[1.8.1 - 1.9.1] Kopernicus Continued

[OhioBob]

48 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

However, I removed EVE, and the shadow was gone.  So maybe an EVE issue since that's not updated for 1.9.1.

Eclipse shadows in JNSQ are produced by scatterer when they fall on an atmospheric body, or EVE when they fall on an airless body (or when scatterer is not installed).

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

Eclipse shadows in JNSQ are produced by scatterer when they fall on an atmospheric body, or EVE when they fall on an airless body (or when scatterer is not installed).

KSP for the last few versions has the “CB cast shadows” option in the stock graphics settings. So I am not sure that is correct. 
 

Edit: It may or may not still be broken however. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/22706

Edited June 22, 2020 by MechBFP

[BurgerKerman]

I tested Toy Solar System + Kerbal Constructs and it works perfectly, despite the recommended version 1.0.5

Edited June 22, 2020 by BurgerKerman

[BurgerKerman]

I tested Toy Solar System + Kerbal Constructs and it works perfectly, despite the recommended version is 1.0.5

[Hpl]

why did you post twice?

[linuxgurugamer]

57 minutes ago, BurgerKerman said:

I tested Toy Solar System + Kerbal Constructs and it works perfectly, despite the recommended version is 1.0.5

Did you land on every planet?

[alberro+]

5 hours ago, Damien212 said:

I've tested on JNSQ and it mostly seems fine, apart from this issue when Kerbin eclipses the Mun.

Seems familiar, I remember seeing this one time with Val when it got behind Jool. Maybe it’s not Kopernicus related after all?

[prestja]

24 minutes ago, alberro+ said:

Seems familiar, I remember seeing this one time with Val when it got behind Jool. Maybe it’s not Kopernicus related after all?

 

2 hours ago, OhioBob said:

Eclipse shadows in JNSQ are produced by scatterer when they fall on an atmospheric body, or EVE when they fall on an airless body (or when scatterer is not installed).

According to OhioBob, it's not.

[jimmymcgoochie]

I tried porting over my 1.8.1 JNSQ setup to 1.9.1 with this Kopernicus, and after deleting SCANsat which spammed exceptions and stopped the save game loading it seemed to be OK. Things didn't look quite right as I was using the wrong versions of EVE and scatterer but the only really weird thing was the disappearing ocean on Laythe, and I've seen that in 1.8.1 too. Terrain looked pixellated when zoomed out a bit further than in 1.8.1 I think.

The weird terrain tiling effects were still present though and the hexagonal squiggles made an appearance too, I don't suppose anyone knows why that's happening/how to get rid of it?

Trying to change over from 1.7.3 to 1.8.1 was a pain so I'll be sticking to 1.8.1 for now, but aside from some inevitable teething problems it looks OK to me.

[Hpl]

the pixelated terrain is because of the (badly implemented) terrain shaders iirc

try quicksave/quickload

[Kraken that doesn't exist]

23 hours ago, VoidCosmos said:

Oh great! Thanks for forking it and updating it

i also say thanks now i can hopefully play beyond home

[prestja]

22 minutes ago, Kraken that doesn't exist said:

i also say thanks now i can hopefully play beyond home

You're more than welcome to, but keep in mind that planets with ocean mods currently have a broken appearance (this includes Rhode).

[Drew Kerman]

5 hours ago, MechBFP said:

KSP for the last few versions has the “CB cast shadows” option in the stock graphics settings. So I am not sure that is correct. 

OhioBob is correct. The eclipse shadow on Mun is an EVE feature. The KSP feature you're talking about means terrain casts shadows across the planet surface

[Weimaraner]

I cannot believe what i am seeing. just discovered this now.

[MechBFP]

2 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

OhioBob is correct. The eclipse shadow on Mun is an EVE feature. The KSP feature you're talking about means terrain casts shadows across the planet surface

Ah that makes sense then. Just really poorly named then. 

[Beetlecat]

2 hours ago, Weimaraner said:

I cannot believe what i am seeing. just discovered this now.

It's not been a thing for very long.

[Superfluous J]

On 6/21/2020 at 3:04 PM, prestja said:

This is a recompile and version bump of Kopernicus for KSP 1.9.1.

Thank you for picking up this torch. Kopernicus is the one and only reason I (and many others) have barely even looked at 1.9 and were kind of lamenting 1.10's impending release.

[KIMCHI]

Is this a new recompile or is the same 1.9.1 recompile that has been floating around? Just curious because I have been using the other recompile without issues and just want to know if I should uninstall that for this.

[prestja]

26 minutes ago, KIMCHI said:

Is this a new recompile or is the same 1.9.1 recompile that has been floating around? Just curious because I have been using the other recompile without issues and just want to know if I should uninstall that for this.

It's a different recompile, but it is functionally identical to the other one. Use either.

[Clamp-o-Tron]

Out of likes 

I'll be back tomorrow after I test it with a bunch of planet packs and SD.

 

[Hpl]

It has already been said, but every planet with oceans has a bug that makes them pitch black unless you install visuals, and some atmospheres are broken too

Edited June 23, 2020 by Hpl
Typo

[Shawn Kerman]

Welp I tested.... an install, and got..... 1134 Loaded bodies with kop 1.9.1, no bodies have been approached by craft, and I doubt it would happen...Loaded insanity 

[prestja]

23 minutes ago, Shawn Kerman said:

Welp I tested.... an install, and got..... 1134 Loaded bodies with kop 1.9.1, no bodies have been approached by craft, and I doubt it would happen...Loaded insanity 

O-o

4 hours ago, Hpl said:

It has already been said, but every planet with oceans has a bug that makes them pitch black unless you install visuals, and some atmospheres are broken too

I'm aware of the oceans bug and am working on a fix. What's wrong with the atmospheres?

[GDorn]

It might be a good idea to mark this as a beta release until you're confident that the bugs have been worked out.

It's one thing to recompile the existing codebase under 1.9.1, since a lot of work has already happened to make that compatible.  When 1.10 comes out, it's going to be a whole other thing to get it working again.  The most useful artifact that could come out of this forking effort is heavy documentation on the process of updating this code (maybe enlist @Thomas P. to advise for one last update) so that other new developers don't have quite the same learning curve when this round of developers burns out on it.  The more people that understand it and can contribute, the more reliably it'll be updated after each release.

[Jognt]

Paging @Murdabenne should he be unfortunate enough to be quarantined. (Silver linings?)