[KSP 1.6.1] Stock Visual Enhancements [v1.4.1] [20 March 2019]

[Fwiffo]

Hey dumb question, is SVE 1.1.1 for KSP 1.1.3 or KSP 1.2?

I ask because the Scatterer you include looks a lot like the KSP 1.2 one.

Is there an SVE for KSP 1.1.3 still available somewhere I can grab?

[Galileo]

2 minutes ago, Fwiffo said:

Hey dumb question, is SVE 1.1.1 for KSP 1.1.3 or KSP 1.2?

I ask because the Scatterer you include looks a lot like the KSP 1.2 one.

Is there an SVE for KSP 1.1.3 still available somewhere I can grab?

i will put one back up in a sec.

I had to take it down in order to put 1.1.1 up. stupid github

@Fwiffo

actually, here you go

its the high res version but its the only one left at the moment  I dont plan on supporting 1.1 much longer if at all 

http://spacedock.info/mod/58/Stock Visual Enhancements

[Bombaatu]

I'm getting some extreme performance loss. I installed KSP 1.2, SVE (high-res, default settings) and KerboKatz's Physical Time Ratio Viewer. I started a new Sandbox save; frame rate at KSC was around 12/second. I launched an Aeris 3A. Sitting on the runway I had ~14 frames/sec & ~50% physical time ratio. The log shows nothing but ordinary messages; no error spamming.

My system specs are:

• Windows 10
• AMD FX 8350 processor (4 GHz, 8 core)
• 16GB ram
• Radeon R9 390 video card with 8GB vram

Any ideas? This same set-up could easily pull 40-50 fps with 1.1.3 & SVE. 

Please let me know if there is any further information needed.

[Galileo]

4 minutes ago, Bombaatu said:

I'm getting some extreme performance loss. I installed KSP 1.2, SVE (high-res, default settings) and KerboKatz's Physical Time Ratio Viewer. I started a new Sandbox save; frame rate at KSC was around 12/second. I launched an Aeris 3A. Sitting on the runway I had ~14 frames/sec & ~50% physical time ratio. The log shows nothing but ordinary messages; no error spamming.

My system specs are:

• Windows 10
• AMD FX 8350 processor (4 GHz, 8 core)
• 16GB ram
• Radeon R9 390 video card with 8GB vram

Any ideas? This same set-up could easily pull 40-50 fps with 1.1.3 & SVE. 

Please let me know if there is any further information needed.

Very strange im get about 100fps. try a completely fresh install. I only removed cloud layers and updated EVE. If your performance loss persists, Try installing the newest eve by itself and note the performance. Also post your logs. 12 FPS shouldnt be happening at all

Edited October 14, 2016 by Galileo

[Fwiffo]

14 minutes ago, Galileo said:

actually, here you go

Thanks!  BTW that zip says "1.0.82" but the folder inside it says "1.0.81"

Edited October 14, 2016 by Fwiffo

[Galileo]

Just now, Fwiffo said:

Thanks!

BTW, I think there's a new Scatterer version stamped 1.0.6121 out which might be a bit newer than your version stamped 1.0.6119.

No scatterer hasnt been updated. blackrack did release a new dll to fix some small things and it is included in my package

[Fwiffo]

Just now, Galileo said:

No scatterer hasnt been updated. blackrack did release a new dll to fix some small things and it is included in my package

Yeah thanks sorry; shortly after posting I realized I had it backwards and had hoped I edited that bit out before you saw it ;-)

[Galileo]

Just now, Fwiffo said:

Yeah thanks sorry; shortly after posting I realized I had it backwards and had hoped I edited that bit out before you saw it ;-)

im always watching this thread

9 minutes ago, Fwiffo said:

Thanks!  BTW that zip says "1.0.82" but the folder inside it says "1.0.81"

yeah i forgot to change it when i uploaded it

[Bombaatu]

34 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Very strange im get about 100fps. try a completely fresh install. I only removed cloud layers and updated EVE. If your performance loss persists, Try installing the newest eve by itself and note the performance. Also post your logs. 12 FPS shouldnt be happening at all

Disregard - I'm an idiot. There were some driver settings that were... shall we say, "less than optimal". I updated the drivers (new one dropped today) & the problem is gone. Sorry to trouble you.

[Galileo]

Just now, Bombaatu said:

Disregard - I'm an idiot. There were some driver settings that were... shall we say, "less than optimal". I updated the drivers (new one dropped today) & the problem is gone. Sorry to trouble you.

Naw it happens man, no troubles... how is the performance though?

 

[Bombaatu]

Just now, Galileo said:

Naw it happens man, no troubles... how is the performance though?

 

Between 35-45 FPS and 100% physical time ratio. That was with a low-part-count stock aircraft, but far and away better than it was.

[Galileo]

@Fwiffo

I updated SVE on 1.1.3 

it includes all the new textures and performance tweaks as 1.1.1

https://github.com/Galileo88/StockVisualEnhancements/releases/tag/1.0.83

Edited October 14, 2016 by Galileo

[fourfa]

2 hours ago, Galileo said:

I took what you said and played around with the post processing. Although I dont think its as clear as you wanted, you can see a big difference and i included it in my latest version.

Alright alright!  Looks awesome to me.  Still enough scattering to be obviously non-stock, but I think it's a great balance as-is.  That's just my opinion - please see what everyone else says too.  Man oh man, it's running pretty fast and lovely on my big gaming rig with the high res textures.  

Edited October 14, 2016 by fourfa
typo

[Galileo]

2 minutes ago, fourfa said:

Alright alright!  Looks awesome to me.  Still enough scattering to be obviously non-stock, but I think it's a great balance as-in.  That's just my opinion - please see what everyone else says too.  Man oh man, it's running pretty fast and lovely on my big gaming rig with the high res textures.  

Ok cool glad to hear the performance is better   I will see what others say but I think it actually looks a lot better than before

Edited October 14, 2016 by Galileo

[Waz]

2 hours ago, Galileo said:

i had to take it down in order to put 1.1.1 up. stupid github 

It's punishing you for not using it for version control.

[theJesuit]

1 hour ago, Galileo said:

Ok cool glad to hear the performance is better   I will see what others say but I think it actually looks a lot better than before

So, so much better.  I always had a little stutter in KSP 1.1.3, but now this is great, so far, in early career.  Just a straight install using HR.

Thanks!  Hope you get some sleep tonight.  Well deserved.  Peace.

[Xentor]

So I made now some more tests.

I did now delete all Mods (completely ignoring the SQUAD mainfolder), and made 4 experimental trys.

All trys are done with the medium texture setting version. Configsettings ect, are "vanilla" (Like you did config them for the DL files)

1.: Try

Only your Mod:

Result: No Sky, and Pink Planet in Mapview

Try 1 Output Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/31td48li6d5di9i/output_log - Try1.txt?dl=0

2.: Try

Installed EVE and Scaterer and than your Mod over them

Result: Same like Try 1.

Try 2 Outputlog: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzixhp2ucqwamq3/output_log - Try2.txt?dl=0

3.: Only your Mod, and did overwrite your Scaterer folder with the original.

Result: There is the sky and no pink planets.

Try 3 Outputlog: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x9gxuejbbxv0st8/output_log - Try 3.txt?dl=0

Try 4.: Only your mod, and overwriten the Scatererfolder with the original.

Result: Sky is there, no pink planets

Try 4 Outputlog: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ddz83gkc3cvo0uf/output_log - Try 4.txt?dl=0

 

The sky effect means here: My Sky (while on surface of planets) is black at night and nearly black at bright day too. (It is very very bit dark blue on kerbin for example)

Screenshots: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xsuafmnk0jkkn4u/Problemscreenshots.rar?dl=0

So what else could I perhaps done wrong when I tried it with a pure vanialla game? (Ok I did backup my Mods extern so was only a copy around thingi) I wanted only see if it is perhaps a modconflict.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Xentor

[Ozy]

You mention installing via CKAN but it's still not listed in CKAN... Neither is EVE or Scatterer for that matter

[Drew Kerman]

5 hours ago, Waz said:

It's punishing you for not using it for version control.

speaking of versions could you please add the version number to your zip download filenames?

[Hyomoto]

So, my highly unscientific tests yields ~20 fps improvement.  On the launchpad I'm getting about 60fps rather than 40.  That's certainly better, but I can't help but wonder why EVE is so expensive (other than being awesome).  Kerbal Space Program is many things, but graphically advanced is not one of them.  I know in the really old versions of EVE the performance impact wasn't quite so dramatic, and if it runs in shaders on the GPU then 9 teraflops should be plenty of overhead.  I know KSP isn't multi-threaded but it should still be theoretically possible to make better use of the GPU.  It seems like I must have a lot of cores just hanging around doing nothing.

That sounded depressing, so let me top this off with all performance is welcome, thank you for caring enough to chase it!

[HafCoJoe]

I don't know if it's weird of me, but I actually really liked the "unrealistic" aesthetic of old EVE :/

This appearance:

It's unrealistic, but in that aspect I really like it. Might just be that I'm biased for it because it was what came first though, but either way I still liked old EVE better :/ - all except for the new cloud system which now is better suited for HD.

[Galileo]

10 minutes ago, Hyomoto said:

So, my highly unscientific tests yields ~20 fps improvement.  On the launchpad I'm getting about 60fps rather than 40.  That's certainly better, but I can't help but wonder why EVE is so expensive (other than being awesome).  Kerbal Space Program is many things, but graphically advanced is not one of them.  I know in the really old versions of EVE the performance impact wasn't quite so dramatic, and if it runs in shaders on the GPU then 9 teraflops should be plenty of overhead.  I know KSP isn't multi-threaded but it should still be theoretically possible to make better use of the GPU.  It seems like I must have a lot of cores just hanging around doing nothing.

That sounded depressing, so let me top this off with all performance is welcome, thank you for caring enough to chase it!

Well as you probably know,  @Waz is also very adamant about getting performance out of Eve.  

1 minute ago, Avera9eJoe said:

I don't know if it's weird of me, but I actually really liked the "unrealistic" aesthetic of old EVE :/

This appearance:

It's unrealistic, but in that aspect I really like it. Might just be that I'm biased for it because it was what came first though, but either way I still liked old EVE better :/ - all except for the new cloud system which now is better suited for HD.

So you want to make it fantastical again?  I can easily do that just by altering the cloud cfg.  What is missing that would bring back the unrealistic things you liked? 

[HafCoJoe]

17 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Well as you probably know,  @Waz is also very adamant about getting performance out of Eve.  

So you want to make it fantastical again?  I can easily do that just by altering the cloud cfg.  What is missing that would bring back the unrealistic things you liked? 

Hm :/ Well, I guess it'd be the soft glow around each planet. Eve had a green tint, Duna had purple/red (Not quite as intense as this), Kerbin blue, Jool green, the thing was that every planet had it, not just the ones with atmosphere. Pol had a very slight orange haze over it, Eeloo white, Etc. I made my own cloud pack for a short time but dropped it when Nhawks17 started up SVE - I don't like to compete with friends . - sadly though new EVE has completely removed the atmosphere haze feature so I fear it isn't doable anymore.

It's just, KSP no matter how realistic it can get I feel it still needs some bit of fantasy and the haze gives the game a very nice, unrealistic, but beautiful glow.

 

Hm, should I send you a PM? There's a couple of changes I wanted to ask about SVE actually and it might be better to chat in a PM again

Edited October 14, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Galileo]

14 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Hm :/ Well, I guess it'd be the soft glow around each planet. Eve had a green tint, Duna had purple/red (Not quite as intense as this), Kerbin blue, Jool green, the thing was that every planet had it, not just the ones with atmosphere. Pol had a very slight orange haze over it, Eeloo white, Etc. I made my own cloud pack for a short time but dropped it when Nhawks17 started up SVE - I don't like to compete with friends . - sadly though new EVE has completely removed the atmosphere haze feature so I fear it isn't doable anymore.

It's just, KSP no matter how realistic it can get I feel it still needs some bit of fantasy and the haze gives the game a very nice, unrealistic, but beautiful glow.

 

Hm, should I send you a PM? There's a couple of changes I wanted to ask about SVE actually and it might be better to chat in a PM again

Yeah you can pm me.

[Waz]

1 hour ago, Hyomoto said:

So, my highly unscientific tests yields ~20 fps improvement.  On the launchpad I'm getting about 60fps rather than 40.  That's certainly better, but I can't help but wonder why EVE is so expensive (other than being awesome).  Kerbal Space Program is many things, but graphically advanced is not one of them.  I know in the really old versions of EVE the performance impact wasn't quite so dramatic, and if it runs in shaders on the GPU then 9 teraflops should be plenty of overhead.  I know KSP isn't multi-threaded but it should still be theoretically possible to make better use of the GPU.  It seems like I must have a lot of cores just hanging around doing nothing.

That sounded depressing, so let me top this off with all performance is welcome, thank you for caring enough to chase it!

The cost of layerVolumes was truly exorbitant. I have some numbers on my desk where the rendering cost for a ship in Kerbin orbit was 8ms for plain EVE, 12ms for SVE, ...... and 1.7ms with neither...... and nearly *all* of that was layerVolume rendering. For 100 particles you only see occasionally, this is insane.

The performance fix I did was just something I could do quickly so I didn't have to recommend against using volumetric clouds: because I think they give amazing immersion (I swear I still hear noise in my head that was never there when I think about a dust storm I drove through on Duna with KSPRC).

I'll look at a proper fix once 1.2 settles.