Jump to content

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


blackrack

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, WarriorSabe said:

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.

Yes there is a cloud type map, and although I did describe it as a biome map I should have added that it rotates with the cloud map and is not locked to geographical position. The reason is that the coverage map and cloud type often have to work together to look good, for example cumulonimbus clouds should have low coverage edges as a lead in and shouldn't appear randomly anywhere, otherwise it looks really weird.

A motion map, I guess you mean similar to a flow map, is also possible but would also need doing double samples and interpolating between them, so will be expensive. I was planning on adding it for the decals I plan to add later to do storms, however it seems like a really worthwhile addition so I think will bump it up and do it earlier.

Edited by blackrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackrack said:

Yes there is a cloud type map, and although I did describe it as a biome map I should have added that it rotates with the cloud map and is not locked to geographical position. The reason is that the coverage map and cloud type often have to work together to look good, for example cumulonimbus clouds should have low coverage edges as a lead in and shouldn't appear randomly anywhere, otherwise it looks really weird.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 3:09 AM, blackrack said:

So it can do 3d in scaledSpace and the transition altitudes to 2d are going to be configurable but for now I'm going to go with a relatively early transition due to the above issues.

Perhaps if the idea is to still retain 2D in scaled space, then may be getting bump maps to work again is the workaround? But there again IDK how accurately the new system translates the cloud texture into the volumetrics.  

The way I see it, if you can do, more or less, 1:1 translations between the 2D texture and the volumetrics, than may be by fading into 2D, the bump map can pick up the slack for giving the 3D effect. 

On 10/21/2022 at 2:57 AM, 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. 

You might have Preserve Cloud Colors toggled in Scatterer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WarriorSabe said:

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?

I was planning to add a similar thing, primarily to have clouds be cut down by mountains but that's still up in the air and may come later.

As it stands right now relying entirely on animating the noise for this won't be enough for what you want.

13 hours ago, thepres1s_Stuff said:

@blackrack Any chance there could be true volumetrics teasers for other planets? If not, that's fine.

There will be, I'm attacking configs for all bodies soon and will surely post some.

11 hours ago, G'th said:

Perhaps if the idea is to still retain 2D in scaled space, then may be getting bump maps to work again is the workaround? But there again IDK how accurately the new system translates the cloud texture into the volumetrics.  

The way I see it, if you can do, more or less, 1:1 translations between the 2D texture and the volumetrics, than may be by fading into 2D, the bump map can pick up the slack for giving the 3D effect. 

You might have Preserve Cloud Colors toggled in Scatterer.

Yeah I plan to fix the bump maps with scatterer but that won't be right now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackrack said:

There will be, I'm attacking configs for all bodies soon and will surely post some.

My only request, if I may, is that you follow the lead of the stock EVE (BoulderCo) config for, well, the planet Eve itself.

Falling through a few kilometers (I think it's literally ten? from ~14km to ~4km) of thick volumetric cloud cover before you see the surface (and in some cases, the hills being within that cloud cover) feels incredible. Of course, you do you!

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2022 at 1:10 PM, blackrack said:

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.

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.

That's great news! Glad to hear they'll still be included, cube maps are super important for RSS sized planets.

Also loving what you were mentioning about how the 2d cloud maps can be used as a probability map for 'sub' cloud formation, I think this method should work much better on larger scales and give more control.

Also that gif looks unbelievably good, I already thought the volumetrics looked amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GrapeInvaders said:

With Parallax and EVE Redux, I think we're really putting pressure on the KSP2 devs lol.

All I saw of KSP2 did not came anywhere near to what mods do to KSP1. Sorry, but if KSP2 does not improve drastically to release I will stick for some more years with my heavily modded KSP1-Install... 

For me: Kopernicus, OPM, Waterfall, Eve Redux, Spectra and Scatterer = :lol:

(Plus many Part-Mods like the Nertea-Suite, Blueshift etc...)

Parallax is a little too much for my old 1060 gpu in order to get decent fps

Edited by Rakete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 8:08 PM, Rakete said:

All I saw of KSP2 did not came anywhere near to what mods do to KSP1. Sorry, but if KSP2 does not improve drastically to release I will stick for some more years with my heavily modded KSP1-Install... 

I think this is a bit unfair, as KSP2 looks great visually especially for an alpha, and has a lot of progress still to make. Plus it'll be a greta new platform to push even further.

Also, Nertea himself was hired by the KSP2 team, so some of that love is already heading there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Moose said:

I think this is a bit unfair, as KSP2 looks great visually especially for an alpha, and has a lot of progress still to make. Plus it'll be a greta new platform to push even further.

Also, Nertea himself was hired by the KSP2 team, so some of that love is already heading there.

I disagree.

First off, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

We've waited for KSP2 for a while, and IMHO while the "Core" game being released is a great idea, it can also be viewed as it just isn't finished.

Now, that said, two camps, one which will grab it and play/test, and one that wants all the things that were marketed at the game's outset.

Sound familiar?  No Man's Sky, and realistically KSP itself which was a work in progress for a tiny bit :)

I fall into both categories, I'll keep playing KSP, and may not get 2 right away, even though likely I could run it side by side.

I believe they shot too high with the initial marketing of 2, and if they had just overhauled what they are calling the "Core" game and released, then added the other stuff as DLC's when bugs were worked out, then we wouldn't have this fracturing of the fanbase.

[opens saved  KSP to play until Feb 24th, but not continuously from now ...   :)  ]

Edited by RW-1
added content
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RW-1 said:

First off, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Yes everyone is and I wasn't meaning to devalue your opinion. I am just saying, I disagree that visually, KSP2 is a step down from KSP with mods, and I feel it's unfair to make such a comparison anyway before we have a final version of the game in our hands. This is a visual thread, no?

But I digress, let us not devalue the purpose of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be noted that like KSP, KSP2 is unlikely to be aimed at people with high-end gaming rigs.  The stock game is supposed to be super accessible, and KSP2 only really needs to exceed the visuals of stock KSP1, which it of course will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, G'th said:

Should be noted that like KSP, KSP2 is unlikely to be aimed at people with high-end gaming rigs.  The stock game is supposed to be super accessible, and KSP2 only really needs to exceed the visuals of stock KSP1, which it of course will. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 9:08 PM, Rakete said:

All I saw of KSP2 did not came anywhere near to what mods do to KSP1

As I exactly said: All I saw of KSP2... yet! ...

Maybe it will surprise with a giant leap graphicswise to the releasepoint... but I didn't mean to complain about KSP2 but just wanted to point out how great the work of our modmakers is.

And yes, to my mind those effects from parallax2, Eve Redux's new volumetric clouds, Scatterer's beautiful coloring (especially with spectra), waterfall's plumes are currently visually ahead of what I saw in KSP2s shown dev footage. Even with my old rig based on a i7 9700k and a gtx 1060. KSP2's landscape is a bit simplistic in the shown footage.

One last sidenote. KSP2 at release simply can't be as feature rich as my heavily modded KSP1 install, with over 40 mods installed. They simply cannot deliver as many parts and stuff, than the 40 mods do. That is kinda natural. It is impossible to take every nice mod and make it stock KSP2.

KSP2 will be a nice foundation, that the modders will use as a springboard to make it even look better than a heavily modded ksp1 - given that will be as accessable to hook into as KSP 1 is. 

I look forward to a growing mod catalogue for KSP 2. 

 

To my mind there will be the following comparison of awesomeness:

KSP 1 stock < KSP2 stock < KSP1 heavily (!) modded < KSP2 modded

 

 

Edited by Rakete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moose said:

Yes everyone is and I wasn't meaning to devalue your opinion. I am just saying, I disagree that visually, KSP2 is a step down from KSP with mods, and I feel it's unfair to make such a comparison anyway before we have a final version of the game in our hands. This is a visual thread, no?

But I digress, let us not devalue the purpose of the thread.

Moose, we're in agreement, I hold the same opinion on 2 vs the original at this moment. I didn't feel devalued at all. More I was defending the right to have an opinion, whether or not I might agree with it.

22 minutes ago, Rakete said:

One last sidenote. KSP2 at release simply can't be as feature rich as my heavily modded KSP1 install, with over 40 mods installed.

I would hope that when it can, it loads faster :)

23 minutes ago, blackrack said:

Click for better quality

TinyGrayAvocet-size_restricted.gif

DiligentBetterCero-size_restricted.gif

MarriedParchedBeetle-size_restricted.gif

Ya still teasing eh?   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tackyinbention said:

Do I need to uninstall the old EVE if I want to use the new version? Or if I don't, how do I update it?

When it's released I believe it'll be in the same pipeline as the current Eve Redux, so it should just be an update - I use CKAN, I highly recommend it.

Though @blackrack may decide to have a second download (I'd assume) for earlier releases if it's a fundamental rewrite?

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...