[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

[SpacedInvader]

I'd say just start from the list in the OP, and then move on to any that aren't listed in the OP (which will be motivation for me to finally put planet-adding support in RSS...)

I guess that would make sense...

You'll be surprised how few images there are for distant planets (read: not Mars and Venus).

I know some at least exist... I've seen more than a few on various PBS and other science shows in the past. It may even work to find someone else's decent interpretation of them and use that if possible.

[Guest]

I guess that would make sense...

I know some at least exist... I've seen more than a few on various PBS and other science shows in the past. It may even work to find someone else's decent interpretation of them and use that if possible.

although not the best source i am sure, this site seems to have some useful images of the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) here: http://planetpixelemporium.com/planets.html

Author states:

"You are a software author who has created a Solar System simulator and you want to use my planet texture maps in your program. Since the primary intent of your use is to create real time renderings utilizing the planet texture maps as a resource in your software product, this is an acceptable use under my copyright terms."

I'm sure you know of this source, but if not...: http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/

They state:

"JPL Image Use Policy

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

1. that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.

2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."

3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied. "

further along it states:

"* Some image and video materials on JPL public web sites are owned by organizations other than JPL or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption. Ownership of images and video by parties other than JPL and NASA is noted in the caption material with each image. "

i dont think RSS counts as commercial use, as we all would be "users for personal use" would we not

Edited April 20, 2014 by Guest

[ThorBeorn]

Is it possible to have RSS just as it is with 10x resized Kerbin instead of Earth? I'm not talking about 10x Kerbol system here. I like the "Real solar system", but I think I prefer an Earth sized Kerbin instead of the real Earth at the moment.

Thanks.

[NathanKell]

Comment out the three lines in the cfg that mention png files.

[SpacedInvader]

although not the best source i am sure, this site seems to have some useful images of the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) here: http://planetpixelemporium.com/planets.html

Author states:

"You are a software author who has created a Solar System simulator and you want to use my planet texture maps in your program. Since the primary intent of your use is to create real time renderings utilizing the planet texture maps as a resource in your software product, this is an acceptable use under my copyright terms."

I'm sure you know of this source, but if not...: http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/

They state:

"JPL Image Use Policy

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

1. that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.

2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."

3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied. "

further along it states:

"* Some image and video materials on JPL public web sites are owned by organizations other than JPL or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption. Ownership of images and video by parties other than JPL and NASA is noted in the caption material with each image. "

i dont think RSS counts as commercial use, as we all would be "users for personal use" would we not

Tracking up the data path from that site takes you to another artist's site with more maps, and you can go even up to sites like the International Jupiter Watch, all of which contain various amounts of imagery. So far I've found 6 different maps for Io and Europa, but they are not only extremely blurry, but very low resolution. My guess is that we may not be able to use much of this as is, but maybe with some processing and a little artistic license, we'll get something that looks good enough to view from orbit. As for licensing, most everything I've see is either free for public, non-commercial use, free for use with some attribution, or up to the original owner of the image to decide. I don't think RSS is in any way commercial, so I think we're fine for the most part, and I don't even think permissions would be hard to come by from image owners, though I'm not really sure just how much effort I want to put into tracking down a lot of people to ask if we can use their image... If it becomes too much, we may just use their work as a guide to create something non-photoreal, but at least real looking. I should also point out that the USGS has a lot of maps of the less commonly imaged bodies like Jupiter's moons which might be good to work with.

EDIT: Can anyone with better photoshop-fu than me describe a way to get rid of the shadows on the moon's craters? I've been trying to use an inverted copy of the image selectively blended to "white out" the black shadows and then texturize and darken the resulting white marks to approximate a match with the light side of each crater. The result seems like it works somewhat, but I've noticed a few issues which I need to fix:

1: This one I don't get at all, but the scaled space color map has it's lighting offset by 90° to the East, so that the sun is actually shining on the day / night transition and the opposite day / night transition is squarely in the center of the dark side of the sphere.

2: The actual light recorded on the sun facing side of the craters is quite bright near the poles, so much so that it make the resulting globe look odd. I'm thinking I may not only need to push up the shadows, but tone down the whites a little to get a more even gray across the whole surface.

3: For some reason, when I'm trying to blend the two images together, I often end up with some weird overhangs near the edge of the map, leading to a clear wrap line on the finished globe. I'm really not sure what's going on here because I'm definitely working with two identically sized images, but one or the other keeps drifting off the edge somehow.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

So the last three images are using AndreyATGB's colormap, but corrected to the KSP requirements of being horizontally flipped and then shifted 90° West. There is some strange lighting at the poles for both color maps, and both have the same 90° East angle of incidence for the surface lighting. I didn't include the redone color map for the last three because I feel like I might need permission to re-release it...

EDIT #2: I guess the question now is whether or not I should keep working on my darker version of the color map, or if AndreyATGB's corrected for surface shift is going to be good?

Edited April 21, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[RaccoonTOF]

Davjet, I was having the same problem and tracked it down to using KSP Mod Admin to launch. You can still use KSPMA for installing and managing mods, but it appears that the old bug with ModuleManager from KSPMA is affecting the RSS configs, even though it handles the rest of the MM configs fine now. Just use the main KSP.exe to actually start the game, and you should be fine. (If you aren't using KSPMA, then I'm afraid I can't help much...other than suspecting it is some other ModuleManager-related conflict).

[AndreyATGB]

@SpacedInvader That looks exactly like mine did. I haven't edited the photos at all, I was just playing around with the config and since I changed so much, figured I'd post it anyway. Not sure what causes the weirdness at the poles for example and the whole Moon doesn't seem very spherical when using custom maps for it. It looks much better in the latest RSS from git though, not nearly as weird at the poles but it's facing the wrong way (farside=nearside and vice versa).

[SpacedInvader]

@SpacedInvader That looks exactly like mine did. I haven't edited the photos at all, I was just playing around with the config and since I changed so much, figured I'd post it anyway. Not sure what causes the weirdness at the poles for example and the whole Moon doesn't seem very spherical when using custom maps for it. It looks much better in the latest RSS from git though, not nearly as weird at the poles but it's facing the wrong way (farside=nearside and vice versa).

The thing is that KSP flips the maps horizontally and then needs them to be shifted 90° west for everything to line up. If you pay close attention to direction specific features like the horseshoe shaped crater that shown in both versions in my album that is shaped like a 'U' pointing at about 030°, I'm betting yours is flipped so that same feature would be pointing at about 330° instead. The 90° shift is one I had to figure out for Mars, but seems to hold true across all of the planets so far, and is specifically implemented so the correct latitude and longitude coordinates work within the game. I never tried your config, but my guess is that if you try to place yourself at a known landmark like the Apollo 15 landing site, you can't go there just by landing at the correct coordinates. This is exactly what I was dealing with when I had "lost" the Valles Marineris when working on Mars. It was there, but because of the map reversal and the 90° shift, it was not anywhere near where I thought it might be. So, back on the topic of what I did to your map, all I did was flip it horizontally and then move the left 25% and shift it to the right. The result is that, aside from features pointing the other way, it will look almost identical to your original, but have correct coordinates associated with it.

As for the spherical thing, I do see the normal map's effects, but I'm not seeing that it looks significantly out of shape. I'm guessing that the overly bright poles are the result of multiple layers of slices of the planet getting lit by the sun at the same time, resulting in a spike in luminosity at those points. That being said, I'm still working with 5.5 as my dev build, so I haven't gotten to the new v6 just yet. Now that most of the available mods have been upgraded to 23.5 and the new RPL is out, I might just update both my dev build and my play build to the newer version. What has me concerned right now is the 90° shift in sun lighting for the scaled space map, though maybe that will be something that's solved with the newer version.

EDIT: With your permission, I'll upload the corrected color and normal maps which you can use with the height map I shared a page or two ago, and hopefully that will correct your issues with the wrong side facing the wrong way.

[SpacedInvader]

After a lot of thought, I think its better to use the Kaguya color map. This is partly because it's the only full coverage color image I've been able to find and so better represents the actual lunar coloration, but also partly because I don't think I have the photoshop-fu to properly get rid of the shadowing in all of the craters without making the thing look fairly disgusting. Does anyone disagree?

@AndreyATGB: I'm still waiting for your permission to use these, but I'm also starting to question if your statement that you didn't modify them means that you don't really need to give me permission?

Now, I think I'll be done with the improved topography and color / normal maps for the inner planets (excluding Earth) by the end of this week. I already have a good color map for Mars and only need to create a normal map, I have elevation and a color map for Venus, though the latter is going to need some touch up, and I'm in the process of acquiring the Messenger mission data for Mercury, which should have both elevation and color data for me to work with. As NathanKell has requested, I'll be offering both a high resolution option (8192x4096 for height and color with normal probably being fine at 2048x1024) and a lower resolution option (4096x2048 height map, 2048x1024 color, and 1024x512 normal). A disclaimer though, as I am not going to tweak any of the PQS settings beyond what is necessary to get them into the game and establish the correct elevation ranges. This is because I will be waiting to work on the higher level detail until Nathan can get the revamped loader in place for enhanced tweakability. That being said, these files will definitely offer much better terrain than what is currently available.

A note on the Moon as well. I do plan on disabling the voronoi craters for the Moon when the new loader is finished, at least if and until I can find a way to drastically shrink the size of the output craters. This is because the output craters are quite large and do not exist in reality. The high resolution height map, at least in the 8192x4096 size has enough detail to generate craters of the size that the mod outputs, so they are both redundant and unrealistic. That being said, if I can find a way to shrink their diameter significantly, maybe we can use them to generate the multitude of very small craters that cover much of the Moon's surface.

@NathanKell: Considering you've already put work into generating a pretty good terrain for Earth, I've held off on doing it in favor of the other planets, but it's also probably the easiest to find data on. The question I have for you is whether or not I should just let it be in favor of other planets, or if I should spend some time trying to improve it?

Edited April 21, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[Starwaster]

@SpacedInvader That looks exactly like mine did. I haven't edited the photos at all, I was just playing around with the config and since I changed so much, figured I'd post it anyway. Not sure what causes the weirdness at the poles for example and the whole Moon doesn't seem very spherical when using custom maps for it. It looks much better in the latest RSS from git though, not nearly as weird at the poles but it's facing the wrong way (farside=nearside and vice versa).

What weirdness? You mean how the texture is stretched at the poles? That's to counteract polar 'pinching' of the texture coordinates. Because of the way spherical objects are (usually) uv mapped, the poles tend get distorted.

[regex]

I want to thank everyone who was working on the recent PQS editing extravaganza for showing those of us who didn't know how to do it, and also to NathanKell for explaining the PQS system enough to help me grasp it. Here's some screenshots of the next 6.4:1 Kerbin using the stock heightmaps. I think it looks pretty nice.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[regex]

Also, I asked this earlier, is there a fix for the ocean textures being nearly transparent? Or maybe someone could point me towards the relevant code I should be toying with?

[AndreyATGB]

Go ahead and do whatever you want with the images SpacedInvader. As I said the stuff I put together was for personal use, so they're just images I found by googling around.

[NathanKell]

SpacedInvader: See here for dealing with normal maps (and the 90 degree light offset): https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/PQS-Textures-and-Heightmaps

(And thanks for doing lowrez too!)

There must be some way to shrink voronoi size--I seem to recall seeing something about it. But we can't much increase the frequency, since when I bumped it up it sucked up 500mb more of RAM!

Regarding Earth, I would suggest putting at least some effort in; it's the planet most players will see the most, since most missions (excepting stuff launched from EPL) will begin on Earth, and many will also end there.

Plus planes, of course.

regex, that's super impressive! I wonder what using those tweaks in full-on RSS would do...

Regarding ocean textures, at one point I was looking at likely PQSMods but didn't turn up anything obvious. However, rbray is replacing land shaders and soon I think also ocean, so we'll just switch to that...

[SpacedInvader]

SpacedInvader: See here for dealing with normal maps (and the 90 degree light offset): https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/PQS-Textures-and-Heightmaps

(And thanks for doing lowrez too!)

So, here's where my lack of photoshop skills is going to show up... When you describe inverting the R etc, does this step happen before or after the normal map has been generated by the Nvidia plugin? Also, I'm having an issue with the normal map for Mars for sure, and potentially the Moon while using these maps corrected for position, though it's hard for me to tell with the latter. Apparently, KSP is refusing to use the new normal maps I've been generating, instead happily wrapping a photoreal image of Mars over Duna's landscape. Is this the result of not yet having converted the normal maps using the process you describe in the Wiki, or could something else be going on here?

There must be some way to shrink voronoi size--I seem to recall seeing something about it. But we can't much increase the frequency, since when I bumped it up it sucked up 500mb more of RAM!

So far I've been able to flatten them out, make them steeper, affect their ridge shape, and alter their coloration, but I can't seem to get them to shrink. That being said, it might lie in finding the right seed value as changing that definitely had an effect on the output size / shape, just nothing I've been able to predict as of yet.

Regarding Earth, I would suggest putting at least some effort in; it's the planet most players will see the most, since most missions (excepting stuff launched from EPL) will begin on Earth, and many will also end there.

Plus planes, of course.

I'm happy to put some effort into Earth, I just didn't want to step on your toes after the work you'd already done.

EDIT: So apparently, the normal map problem is a little more complicated than just using the wrong map for the planet. The game actually seems to be using both the stock and the new maps together. Thinking the new map wasn't being implemented at all, I commented out the color map line of the config to see how well the surface variations lined up with the stock surface and the end result was that the surface did match up with stock, but was very much smoothed out. I then went back and commented out the normal map lines and the result was a stock looking scaled space moon with much stronger features. I then went back to using custom normal and color and could easily find features like the canyons of the Mun imprinted in the Moon. I will try to do the normal map conversion tomorrow to see if that fixes this issue.

EDIT2: Solution for Moon facing wrong way: initialRotation = 25

Edited April 22, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[NathanKell]

SpacedInvader: I mean, once your normal map is all finished (and looking purply), and you would normally be done. *Then* do the channel swaps and channel inversions.

That sounds *very* weird about the maps not switching in. I'll dig a bit about what shader (and textures) those bodies are using.

Re: voronoi craters, is this with the planet editor?

Re: earth, I'm all for stepping if it makes it better.

I basically got it to something more presentable and said "ok, release time!" rather than burying myself in it...

[SpacedInvader]

SpacedInvader: I mean, once your normal map is all finished (and looking purply), and you would normally be done. *Then* do the channel swaps and channel inversions.

That sounds *very* weird about the maps not switching in. I'll dig a bit about what shader (and textures) those bodies are using.

Re: voronoi craters, is this with the planet editor?

Re: earth, I'm all for stepping if it makes it better.

I basically got it to something more presentable and said "ok, release time!" rather than burying myself in it...

Here are some pics of the effects I'm talking about with just a flat grey color map to make them easier to see:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

As you can see, with the custom normal and color in place, you can still make out the surface features of the stock body. That being said, I think we may be missing a map here. The level of detail that the Mun's map gets when you disable the custom normal map, combined with the face that you can still see features with it in place might indicate that they are using both a bump map AND a normal map for added detail. One thing I would point out that also might support this is that your earth map doesn't create any actual bumps that I can see even though it does correctly simulate slope lighting, so maybe there is another map needed to add height variation to the surface.

Now, I think I should probably back up and ask exactly which settings I should be using to generate the normal map in the first place because it's entirely possible that I'm going wrong somewhere there and then that's why it's not working. I've been using the following settings:

Add height to normal map

Wrap

4 sample filter

Min Z = 0

Scale = 100

Average RGB height source

Alpha field unchanged

Anyway, for the craters, yes this was with the planet editor, and as for Earth, I'll get started on looking for some decent data.

EDIT: So I think I found something that may be part of the problem. When I go to close out my newly saved normal map with the alpha channel added, I get a message saying not all of the data was saved because the format doesn't support it. Then when I reload it, its got no alpha channel. Does PNG support alpha channels?

EDIT2: Switching to GIMP and using it's normal map plugin got rid of the alpha channel truncation issue and significantly enhanced the surface appearance, but I still can't get rid of that stock Mun surface still bleeding through into the new normal map...

EDIT3: Also, even with the corrected normal map, the light from the sun is still being rendered 90° east of where the sun is actually hitting the planet.

EDIT4: I'm also starting to think that a scale of 100 might be a little much...

Edited April 23, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[NathanKell]

[preface note: you can embed the album by doing ['imgur]L5A9K[/imgur] (use the short album ID you get from the album's address).]

That's *weird*. I'll check out the shader. I doubt they're using both a bump map and a normal map, since all a bump map is, is a stripped-down normal map (a bump shader computes a pixel's effective normal by computing a new normal based on original normal and bumpmap value; a normal map just allows you direct, rather than mediated, control over the final normal).

Scaled space meshes' deformation is determined by the PQS; if the PQS is not very hilly, then the scaled space mesh will be flat (due to RSS warping ss meshes to the PQS). The derformation of the scaled space mesh has nothing to do with the color or normal map you supply.

Regarding generating normal maps: I would suggest CrazyBump, first of all; nVidia's PS plugin is notoriously poor for this.

You need SuperPNG (free). It's a much better PNG import-export plugin. PS handles PNGs *very* strangely (and poorly) natively.

[SpacedInvader]

[preface note: you can embed the album by doing ['imgur]L5A9K[/imgur] (use the short album ID you get from the album's address).]

That's *weird*. I'll check out the shader. I doubt they're using both a bump map and a normal map, since all a bump map is, is a stripped-down normal map (a bump shader computes a pixel's effective normal by computing a new normal based on original normal and bumpmap value; a normal map just allows you direct, rather than mediated, control over the final normal).

Scaled space meshes' deformation is determined by the PQS; if the PQS is not very hilly, then the scaled space mesh will be flat (due to RSS warping ss meshes to the PQS). The derformation of the scaled space mesh has nothing to do with the color or normal map you supply.

Regarding generating normal maps: I would suggest CrazyBump, first of all; nVidia's PS plugin is notoriously poor for this.

You need SuperPNG (free). It's a much better PNG import-export plugin. PS handles PNGs *very* strangely (and poorly) natively.

I've been using the album embedding for a while, I just had a second image not in the album to share.

I've read recently that some people use bump maps for rough terrain shaping and then normal maps for fine tuning it. That being said, the fact that the scaled space mesh is draped over the PQS makes this all the more confusing because I've got the game using the custom height map for the moon, so any PQS output should conform to that and not to the stock munar surface. As for showing the color map in the album, I included that to show that the detail was not coming from the color map, but rather the normal map, though the last picture I shared indicated that to me pretty well.

I do like crazybump, but I'm just not in a place to drop $100 on a program I'll probably use for a month and never touch again. I'll have a look at SuperPNG, but again, it looks like GIMP is handling the PNG outputs correctly anyway, unless you think the 90° shift in lighting is still because of the PNG issues even with the change to GIMP?

[NathanKell]

Right, I know you embedded an album; the issue it it pops up with scrollbars and other issues. If you use the forum's native way of embedding an album rather than linking to it, it comes out much neater:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

You're thinking of displacement maps, I think. Bump maps only ever do the same thing normal maps do.

Try upping your deformities to quite large values (1000000 deformity, say) and launch KSP. The ScaledSpace mesh should be spiky. You can look at Gilly or Bop for an example of this.

Sorry, for some reason I thought CrazyBump was free. Maybe SSBump? http://ssbump-generator.yolasite.com/download.php

The 90d shift in lighting is due to channels not being swapped and inverted. You need to do those changes (on the wiki) or you will get the lighting weirdness.

If you want an example of what the normal map should look like, check out the one for the moon I added to github a week or two back, based on my grabbing AndreyATGB's and doing those documented changes to it.

[SpacedInvader]

Right, I know you embedded an album; the issue it it pops up with scrollbars and other issues. If you use the forum's native way of embedding an album rather than linking to it, it comes out much neater:

http://imgur.com/a/L5A9K

You're thinking of displacement maps, I think. Bump maps only ever do the same thing normal maps do.

Try upping your deformities to quite large values (1000000 deformity, say) and launch KSP. The ScaledSpace mesh should be spiky. You can look at Gilly or Bop for an example of this.

Sorry, for some reason I thought CrazyBump was free. Maybe SSBump? http://ssbump-generator.yolasite.com/download.php

The 90d shift in lighting is due to channels not being swapped and inverted. You need to do those changes (on the wiki) or you will get the lighting weirdness.

If you want an example of what the normal map should look like, check out the one for the moon I added to github a week or two back, based on my grabbing AndreyATGB's and doing those documented changes to it.

Hmm.. I've been using the imgur /imgur format all this time thinking that was what was supposed to be native. I guess I'll start using the url version instead.

As for the deformity test, I cranked it up to 1000000 as you suggested and it had absolutely no effect on the scaled space mesh when it really had an effect on the terrain. I know this for a fact because I ran into a mountain while on a 500km orbit, but based on the scaled space mesh, I was high above the surface.

For the normal map process, I must be doing something wrong while creating it, because I've been following your instructions in the wiki as best as I could. I created the normal map, then selected the red, inverted it, created an alpha channel and copied the red to it, then selected the green, inverted it and copied that to red and also blue and then saved it. My maps still come out purplish... I will have a try with SSBump, but I'm not holding my breath.

[SpacedInvader]

Ok, well I figured out the normal generation process finally... it's a little more involved on GIMP, but there is a way to do it properly. You need to decompose the image, then invert the red and green channels and then reassign them properly when recomposing it. This only leaves the scaled space mesh issue to deal with. Also you need to invert the X or Y (can't remember which already, but one needs it) to ensure that the depth axis is correctly going into the surface rather than out of it.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SpacedInvader

[SpacedInvader]

Ok, so I've made a little progress in dealing with the scaled space mesh issue. Using the ScaledSpace updater built into the planet editor rebuilds the mesh to match the PQS output. There are some problems with this, however, which I haven't been able to get around. The first is that this change is only temporary, resetting on the next load of the game. The second is that this also defaults the game back to the stock color map, though not the stock normal map. Though I don't think this specific approach is going to work for us, it does provide us with a proper solution to work towards. Somehow we need to initiate a permanent, or at least an on-load, update to the scaled space mesh through the RSS config. I thought there seemed to be a way to do it based on my reading of the source, but I may be totally wrong.

[jebandhisfriends]

hey people

i may did something wrong but i havent got any parts and when i added real fuels i couldnt start the game anymore its stuck on squad utility trust block somthing like that but what did i wrong i did get a warning of the aaa toolbar but i couldnt find it.. if somebody knows what to do pleas help haha

thanx

[manuelasa1999]

What is this bug: http:

If i desinstall RSS it works OK but when i have it installed and go to the Space Center i can only see this black screen, I tried to download RSS again and install it but it doesnt work...

Maybe it´s caused by a incompabilty between the mods this is my game folder with the mods:

Also i launched the game again and this happens:

Edited April 23, 2014 by manuelasa1999