Jump to content

[1.9-1.12.x] EVE-Redux: Performance-enhanced EVE + maintenance (v1.11.7.1 - 09/09/2022)


blackrack
 Share

Recommended Posts

How will the true volumetrics system be applied to 3rd-party planets or rescales? Will they require separate configs like with regular EVE, or can they be created with the GUI that I've seen in some of the screenshots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 1:59 PM, blackrack said:

Yeah I was thinking about scatterer's secondary lights but it can't do planetshine yet, so just additional suns. Additional lights will nearly double the performance hit as at every point raymarched a secondary raymarch needs to be done towards the light source. I was thinking of dropping the quality of secondary lights or trying to find some other approximation. Maybe even only sample the light currently shining the brightest, that way it cycles between different lights as needed, and still sample the sky and scattering contributions for all lights to help blend it.

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).
 

On 10/18/2022 at 1:59 PM, blackrack said:

For using the world itself as light source it'd probably "just work" if there is support for multiple lights just like in scatterer where people put an atmo on the sun and make it shine on itself.

That works? Well, I know what I'm doing to Achlys now.
 

5 hours ago, blackrack said:

Ehh they don't add much in my opinion. Besides, IRL I see them very rarely.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have KSRSS installed along with EVE and Scatterer, for some reason Scatterer doesn't change the water and EVE messes with everything else Scatterer is doing.  The poles are two bright, the back of the Earth is still lit for some reason, and the light extinction between the light and dark sides doesn't appear any more.  Would anyone know how to fix this, or where I should go to look for help?

Example Photos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Emilius73 said:

How will the true volumetrics system be applied to 3rd-party planets or rescales? Will they require separate configs like with regular EVE, or can they be created with the GUI that I've seen in some of the screenshots?

You need separate EVE configs, they can also be configured with the existing EVE gui.

9 hours ago, Benzo Kerman said:

@blackrack on the subject of the volumetrics looking weird from ss, would it be possible to sort of like smooth them out a bit, so they don't look silly as you described them? Sort of like how in MSFS 2020, changing the cloud quality setting just changes how detailed they look.

That really doesn't do much apart from making them look like a blobby version of the 2d texture.

5 hours ago, WarriorSabe said:

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. 

I think there was a misunderstanding, the issue is not that to make the light itself static, the issue is that when traversing the volume you also need to do a secondary traversal towards the light source to find how much light actually reaches inside the cloud, that's what gets expensive with multiple lights and it doesn't look right when replaced with a flat term.

For me rainbows have been very rare irl (and I've never seen one from a plane to this day but I've seen every other atmospheric phenomenon) but yeah they just look silly in my opinion and I don't think they are worth the effort.

2 hours ago, DasBear1 said:

I have KSRSS installed along with EVE and Scatterer, for some reason Scatterer doesn't change the water and EVE messes with everything else Scatterer is doing.  The poles are two bright, the back of the Earth is still lit for some reason, and the light extinction between the light and dark sides doesn't appear any more.  Would anyone know how to fix this, or where I should go to look for help?

Example Photos

Maybe an install issue but you should ask in the KSRSS thread.

Edited by blackrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, blackrack said:

Yeah things really don't look good at all from orbit right now unless scaled to humongous proportions, it's hard to explain but it's a combination of the temporal upscaling not handling high-frequency detail well, the raymarching noise/flickering at those distances and the noise/cloudtypes distributions looking uniform-ish and repetitive at that scale. If scaled up to look good from orbit they look very big and out of place from the ground and when flying through at low altitudes, while still looking unrealistic from orbit.

I'm not sure what you mean about the transition but the 3d volumetrics are derived from the 2d layer so fading in to the 2d should be ok.

In the previous images I posted both the godrays and the cloud-on-cloud shadows are just read directly from the 2d layer texture for performance and you can't tell most of the time.

Ehh they don't add much in my opinion. Besides, IRL I see them very rarely.

Ah gotcha, I spent some time looking at volumetric from orbit in other games and can see what you mean about the repetition.

Probably won't be possible - but I wonder if one could gradually increase the scale you mention with distance, and how that might look? If it was possible that might allow you to have a smooth transition from high detail clouds when close to larger scale cloudlets on the horizon from orbit?

Again I haven't the faintest clue how the system works under the hood so forgive my ignorance on this subject :P Assuming this would just be to complex or impossible to implement

Edited by pingopete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, pingopete said:

Ah gotcha, I spent some time looking at volumetric from orbit in other games and can see what you mean about the repetition.

Probably won't be possible - but I wonder if one could gradually increase the scale you mention with distance, and how that might look? If it was possible that might allow you to have a smooth transition from high detail clouds when close to larger scale cloudlets on the horizon from orbit?

Again I haven't the faintest clue how the system works under the hood so forgive my ignorance on this subject :P Assuming this would just be to complex or impossible to implement

Which games are those btw? Just for reference. I know in msfs it looks really bad from orbit (and the draw distance is limited).

I see what you mean, like it's done in the terrain shaders, but already that implies doubling the noise samples in the raymarching loop and blending between them, which is very expensive because it's in the raymarching loop and it's done potentially hundreds of times per pixel, then there is the issue of this scaling throwing off the balance of things like cumulonimbus clouds and the vertical profile of the clouds in relation to what is painted horizontally on the clouds map. This will introduce all kinds of problems so not sure about it for now. This will make more sense after release when you see how the clouds are configured and how a delicate balance is needed between the noise scale, the cloud height, and what is painted on the cloud map.

With that said, on Jool there is probably going to be some large scale clouds which work well from orbit, I hope that works as well as I'm imagining it :D

Edited by blackrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blackrack said:

I think there was a misunderstanding, the issue is not that to make the light itself static, the issue is that when traversing the volume you also need to do a secondary traversal towards the light source to find how much light actually reaches inside the cloud, that's what gets expensive with multiple lights and it doesn't look right when replaced with a flat term.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WarriorSabe said:

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.

Ah I see, well in scatterer there is the issue of not lighting the terrain like you mentioned but also if you want to use it as planetshine the angle to the sun isn't taken into account, ie no full moon or moon phases but always a constant intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackrack said:

Ah I see, well in scatterer there is the issue of not lighting the terrain like you mentioned but also if you want to use it as planetshine the angle to the sun isn't taken into account, ie no full moon or moon phases but always a constant intensity.

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cattasraafe said:

Was looking around. I haven't found this question but I'm sure its been asked. Are there any experimental versions of this up yet? 

Not yet but soon

5 hours ago, WillTFB said:

Hey I'm having issues with clouds being the wrong color. It's a fresh install so I don't understand why this is happening. 

https://imgur.com/a/TRVlo5b here's a screenshot if that helps. 

Can't really tell much, but likely a config issue, include which mods you installed+versions+log file, and more screenshots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, blackrack said:

Can't really tell much, but likely a config issue, include which mods you installed+versions+log file, and more screenshots

Screen shots: https://imgur.com/a/SPyUQSD

Folders in GameData Folder (in order):

Quote

B9PartSwitch
BoulderCo
CommunityResourcePack
CyroTanks
DeployableEngines
DynamicBatteryStorage
EnviromentalVisualEnhancements
Extras
FarFutureechnologies
GameData
HeatControl
NearFutureAeronautics
NearFutureContructs
NearFutureElectrical
NearFutureExploration
NearFutureProps
NearFutureSolar
NearFutureSpacecraft
Parallax_StockTextures
PlanetShine
SCANsat
Scarrerer
ScattererAtmosphereCache
SpaceDust
Squad
SquadExpansion
StationPartsExpansionRedux
StockWaterfallEffects
SystemHeat
Waterfall
WildBlueIndustries

Log (sorry for google doc; page keeps crashing when I try to post the log): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rjNHp0zGLCTNO7wCQ3BK4VqHELB64Ovz/view?usp=sharing

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WillTFB said:

Screen shots: https://imgur.com/a/SPyUQSD

Folders in GameData Folder (in order):

Log (sorry for google doc; page keeps crashing when I try to post the log): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rjNHp0zGLCTNO7wCQ3BK4VqHELB64Ovz/view?usp=sharing

The only problem I see is that you have a GameData folder inside GameData.

First try deleting that additional GameData.

Second try to run without any other mods and just a fresh reinstall of scatterer+EVE+boulderco and see if anything changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2022 at 11:24 AM, blackrack said:

Which games are those btw? Just for reference. I know in msfs it looks really bad from orbit (and the draw distance is limited).

I see what you mean, like it's done in the terrain shaders, but already that implies doubling the noise samples in the raymarching loop and blending between them, which is very expensive because it's in the raymarching loop and it's done potentially hundreds of times per pixel, then there is the issue of this scaling throwing off the balance of things like cumulonimbus clouds and the vertical profile of the clouds in relation to what is painted horizontally on the clouds map. This will introduce all kinds of problems so not sure about it for now. This will make more sense after release when you see how the clouds are configured and how a delicate balance is needed between the noise scale, the cloud height, and what is painted on the cloud map.

With that said, on Jool there is probably going to be some large scale clouds which work well from orbit, I hope that works as well as I'm imagining it :D

I guess I really only looked at DCS, MSFS and Star Citizen to be fair, but yeah MSFS just hard cuts them off before the horizon, and I guess as mentioned here Star Citizen just uses a massive noise scale.

This makes sense, I guess you'd be running two cloud setups in paralel and switch between so at least double the performance cost. But I'm definitely keen to tinker around with the values once it's available!

I was wondering; would these volumetrics be compatible with the older 2D cloud detail maps that include transparency that I had been using for RSS? And also with the 6x 8x8k global cloud cube maps?

Jool should make a great experimentation area for larger scale and SS volumetrics for sure! Can't wait to see what you can come up with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by WarriorSabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2022 at 5:22 PM, pingopete said:

I guess I really only looked at DCS, MSFS and Star Citizen to be fair, but yeah MSFS just hard cuts them off before the horizon, and I guess as mentioned here Star Citizen just uses a massive noise scale.

This makes sense, I guess you'd be running two cloud setups in paralel and switch between so at least double the performance cost. But I'm definitely keen to tinker around with the values once it's available!

I was wondering; would these volumetrics be compatible with the older 2D cloud detail maps that include transparency that I had been using for RSS? And also with the 6x 8x8k global cloud cube maps?

Jool should make a great experimentation area for larger scale and SS volumetrics for sure! Can't wait to see what you can come up with!

Yeah both the cubemaps and detail textures will be supported, although I haven't added support for detail textures yet but it will be there, I know it's important for some pseudo-dynamic cloud setups.

21 hours ago, WarriorSabe said:

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?

So I don't have a self-lighting option yet but it will be trivial to add so I can add it.

There is a density variable that controls how the cloud looks and it can go anywhere from dense cloud to very thin mist/fog.

It's a bit different from painting a lower value on the 2d map as that works more like "this point has this % chance of being covered by a cloud", if that makes sense, the 2d map essentially works like a probability map that modulates the 3d noise, I just call it "coverage map" now.  For example in this old gif I posted a while back I'm animating the alpha value of a 2d map (basically just i terpolating it over time from 0 to its real value) and this is how it behaves, notice it never turns to thin fog/mist just cloud blobs:

LeadingImmediateBobcat-size_restricted.g

I plan to provide this and a density fade as transition modes for when I fade layers in/out over time (what I plan to use for pseudo-weather transitions, making rain/fog/clouds appear/disappear at given time intervals etc).

Also this means that if you use the detail texture to make pseudo-dynamic clouds and you give it soft edges it will behave like this as well when transitioning.

Edited by blackrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackrack said:

There is a density variable that controls how the cloud looks and it can go anywhere from dense cloud to very thin mist/fog.

It's a bit different from painting a lower value on the 2d map as that works more like "this point has this % chance of being covered by a cloud", if that makes sense, the 2d map essentially works like a probability map that modulates the 3d noise, I just call it "coverage map" now.  For example in this old gif I posted a while back I'm animating the alpha value of a 2d map (basically just i terpolating it over time from 0 to its real value) and this is how it behaves, notice it never turns to thin fog/mist just cloud blobs:

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).

 

2 hours ago, blackrack said:

Also this means that if you use the detail texture to make pseudo-dynamic clouds and you give it soft edges it will behave like this as well when transitioning.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...