Jump to content

HB Stratos

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


264 Excellent


Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somewhere in a Craftfile

Recent Profile Visitors

2,249 profile views
  1. Class 1 Entry, 1318m It certainly stretches how much one should use the offset too, but at four parts and this height such measures are necessary
  2. Just pitching in to say maybe please don't fix this, or at least make it toggelable. I found a cool exploit using these to make a craft that has absolutely zero drag. it just falls through the atmosphere as if there was none
  3. Some beautiful shots showing off the heatblur on real planes, and also the reason why I really want the blur to be worldspace. Just look at these trails left behind the planes, it just looks so cool. And it is possible to tell if an engine is on even if one can't look at it from the back. Some notes on the heat blur visible here: the blur behavior is interesting, expanding almost directly behind the engine then expanding way slower until it fades out way behind the plane. there's quite a lot of blurring and less distortion going on, presumably because of the velocity of the exhaust blurring things in camera. the interaction of the heatblur plume with the ground on pitch-up One can also see low pressure vapor clouds above the wings of the F-16 in high g maneuvers, any chance that we will see something like that in KSP2? Also on a similar note, any chance of wingtip vortices like this: First of all, more heatblur. Second of all, look at the wintip vortices forming, and their shadows on the ground. Such an interesting phenomena, though in ksp it brings the challenge of finding out where the wing tips are and when they should cause these vortices, given that a player can create a vessel of any shape and throw it at the physics simulation.
  4. it really depends on what you want to do. Modders will somehow bodge a way in even if you don't provide one. But you can make it significantly easier. This can be through easily accessible modding API things, good documentation of said API, or even going as far as making a graphical in-game tool every somewhat knowledgeable player can use. The best compromise would probably be finding a way to publish your internal tools for creating these plumes. Like this a new editor doesn't have to be written and we get as much power as the devs themselves.
  5. I've researched a bit, looks like this will not be too easy. Waterfall uses additive shaders for the luminous exhaust plumes, which makes a lot of sense. However this makes it difficult to make an effect change with ambient light as it is always drawn 'ontop' and does not respond to scene changes. The core issue here is that we're faking the eye's or camera's automatic aperture and exposure adjustment through the use of constant ambient light. So even in total darkness the craft is still visible for gameplay reasons. sadly unity does not come with any inbuilt tools to get light brightness at a particular point. A brute force implementation is to raycast to every light source that is affecting the scene, evaluate their strength through the distance obtained and add them together. this is a rather clunky approach to things and would likely not work too well. The probably better approach would be to set up some kind of evaluation (maybe that is inbuilt in unity*) to get what the current camera's exposure should be depending on how bright the scene is lit by sun and other light sources compared to how bright it appears on screen. Then this parameter could be used to change how the plume looks. *If the high definition render pipeline is used there appears to be a setting for camera aperture in unity that can be accessed through scripts. source ----------------------------------------------------(post merge line) in regards to an earlier discussion: Things like whether motion blur, bloom, etc should be active and how strong should be things that should absolutely be exposed to the user under an advanced menu. Unity provides a bunch of other post processing options too, all of which should in my opinion be accessible to the user to tune them however they wish. Their configs should also be saved in namable presets that are in individual files so they can easily be shared from user to user.
  6. As the title says, I'm trying to get KSP working with reshade. it is working but view depth buffer just shows a black screen. when I enable copy depth buffer before clear operations in d3d11 settings in reshade I at least get a correct normal map, but still no depth map. my game is also using -popupwindow to start. In reshade DirectX10/11/12 is selected, the game starts with -force-d3d11 to force it into directx11 mode. I'm running an otherwise unmodded game. MSAA (Anti-Aliasing) is off. I have tried all fixes suggested here, with no success. These are things I can get depending on which buffer I select, the right side of these screenshots should show the depth buffer, but it doesn't. if copy depth buffer before clear is disabled I don't even get a normal map. Note that with the right image there are some glitchy white lines in the depth buffer somewhere. My question is how I can convince KSP to give ReShade access to the depth buffer? Thanks for any help!
  7. ^This, so much this. You can't really make everyone happy with one base set of configs, so provide a solid start for everyone not willing to play with settings, and allow the 'power users' to play with all the settings to make it exactly perfect. And make such configs easy to share with others. That would allow for so much customization, together with a community so willing to share their creations with others. Would be awesome if we could have that.
  8. That is awesome to hear! I can't wait to see how it will end up looking in KSP2, it's really cool to see the devs active here and listening to the community. From how it looks now KSP2 will have an overkill version of waterfall in stock, which is amazing to hear! ...Now you probably can't comment on this, but my last hope left for KSP2 is some better aerodynamics. As I said I basically only build planes, and it would be so cool to have something like the FAR mod from original KSP in stock, especially since replicas heavily rely on clipping parts, which makes stock aero be all kinds of messed up.
  9. Hey @Aaron VFX, super cool to see one of the artists so active here in the forums. And what I've seen reading through the thread this far looks extremely promising and powerful! I'd like to contribute something as well, all the things I've discovered researching plumes and heatblur while working as a pre-alpha tester for a heatblur mod, and as a plume maker for waterfall. I should also note that I'm the plane guy, over 3000 hours in KSP, never gotten beyond minmus without cheats. But I have build more aircraft than I can even remember. Because of this and because I'll likely do the same in KSP2, I would be forever grateful to also see jet engines get some love, not only rocket engines. And to maybe help with this, I've written up all my knowledge about afterburners and heatblur below. It's a bit of a behemoth of a text, but I hope it will be useful regardless. As you said, I hope I could "keep the ideas rolling". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll start with the many intricacies of afterburners/reheat on planes. shown here: the F-14 afterburner through various lighting conditions and altitudes Notes: The F-14, as most other afterburners appears blue in dim light / darkness. I am not absolutely sure why, but I suspect it is a mix of the strong infrared light overpowering the filter in the camera in the dim light and these shots showing the afterburner at almost peak efficiency, meaning very little soot in the exhaust that would glow in the yellow typical for carbon soot. The afterburner is showing some mach diamonds though, indicating that the engine is at least slightly off it's ideal design power point, as an afterburner when working exactly in the flight state range it was optimized for would ideally show no mach diamonds. Here's an interesting contrast: Same plane, shot on the same camera, but at daylight. Also at full burners. The burners are now barely visible, and appear orange, which I suspect is a mix of the metal in the engine glowing and the flame's blue parts being swallowed by the bright day and the blue sea. Different camera this time, but still the same plane at roughly the same time of day. However this time the glow of the exhaust overpowers the camera and completely blows the afterburner out into white, while also lighting up the deck beneath it, showing that the afterburner here is actually being that bright. This indicates that the afterburner seems to be more dense and more sooty at lower altitudes. Though it should be kept in mind that this shot was made in very dim lighting conditions, I have never seen an example of an afterburner blowing out a camera in full daylight. And another F-14 here. This picture is rather small and old, but was likely shot on a film camera similar to the first two images I've shown. This image shows an F-14 at takeoff from a carrier, likely under full afterburner. Yet the afterburner shows no mach diamonds, indication that the engine is likely operating exactly in the environment it was tuned best for: Heavy carrier takeoffs with maximum thrust. More noteworthy things of this afterburner is that it appear orange, even though it was also shot in somewhat dim lighting. This indicates an afterburner that is not burning completely clean, but more sooty. Another noteworthy thing is that the afterburner is showing streaks in the exhaust, lines in which the afterburner appears brighter than elsewhere. These streaks appear to vary from engine to engine, but tend to stay somewhat in the same position while the engine is running. A usable reference for how these streaks look in action is this video: https://youtu.be/Oj4w7i-TqsE. Though here it should be noted that the F-16 exhaust here, at almost sea level, once again appears blue. And that while a normal F-16 afterburner appears orange under most circumstances. Next up: Some Daylight! Afterburners are not nearly as bright as rocket engines, so in full daylight they become quite dim. Only the shock diamonds remain visible, and also only their inner rings, not the full diameter rings visible with dim light. Also note the large amount of heat blur visible, as it almost always appears with afterburners. Heatblur will have it's own section, so I will not go into further detail on that. More F-14s, more bright daylight. This time a look up the nozzle. Visible is once again significant heatblur. Through it becomes visible how the flame behaves inside the engine, originating on the flame holder, them moving along the outside of the engine into the streaks out of the exhaust I mentioned earlier. The left nozzle here shows a good illustration of how these streaks originate in the engine and flow out of the nozzle. Also note the multi-colored flame, burning in both blue and orange within the engine. Speaking of streaks, flameholders, and engines, this is how it looks inside the F-14's F-110 engine when it is not running. You can see the last turbine stage in the background. In front of that there is this ring of green-ish bars. As visible on the schema on the right these pans have a kind of V-shape in cross section, which creates a low pressure zone in the air stream behind them, which makes a stable combustion in the high velocity exhaust even possible. Here the fuel of an afterburner is also injected, so this part is really the start of any afterburner. Now we've seen plenty of the F-14, and it's afterburner, though only really at full thrust. Let's take a look at an afterburner going through different power settings next. Shown below: the shutdown of an F-16 afterburner in dim daylight: We start off with the camera once again being completely overpowered by the brightness of the afterburner in the dim light. At full power and sea level the afterburner shows no signs of mach diamonds, but as thrust decreases first an inner layer of afterburner becomes visible, that then breaks apart more and more into individual inner core mach diamonds before the engine completely shuts down. This once again highlights how mach diamonds occur when the engine is not in the state it was optimized for, in this case that being low thrust afterburner while not moving. Another interesting thing is that one can see the engine insides glowing in the cracks of the nozzle vanes. About the SR-71, the J-58, and the Whiplash engine The SR-71 is probably the plane that illustrates shock diamonds the best, here being used as the top image on the wikipedia article on said shock diamonds. Seen here in this night test shot where one can see the unique afterburner of the SR-71. An inner core, long, thin and orange, fanning out into turbulence at the end, with a bigger blue-ish exhaust around it that has it's own shock diamonds. This blue exhaust becomes almost invisible at day, replaced by a large amount of heat blur coming in instead. Looking closely at the right engine there still is a faint outer exhaust core visible, but it being blue and not as bright it is mostly invisible at day. https://i.imgur.com/uU7kWgq.gifv (KSP video from my old waterfall whiplash config) Unlike the Whiplash in KSP the real J-58 engine also had an ignition and wasn't permanently on afterburner. It would be a neat detail to have the famous green ignition flash be present in KSP as well. This flash of TEB was required to be able to ignite the SR-71's low volatility fuel, and actually gave this engine a limited amount afterburner ignitions. Now onto Heatblur Heatblur is an interesting topic. We rarely ever notice it directly, but it helps convey the power and heat output an engine has, even if no flame is visible. From what I've seen in the forum thread here the heatblur effect is currently only a displacement effect, which is also what we associate most with heat blur thinking about it. However, heatblur has more than just displacement behind it. So let's have a look at what causes heatblur to look the way it does. Displacement: As already mentioned, this is what one usually thinks about with heatblur, the air with it's turbulent temperature and therefore (optical) density differences distorting all that is behind it. A rgb map of layered noise used to displace pixels in x/y direction is a good start here Blur: As it already says in the name, heatblur also blurs everything that is behind it. While testing the first pre-alpha versions of the heatblur mod it only had displacement. As does current day waterfall. And that just looks a bit odd, it's still too sharp. It sure looks like distortion, but not like real heat blur. And this is where blur comes in, layering a blur onto the displacement makes the effect seem way more realistic as it helps simulate all the microscopic turbulence in real air that the displacement has not considered yet. Darkening: This one may seem a bit odd at first, but during testing on the mod we realized that the effect looks a lot better if the blur also slightly darkens that area of the screen. This makes the effect a tiny bit more visible, and makes it seem more realistic. I have also noticed that kind of darkening notice on real blur. My explanation for this is light being scattered away from the viewer, making it appear slightly darker. About Blur: Compare this image (without blur) to the image above (which has blur) and see the difference. Displacement alone is cool, with blut it looks even better. Implementation In the heatblur mod I was a part of the effect was achieved through world-space particles with all it's benefits and drawbacks. The blur stream was getting holes at high speed as unity's particle system couldn't keep up, but flying low over the runway left a beautiful trail of blurred air behind that lingered for a while, then faded out. This was done through particles in worldspace that inherited the speed of the plane minus the exhaust velocity. Ideally the particles would have also had drag so they slowly come to a stop while the displacement texture keeps scrolling. The ideal implementation would probably be a trail renderer that is somewhat modified to simulate exhaust velocity, meaning it would deform to a certain point so it follows the path the particles mentioned above would have followed. Mesh based blur like in waterfall sadly is not really a solution as the beautiful lingering heat blur trails get lost. An effect like this must be world based. A trail renderer alone would look odd from behind though, so my proposal would include few particles pinned to certain mesh intervals in the trail renderer. Another possibility may be with the effect shown early on in the thread of the engine exhaust bending to outside influences. A mesh that bends like that could handle the heatblur close to the engine where the the trail is thin and concentrated, which would be an issue for particles. Further down the line particles could then take over to produce the lingering effect. Oh yeah and non-afterburning and even turbofan engines still produce heatblur! THE END This took me about three hours to write and is basically a knowledge dump of all the things I have researched over the last three years. I hope my knowledge can help at least a tiny bit to making KSP2 even better.... And please: give air breathing engines some love in KSP2! -------------------- As an addition, I'll include a selection of my favorite shots here as further inspiration. (this will probably automerge with the above post.) With the knowledge from above, see how many details are now noticable!
  10. Running into an issue here: When installing the Craft Manager mod from KerbalX over Ckan it also needs the KXAPI mod, which is subsequently also installed. However, this leads to some issues as KatLib.dll is included in both Craft Manager and KXAPI, which means the same DLL is being loaded twice, which is marked as a potentially gamebreaking problem by KspAVC
  11. I'm trying to get the stock anti aliasing to work again with modern scatterer and I'm willing to sacrifice some performance to it cause even with post processing AA in scatterer I have many things that just look horrible. What was mentioned in some previous posts was that I need to switch scatterer back into projector mode for it to work. I've looked everywhere for a setting with this name, but I could find none. The closest I found was this: useDepthBufferMode = True weirdly enough this one only exists in the presets, and is not present in the settings.cfg. Adding it to the settings cfg manually and setting it to false does not appear to fix it. One workaround-ish thing I have found is to set TUFX antialiasing to temporal, which works great, if only it didn't make everything look like it was out of focus too. So my question is, how do I get good MSAA to work again? It just looks horrible to have the navigation light poles fade in and out of existence because they are too thin. Thanks for any help!
  12. Technically yes, but it is kinda on break as both servo and I are busy with irl stuff and taking a break from KSP. You're welcome to design a plane though, always cool to see more builders in KSP!
  • Create New...