but has some z-fighting for now, this is all in the changelogs. Before this the previous workaround was to make the ocean disappear at an altitude of 70km, leaving the ocean floor exposed, so pick your poison. The altitude at which the ocean and fake ocean are switched is in the planetsList.cfg file, it's called either fakeOceanAltitude or OceanDeactivateAltitude, I can't remember.

Edited December 26, 2015 by blackrack

[sashan]

15 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

don't see blurriness in any of those 

It just looks differently under dx9. Now that I looks at it again it just sdeems that Scatterer effect is often one pixel off in random direction, which gives sort of blurry looking effect.

[Winterdavid]

18 hours ago, blackrack said:

 

Try going into the EmptyShader.shader file, find the two lines that say Tags, and add "IgnoreProjector"="True" after "QUEUE"="Transparent", it should look like this:

 Tags { "QUEUE"="Transparent" "IgnoreProjector"="True"}
 Pass {
  Tags { "QUEUE"="Transparent" "IgnoreProjector"="True"}

This should remove the clouds on the ocean but they will still work on everything else

 

This works perfectly, thankyou!

[Mr C]

On 11/12/2015 at 7:38 AM, blackrack said:

Not sure actually, but that website doesn't seem to convert bump/whatever to normalmap

Edited: normalmaps are working, but they're kinda weird because they are tool generated and they don't reallymake that much of a difference. The process was also a pain.

Anyway:

Also, reaslitically speaking, how overkill would it be to have a 16k kerbin texture? That should be about 160mb as a .dds file.

Hey Blackrack, I was wondering if you had ever finished this kerbin texture that you posted a while ago, and if so, is there anywhere I could download it? I really love it, it looks absolutely gorgeous

Edited December 27, 2015 by Mr C

[blackrack]

52 minutes ago, Mr C said:

Hey Blackrack, I was wondering if you had ever finished this kerbin texture that you posted a while ago, and if so, is there anywhere I could download it? I really love it, it looks absolutely gorgeous

I never did actually, I dropped this idea as it was too much work and I wasn't that good at it. If you want good planet textures I suggest trying Proot's KSPRC mod (freshly updated), I use it myself.

[VenomousRequiem]

Hehe... I decided to get some wonderful screenshots of a Titan I and Titan II GLV launch.

Keep up the good work, mate.

[mreadshaw]

Are scatterer configs editable using MM configs?

[blackrack]

4 hours ago, mreadshaw said:

Are scatterer configs editable using MM configs?

I don't really see much point in this, so no.

[Mr C]

On 12/27/2015 at 6:35 PM, blackrack said:

I never did actually, I dropped this idea as it was too much work and I wasn't that good at it. If you want good planet textures I suggest trying Proot's KSPRC mod (freshly updated), I use it myself.

I just downloaded KSPRC and it is very pretty  How did create that sample texture? I'm thinking about possibly giving it a go myself if I can find the time.

[blackrack]

17 minutes ago, Mr C said:

I just downloaded KSPRC and it is very pretty  How did create that sample texture? I'm thinking about possibly giving it a go myself if I can find the time.

I found this little tutorial http://img04.deviantart.net/a266/i/2012/163/b/f/earth_like_planet__texture_tutorial_by_bonvanello-d53a0v4.png , someone linked to it in the dark days mod thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/120543-upcoming-dark-days-dying-of-the-light-kopernicus-mod-help-wanted-for-part-pack/&page=6#comment-2236015

I used the same panorama method to blend several satellite pictures and then overlaid them on top of an 8k texture. For normalmaps I used a tool but it was a lot harder to overlay correctly and make it match the texture, if you read back those old comments I posted when I was trying this, you'll find the name of the tool somewhere.

I will try to see If I can find the sample textures I used and post them here.

Edited: here are the sample textures I used: http://imgur.com/a/awsli

Let me know if you come up with something.

Edited December 28, 2015 by blackrack

[gliese-aerospace]

Any updates? 

Edited December 30, 2015 by gliese-aerospace

[blackrack]

2 hours ago, gliese-aerospace said:

Any updates? 

Won't be updating anything unless 1.1 hits and it speeds up the physics this much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYuPNmSnrB4

Sorry I just had to post that

[TedwinKnockman66]

what happened after playing with Scatterer option.

http://imgur.com/a/0jHDi

Damn with this mod we can make 2012 the movie

[gliese-aerospace]

8 minutes ago, blackrack said:

Won't be updating anything unless 1.1 hits and it speeds up the physics this much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYuPNmSnrB4

Sorry I just had to post that

I'm not sure if you're totally serious but mother of all that is holy are those benchmarks even real? If they are 1.1 cannot come soon enough

[blackrack]

10 minutes ago, gliese-aerospace said:

I'm not sure if you're totally serious but mother of all that is holy are those benchmarks even real? If they are 1.1 cannot come soon enough

I tried the newest version of besiege and I can confirm I got similar speed-ups. I hope 1.1 is as fast with the physics, but I'm a bit worried at this point as the developers didn't say a single word about performance improvements, we're pretty much in the dark.

Edited December 30, 2015 by blackrack

[gliese-aerospace]

13 hours ago, blackrack said:

I tried the newest version of besiege and I can confirm I got similar speed-ups. I hope 1.1 is as fast with the physics, but I'm a bit worried at this point as the developers didn't say a single word about performance improvements, we're pretty much in the dark.

Wouldn't a full engine upgrade including optimizations + 64 bit pipeline + increased VAS sort of just improve performance by default though? The Besiege speed-ups are a little insane but I think we can expect at least a modest bump in performance and enough optimization that mods don't become burdensome.

[selfish_meme]

14 hours ago, blackrack said:

I tried the newest version of besiege and I can confirm I got similar speed-ups. I hope 1.1 is as fast with the physics, but I'm a bit worried at this point as the developers didn't say a single word about performance improvements, we're pretty much in the dark.

They did (Max Maps) and then they backed away (developers) as it became apparent the physics for a single ship will still be single threaded, but you can have multiple threads for multiple ships, which means you could potentially park two 300 part count vessels next to each other without suffering too much of an fps drop, but as soon as you dock them back to single digits. It will be better, but not orders of magnitude like some other games that use rigid bodies.

Edited December 31, 2015 by selfish_meme

[blackrack]

7 hours ago, gliese-aerospace said:

Wouldn't a full engine upgrade including optimizations + 64 bit pipeline + increased VAS sort of just improve performance by default though? The Besiege speed-ups are a little insane but I think we can expect at least a modest bump in performance and enough optimization that mods don't become burdensome.

 

6 hours ago, selfish_meme said:

They did (Max Maps) and then they backed away (developers) as it became apparent the physics for a single ship will still be single threaded, but you can have multiple threads for multiple ships, which means you could potentially park two 300 part count vessels next to each other without suffering too much of an fps drop, but as soon as you dock them back to single digits. It will be better, but not orders of magnitude like some other games that use rigid bodies.

I don't really get how a single ship will be single-threaded, in that besiege comparison all these contraptions are also "a single ship" as in they're all connected by joints and other things. In this physx 3.3 benchmark (which is what is used in unity 5), if you scroll down to "Scene #5 – spherical joints net", there are multiple rigid-bodies connected by joints, you can clearly see it scales (if moderately) with multiple threads and is quite a bit faster than the old physx version running in a single thread.

I don't really know if there is something more here, but Is there a reason why KSP should be an exception?

Edited December 31, 2015 by blackrack

[selfish_meme]

1 hour ago, blackrack said:

 

I don't really get how a single ship will be single-threaded, in that besiege comparison all these contraptions are also "a single ship" as in they're all connected by joints and other things. In this physx 3.3 benchmark (which is what is used in unity 5), if you scroll down to "Scene #5 – spherical joints net", there are multiple rigid-bodies connected by joints, you can clearly see it scales (if moderately) with multiple threads and is quite a bit faster than the old physx version running in a single thread.

I don't really know if there is something more here, but Is there a reason why KSP should be an exception?

My understanding is that KSP is a bit unique in computing the interactions between each part with no rigid bodies, and it needs to be in a single thread for affinity. Though you possibly could parcel out resources and heat into separate threads as well. I'm not an expert on realtime physics engines by any means I am just repeating conversations from dev threads. Possibly it is the joint interaction, as from my understanding physx does not really do physics, not in the way KSP does, it models interactions in a more algorythmic way to represent reality without actually getting into the nitty gritty of actually modelling the interaction of each element. So an explosion in physx looks great, pieces flying off everywhere, but it is only a representation of the explosion, physx did not actually model the parts interacting with each other, just exploded them all outwards according to some general algorythm. Not saying KSP does either, all explosions in KSP look pretty much the same, but KSP keeps track of every part, what temperature it is at, and what other parts it interacts with, physx probably lump them all together and model the outcome according to some realistic looking algorythm.

[blackrack]

13 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

My understanding is that KSP is a bit unique in computing the interactions between each part with no rigid bodies, and it needs to be in a single thread for affinity. Though you possibly could parcel out resources and heat into separate threads as well. I'm not an expert on realtime physics engines by any means I am just repeating conversations from dev threads. Possibly it is the joint interaction, as from my understanding physx does not really do physics, not in the way KSP does, it models interactions in a more algorythmic way to represent reality without actually getting into the nitty gritty of actually modelling the interaction of each element. So an explosion in physx looks great, pieces flying off everywhere, but it is only a representation of the explosion, physx did not actually model the parts interacting with each other, just exploded them all outwards according to some general algorythm. Not saying KSP does either, all explosions in KSP look pretty much the same, but KSP keeps track of every part, what temperature it is at, and what other parts it interacts with, physx probably lump them all together and model the outcome according to some realistic looking algorythm.

So KSP doesn't use physx? I thought it was pretty clear that KSP used whatever physics engine/SDK is used in unity by default.

Edited December 31, 2015 by blackrack

[selfish_meme]

It does use Physx, where possible to speed up any calculations, my understanding is that the floating point calculations KSP does are just not handled that efficiently by PhysX because it's not a reality simulator it's a reality modeller.

Thats not very clear, PhysX is more concerned with how it looks, rather than how it would actually work, does that make more sense?

Edited December 31, 2015 by selfish_meme

[blackrack]

50 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

It does use Physx, where possible to speed up any calculations, my understanding is that the floating point calculations KSP does are just not handled that efficiently by PhysX because it's not a reality simulator it's a reality modeller.

Thats not very clear, PhysX is more concerned with how it looks, rather than how it would actually work, does that make more sense?

I get it, but it doesn't seem to me like anyone would notice the difference when it comes to collisions, explosions and different interactions between the joints and the parts. For floating point calculations it shouldn't be a problem as everything is done in a limited-size physics bubble centered around the player ship where floating point issues wouldn't really be a problem. Did the devs actually say they do it like this? Do they expand on how they do physics without PhysX?

Edited December 31, 2015 by blackrack

[selfish_meme]

45 minutes ago, blackrack said:

I get it, but it doesn't seem to me like anyone would notice the difference when it comes to collisions, explosions and different interactions between the joints and the parts. For floating point calculations it shouldn't be a problem as everything is done in a limited-size physics bubble centered around the player ship where floating point issues wouldn't really be a problem. Did the devs actually say they do it like this? Do they expand on how they do physics without PhysX?

I would ask NathanKell, I am just not familiar enough with it.