WarriorSabe

The Dunatian real, love to see it One thing I might suggest as you move towards the final version of the configs with this would be to have the top of the dust storm maybe just a little bit softer than the front in how it fades out, not by too much looking at earth haboobs, but a little might look good

The screenshots you posted earlier show the particles working just fine; it sounds like you're expecting your game to look like the pictures Blackrack has been posting, which it won't because all that's still in development

That would probably be the more compact atmosphere from the lower temperatures again - as you descend, the atmosphere gets denser faster, giving you less time to slow down before hitting more dangerous parts. Lower temperatures also reduce the speed of sound, which makes your Mach number higher, and increases the shock heating (thus compensating for the lower starting temperatures) It's a guaranteed specific procedural asteroid, if you don't have them on in your kopernicus settings it won't show up.

Agreed, it's cool to see our work made it here. I'm also glad to be put in with the category of some of the best on the forum even though the only things I've made (that have released on here in any way) are Corelian, one part of this, and a half-done solar system that's still mostly placeholders lol

Your work continues to amaze. I wonder, since you've always shown the plane without it, does it work with Waterfall? Main worries would be render order and whether the heat distortion effects mesh with the raymarches.

Oh, that does bode a little more well for my prospects of running this; I only have a 1080p display, so that'd be only about half as many checks and so would help to narrow the margins a bit. Which actually gives me the idea; would it be possible to add a setting to reduce the sampling resolution (with some interpolation between or something for smoothing) to increase performance, or would the cost of the smoothing cost more than the gains from performing fewer samples?

And, mods at least as good as these will probably become available for it as well, and probably in less time since there'll already be a platform to work off of

I see. Will there be be a way to multiply the coverage map akin to current detail maps in order to restrict clouds to geographical position (e.g. more in ITCZ and tidelocked substellar, less in mountain rain shadows, etc.)? Or barring that, how well do you expect keeping the coverage map locked to the surface and relying on the cloud's seed noise entirely for that moving detail to work?

Yeah I remember how the map worked; that was what led me to be curious about how the fog worked (partly since aurorae would benefit from transparency as well). And to clarify something I think I remember from a while back, there's also separate maps that serve to confine layers to geographical positions, like biomes, right? Thinking about differing climate zones across worlds, or tidally locked ones where clouds mostly form in one place then drift away from it. Actually, thinking on how those last ones move; it's probably a stretch but would a "motion map" be possible? With e.g. red channel north-south green channel east-west or what have you.

Well, if you consider that Valyr rotates at over 660 meters per second while Derbin barely does at all, that might make up some of the difference by giving you a boost. The pressure's about a third higher than from where you launched, but the planets have realistically calculated atmospheres, which means the colder temperature should make it fall off faster (all else being equal, which it approximately is), so perhaps that makes up for the higher pressure. Then finally there's the simple possibility that maybe you flew a better turn when you tested at Valyr.

I was thinking about this again (because it's hard not to), got another question: will the new volumetrics have an option to be self-lit, for things like volumetric aurorae? The option to disable shadow casting would work well for those too, I'd imagine. And also, how did the fog work, where it was all transparent even at maximum opacity; is that a separate key or a clever way of making the maps?

Yeah, that's what I meant by a static-intensity approximation. And I do wish KSP's light wasn't that annoying directional light that prevents you from having things in multiple phases visible at once (like in compact red dwarf systems or moon systems with noticeable planetshine)

Oh no I totally got that, and was my assumption when initially asking about multiple sources.. I probably should have cropped the quote because I was responding to you saying Scatterer couldn't do planetshine.

Well, I was picturing a static-intensity approximation by telling it the moon/parent is a sun, which is something that seems to work in Scatterer, with it only causing issues with the fact that lighting the terrain requires dealing with KSP's light system which doesn't work well when things at different directions to the source are visible at once (due to the whole light-is-actually-at-infinity thing). That works? Well, I know what I'm doing to Achlys now. I see rainbows all the time, even double rainbows and above happen sometimes, at least where I live. But I imagine the difficulty and cost of implementing them in a good way is probably not worth it anyways.

Would multiple secondary lights be a thing, like with Scatterer? I imagine that would get expensive quite fast, but I was thinking about worlds with multiple large moons (or multiple suns, for that matter), and those might want that. A stock example might be Laythe, getting Joolshine and Vall/Tyloshine. Also, bit more of niche thing, but what the possibility of using the world they're applied to as the secondary light; for example for light pollution from cities on Kerbin or thermal glow from a lava planet (uniform lighting might be a poorer approximation of that but also surely way easier than local individual sources).

So 2-4x heavier, assuming EVE was the bottleneck before. That's, maybe workable for me on this, guess we'll have to see. It'll probably at least not crash if I keep the rest light, which is enough for development. Can't wait to try this out!

Oh wow I just realized I missed this as I was typing my last comment, that looks absolutely amazing Oh and what do you get with the old EVE on the same hardware? For easier extrapolation to how it might be on other systems

Yeah, I was mostly just thinking the fog might not work as well for snow, wasn't sure. But, on the topic of particles: how hard would it be to add a key to optionally render some kind of particle effect just nearby when within the given volumetrics, minecraft-style?

The rain approximation looks amazing! Can't wait to throw this on my worlds, wonder how well it can approximate snowfall

Yep, about 1 in 3 worlds currently have terrain that's purely noise. I have ideas for Gelis and it'll probably be one of the sooner ones to get properly mapped, I've got a fair few ideas, but the needed time to make maps for larger worlds like that is harder to come by

0.21 is out! Things ended up getting in the way again (including accidental scope increases and just plain life), so I decided to push a couple features back, but there's still a fair bit included A couple new celestial bodies, a bunch of relatively minor stuff, and a big revamp to Cerberus's rings (the new texture is 16k, I actually still have some more planned for them) you can see part of here: As usual, a complete changelog is available in the github release.

It actually doesn't matter how small a celestial body is, they're impossible to move in ksp no matter what, since they're put on rails and governed entirely by their predefined orbital elements

The primary Terminus system could be placed in a continuous chain from Calefact to Esker without moving anything more than about half a percent (Revenant-Tempest 5:2 and Achlys-Cerberus 7:3), and the Eterna system's resonances are currently probably unstable (on long timescales beyond what can be tested) due to being a holdover from a previous version when the planets were in a different order.

Wow, it's been a while since last update. Life's been in the way of things, but, I'm starting to get close to having the next update ready. I figured I should give people some fair warning though: you probably don't want to have anything in transit when updating (once I have it out, hopefully in the next couple weeks, but no guarantees), as most of the planets will be moved. This shouldn't have a very big impact on dV costs, as most of the movements are under 1% change in sma; what will be changing will be placing planets into a resonance chain, and adjusting the mean anomalies to fit the laplace criterion. This also shouldn't adversely affect the stability with Principia; if anything it should be improved. There will also be a couple new bodies, and a handful of other things

A lot of the same sentiment here. I got bit by burnout pretty bad, but in the end I'm glad to have participated, and glad some of my more recent work since Corelian will be visible outside of the development pages, even if it could have been better with more time lol