seanth

I'm pretty pleased with the procedural planets. I am _not_ someone that messes with making Kopernicus planets, so I am sure there is room for improvement in how TBG generates things. I was thinking it might be cool to have people post images of procedural planets they discover that look cool, along with the seed they used so I can get a better idea of what values TBG is using that result in the best looking planets. Crowd sourced neural net Before I move on to rocky planets, I have one more liquid world that's ready to be announced. That will show up soon. After that's done, I'll probably post a survey to see what people would like to see work on: procedural rocky worlds, moons, warp drive, something else? What small problems are you seeing with lighting? I might be able to expedite work on that. What compatibility with other mods would you like to see? I have plans for integrating compatibility with Kethane, but what are people interested in?

Dearest Cugi, The latest update to TBG—0.3.9—is ready for you to look over. This version officially includes procedural EVE-like worlds. This means that the stock planet Eve will not show up in orbit around new stars, but it will continue to appear in the stock Kerbol system. Here’s some eye candy: As with the 0.3.8 “water worlds” update, TBG generates a file that can be used with the Environmental Enhancements mod to provide cloudy skies. The limitation of procedural worlds and “scaled space” that I mentioned in the “water worlds” update is still an issue…but those clouds hide the problem. Unlike worlds with a liquid water surface, there isn’t a lot of guidance on where Eve-like worlds might be, largely because it’s unclear what analog we have for Eve-like worlds. It’s sort of Venus-like, but it’s also sort-or Titan-like. Rather than go down a rabbit-hole of what Eve’s atmosphere and surface liquid is, I took the easy way out and said that Eve-like planets can be found between: Inner distance from star = 0.7 * (mass of star^1.5) Outer distance from star = 0.95 * (mass of star^1.5) Those equations are simplifications of things, but the important thing is that the outer distance at which Eve-like planets can be found is the inner distance at which liquid-water planets will be found. There are also some rules about the total number of Eve-like planets, and some probability thrown on top of all that. In the galaxy file that is provided with 0.3.9, there are 573 planets, 22 of which are Eve-like. As a comparison, there are 66 water worlds. Change log for 0.3.9: Procedural Eve-like worlds EVE will no longer appear in the universe except in the Kerbol system Moon generation is still disabled Continued compatability with: -ResearchBodies -EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements & StockVisualEnhancements (clouds for procedural water and Eve worlds) Keep an eye out for easter eggs on water and Eve worlds

It could be that the stars and galaxies are being generated. Unfortunately, there is no loading screen feedback when that is happening. If you look in Kerbal Space Program/GameData/Kopernicus/Cache, you should see the number of files increasing while KSP is apparently frozen. If the number of files is increasing over time, all I can suggest it that you cultivate patience. Take pity on the people from the old days that would start their computer and then go make a cup of tea while it started up. Let me know whether things work?

My understanding was the "mostly working" applied to the parts with animations (landing gear and landing legs). KSP redid aspects of how the animations on models were handled, so the older parts didn't work. I helped with the landing legs, but last I saw the landing gear wasn't working correctly. Pretty sure the rest Just Works™

Does this _need_ an update? I haven't checked, but I'd be shocked if these stopped working. I guess it doesn't have the recently retired textures though

Doh. I read the "Set kethane's volume to 2L/u" commit comment incorrectly. Never mind me.

Another question, this one about mu.py: that will work as a stand alone?

Is conversion of Kethane to other things mass balanced? I'd suggested some different conversion values and outputs, but that was before the density of Kethane changed (which would change the mass balance)

I'm running into a problem when I grab a test stl off thingiverse and then try to save it as mu file. Is it worth me posting error messages (here? github?) or is stl --> mu not an intended pipeline?

Dearest Cugi, I hope you are well, and I apologize for my extended silence. Things have been very busy for me, but I have not been lax! Today, I wanted to let you know that I have begun implementing the improvements to TBG that you requested. As requested, I have: Altered the number and types of stars. Now when you auto-generate a universe you should get a max of ~100 stars Procedural water worlds have more variety and are generally better. You should definitely bring a boat when visiting them, though. Related to this, Laythe will no longer appear in the universe except in the original Kerbol system. I know it comes as a disappointment, but moon generation is still disabled. This is for two reasons: 1.) water moons in liquid water zones are still not working correctly and 2.) I'm struggling to find the right balance between universe size and processor power. More on that in a bit. The big news is that I have added compatibility with Environmental Visual Enhancements (EVE) & Stock Visual Enhancements (SVE). Functionally what this does is that it adds clouds to water worlds. Let's talk about that. The way KSP works, there are essentially two ways to view planets. The first is "scaled space" so named because the size of the Kerbal universe is scaled down. The way planets appear in scaled space is a static image of the planet surface wrapped on the frame of the planet (in most cases a spheroid). Unfortunately, when generating 100% procedural planets, there is no static image: the terrain of the planet is generated when KSP is loading, and the stock game has no means of outputting the necessary scaled space image files. When seen from map view, procedural water worlds made by TBG are just boring blue balls. A ship in orbit will see the procedural terrain, however. As an example, take the following image: The overall image is broken into four quadrants. The upper left shows four different procedural water worlds as seen from the map view. The lower left shows what those worlds look like as a craft is descending through the atmosphere. To hide the sins of the boring scaled space appearances, EVE and SVE can cloak the worlds in clouds (upper right and lower right of the image). Using EVE and SVE comes at a cost, of course: it requires a more robust processor in your computer. I have some ideas on ways to generate the images needed for scaled space, but that is for another day. That's all, really. I have more things that are done and ready to be unveiled, but I would rather wait to talk about them. Yours in testing, -me

I am in the process of finalizing an update, but I didn't see any problems with Kopernicus 1.7.0 and TBG 0.3.1.2. Can you elaborate on the problems you are seeing?

Liquid kethane procedural worlds? OK

Did you manage to get the animation working for the LY-10? I couldn't get it working previously.

Latest (not including the water moons and kethane worlds): https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/tree/Janet incomplete python: https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/tree/snakes-on-a-plane

Stay tuned: getting ready to unveil the next update with water moons AND kethane worlds

Odd. I will look at this problem this evening. You should be getting moons. Can you share a seed value you have tried?

What version of TBG are you using?

I'm fairly certain the people making lava lakes for planets can make them damaging to ships. As for whether there can be planets with lava oceans in TBA? Yes. There are two ways: 1.) TBG can be configured to use planets in planet packs as templates for planets that appear around other stars 2.) Procedural planets could be produced automagically. I'd just need to know the physics (and/or conditions) that defines where you'd find such planets.

That really all depends on how many stars, planets, moons, etc you have it make for you. FWIW I do all my dev work on a 2015 macbook pro laptop, and things run fine with ~300 bodies (stars, planets, moons). I'm sure an actual gaming rig would do fine.

That's called the Roche Limit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit TBG uses relationships like that to place planets. I suspect that either a calculation is going sideways, or there is something graphically off about how some stars are being shown. Aaannd just like that I see the bug. I hard coded something as a unit test and then never pulled it out. I'll put together a test build later today.

Funny you mention the innermost orbit problem--I was just thinking about that. Along those lines, I could use some help tracking down that bug. _I'm_ mainly seeing it in the largest star types (O). IT would be a big help if people could report what the star type is. It'd be even better if they reported the star's mass (you can look it up in the wiki page TBG makes for each galaxy). Images and galaxy seeds always help, too.

I'm just guessing, but I bet nothing would happen unless the player was in orbit around one of those bodies. At that point the overlapping SOIs would cause hilarious bugs. This tells me that I should include some sanity checks to look for overlapping SOIs.

New release is up. I consider it a beta since the procedural water worlds are still new. I'd love some feedback on the water worlds if you find some.

While checking out a galaxy, I found a system that is going to eventually have a really exciting day:

Getting ready to push out the latest TBG version. This one will include the procedural water worlds. Once it's up, I'll put up another survey asking input on what should be worked on next