[1.1.2] Kerbin-Side (v1.1.0) & Supplements

[Eskandare]

3 hours ago, AlphaAsh said:

Kerbin-Side Complete puts heavy demands on a GPU. There's been a lot of discussion about this throughout the thread and it might help to do some trawling. Regulars to the thread are probably in a far more (unbiased) position to help you as I tend to be very dismissive of the subject now.

I just finished updating the gantry mesh for Top Secret! and I think there is a performance boost from the lighter meshes, but I'm not releasing it yet because I just made a new 'hill' for Kilo-Sierra-Papa and I think the hill mesh has too many faces. I'm going to play with the limited dissolve face tool in blender to see if I can make it performance friendly.

[colmo]

I'm not a static maker, or modder at all, I just write ideas in places people might find them useful.

I can confirm the performance hit with KS - I have a beefy i7-5820k PC running Linux (I haven't overclocked it...yet), but the GPU is 'only' a GTX 660. I note framerate (with EVE and Scatterer) drops from 30-40fps to 20-30 fps the moment the Kerbal Kampus (extra buildings around KSC) becomes visible. I thought it was Scatterer at first (it has a performance cost of its own) but it still happened after it was removed. A new GPU is on the wish list...

[Nightside]

 

4 hours ago, colmo said:

I'm not a static maker, or modder at all, I just write ideas in places people might find them useful.

I can confirm the performance hit with KS - I have a beefy i7-5820k PC running Linux (I haven't overclocked it...yet), but the GPU is 'only' a GTX 660. I note framerate (with EVE and Scatterer) drops from 30-40fps to 20-30 fps the moment the Kerbal Kampus (extra buildings around KSC) becomes visible. I thought it was Scatterer at first (it has a performance cost of its own) but it still happened after it was removed. A new GPU is on the wish list...

On the flip side, I have had very good performance flying around the Kerbin Kampus on a laptop with an imaginary GPU (flying a kerbal plane that is, not my laptop).

Pre 1.1 I lived in the yellow clock and low resolution land and never dreamed I could add Kerbinside, etc so I can't compare it to pre 1.1 performance.

 

Another question, are there any dirt runway statics or bases out there? I love the look of a dirt runway but the KSC tier one is just too silly.

[colmo]

@Nightside, check out the BAD-T Arenas by @tetryds

[Kerbal Dynamics]

I think I found a bug/glitch (Whatever you want to call it) at Green Coast. The radar thing is floating up in the air above the airfield surface.

[AlphaAsh]

On 11/06/2014 at 6:50 PM, AlphaAsh said:

Q - Some buildings are floating. Some are under the ground.

A - Change terrain detail to High. Kerbin-Side does not support default or low terrain settings.

From the FAQ in the OP.

[Kerbal Dynamics]

3 minutes ago, AlphaAsh said:

From the FAQ in the OP.

Oh Guess who didn't read the FAQ then!

 

But my terrain detail was already at maximum.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Kerban Aircraft Industries

[MrMeeb]

I wasn't really sure whether to post this in the KK thread or this thread, but seeing as it's regarding the launchsites from KS Complete I guess this is more suitable. 

I've been playing career recently and I was wondering what the criteria is for unlocking a new launchsite? I've noticed that lots of the launchsites seem seem to be openable through the use of funds, but others (like the Island Runway and another that's name escapes me) don't appear to be openable. Any guidance?

[AlphaAsh]

10 hours ago, Kerban Aircraft Industries said:

Oh Guess who didn't read the FAQ then!

 

But my terrain detail was already at maximum.

I'll have a look at Green Coast. What other mods do you use?

25 minutes ago, MrMeeb said:

I wasn't really sure whether to post this in the KK thread or this thread, but seeing as it's regarding the launchsites from KS Complete I guess this is more suitable. 

I've been playing career recently and I was wondering what the criteria is for unlocking a new launchsite? I've noticed that lots of the launchsites seem seem to be openable through the use of funds, but others (like the Island Runway and another that's name escapes me) don't appear to be openable. Any guidance?

Because some are already/always open. If the light's green, click the base in the launchsite selector, then click set as launchsite in the base manager.

Edited May 11, 2016 by AlphaAsh

[Enceos]

1 hour ago, AlphaAsh said:

I'll have a look at Green Coast. What other mods do you use?

Because some are already/always open. If the light's green, click the base in the launchsite selector, then click set as launchsite in the base manager.

I know that Kopernicus shifts the terrain a bit, we can't do anything about that.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I have seen that it my interest has been brought up here once before that I can see.

 

I love this mod.  I also love the rescaled systems, namely 64k.  When I load up with both, the objects are not in the right place, due to the sphere being 6.4x larger.

 

I get that the positions are off in multiple ways, but my biggest problem is getting the various objects back to the correct spacing relative to each other.  Once I get that, I can add or subtract from all of the coordinates and keep the same spacing (at least from what I understand).

 

But my bigger problem is converting the coordinates to get the correct relative spacing to begin with.  I have no idea how to even begin to convert the coordinates.

 

Does anyone know the math for converting the coordinates from the stock size coordinate sphere to one that is 6.4x larger?  Again, I fully understand that the group positions will probably be off, but that is the smaller issue to me, and I am fully willing to do all the adjustment and all.  I just need some help with the math.

[Enceos]

@xx_mortekai_xx Basically you'll need to find out the correct multiple by which you will multiply the current altitude of the facilities to bring them up to the surface of Kerbin.

You'll need to launch a vehicle and press Ctrl+K to bring up the editing tools. Then go to the local instances tab and select one of the building, click one and the camera will refocus and show the properties of that building.

Take a note somewhere of the 'Alt.' number, click 'Snap to Terrain' and then fine tune the number until you place the building just right on the surface. Divide the resulting number by the original number to obtain the multiple.

Then make this MM patch.

Spoiler

// Planets resized with Sigma Dimensions already support KK

@STATIC[*] :NEEDS[!SigDim] :FINAL

{

    @Instances:HAS[#RadiusOffset[*]]

    {

        @RadiusOffset *= 1.32 // the multiple of the altitude by which to raise the buildings.

    }

}

Or you can fine tune everything by hand in the game and save the changes.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Enceos
MM batch processing

[AlphaAsh]

4 hours ago, Enceos said:

@xx_mortekai_xx Basically you'll need to find out the correct multiple by which you will multiply the current altitude of the facilities to bring them up to the surface of Kerbin.

You'll need to launch a vehicle and press Ctrl+K to bring up the editing tools. Then go to the local instances tab and select one of the building, click one and the camera will refocus and show the properties of that building.

Take a note somewhere of the 'Alt.' number, click 'Snap to Terrain' and then fine tune the number until you place the building just right on the surface. Divide the resulting number by the original number to obtain the multiple.

Then make this MM patch.

  Reveal hidden contents

// Planets resized with Sigma Dimensions already support KK

@STATIC[*] :NEEDS[!SigDim] :FINAL

{

    @Instances:HAS[#RadiusOffset[*]]

    {

        @RadiusOffset *= 1.32 // the multiple of the altitude by which to raise the buildings.

    }

}

Or you can fine tune everything by hand in the game and save the changes.

 

 

Keep in mind radial position drift. Bases often have more than one static, sometimes 'joined' at an edge and this method of replacement will result in gaps between statics.

[Enceos]

3 minutes ago, AlphaAsh said:

Keep in mind radial position drift. Bases often have more than one static, sometimes 'joined' at an edge and this method of replacement will result in gaps between statics.

The math calculator in my mind can't find a good solution to this problem, only handwork 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Enceos

[AlphaAsh]

1 minute ago, Enceos said:

The math calculator in my mind can't find a good solution to this problem, only handwork 

Good discussion on this issue starts with this post:

 

[Enceos]

On 16.03.2016 at 7:26 AM, Sigma88 said:

the altitude is pretty good... the pieces are all spread around like it was expected, but there's nothing I can do about that

this is a 6.4x resize of kerbin with landscape set to 0.25x

 

@AlphaAsh he tried )

I might come up with an elegant solution, but I don't understand what each of the RadialPosition numbers represent (especially the Z value)

Edited May 12, 2016 by Enceos

[Sigma88]

@xx_mortekai_xx @AlphaAsh @Enceos

SigmaDimensions should take care of repositioning the statics to the correct altitude, what it can't do however is change the longitude and latitude of the statics.

this will result in statics spread around in bigger planets and clustered together in smaller planets

if you are using the latest 64k this means that you are using SigmaDimensions as well, so the altitude is already fixed.

what you can do, is find the correct latitude/longitude for the statics and overwrite it with a patch.

if you find find all the right values you might consider sending the cfg to @Paul Kingtiger so that it can be added directly into 64k

I can't add it in SD because those values will only work for a 6.4x resize, so they could fit perfectly in 64k

[ShotgunNinja]

I had some ideas about this, posted in the other thread. Here they are:

• convert the points to some form of spherical coordinates (theta, phi)
• group the points in a grid (the clusters), fine-tune the grid size until the clusters make sense (eg: a city is inside a single cluster)
• for each cluster
  • find the center (by averaging all the points)
  • scale down all the points, relative to the center
• convert everything back to euclidean points

[Sigma88]

5 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

I had some ideas about this, posted in the other thread. Here they are:

• convert the points to some form of spherical coordinates (theta, phi)
• group the points in a grid (the clusters), fine-tune the grid size until the clusters make sense (eg: a city is inside a single cluster)
• for each cluster
  • find the center (by averaging all the points)
  • scale down all the points, relative to the center
• convert everything back to euclidean points

this may actually be doable, provided 2 things:

1- statics can be identified as belonging to the same "cluster"

2- modulemanager can do the math required (I'm not sure mm can do sin / cos I'll have to ask)

[ShotgunNinja]

Ah, sure ModuleManager can't do that. You need custom code.

The identification in clusters is the tricky part, clustering algorithms are complex but if you use a regular grid over the sphere where each cell is big enough to maximize the chances of containing a whole 'cluster of buildings (eg: city)' while at the same time small enough to maximize the chances of not containing two different clusters of buildings.

[Sigma88]

3 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

Ah, sure ModuleManager can't do that. You need custom code.

The identification in clusters is the tricky part, clustering algorithms are complex but if you use a regular grid over the sphere where each cell is big enough to maximize the chances of containing a whole 'cluster of buildings (eg: city)' while at the same time small enough to maximize the chances of not containing two different clusters of buildings.

well, I'm not doing THAT

clustering the statics should be as easy as giving them an ID in the cfg, possibly numeric so that I can check it with MM

and regarding the math, I'm not ready to rule that out just yet

[ShotgunNinja]

How many objects are we talking about? If you can do the clustering by hand you have 95% of the work done.

[Sigma88]

6 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

How many objects are we talking about? If you can do the clustering by hand you have 95% of the work done.

no idea, but that would have to be an addition on the mod's part.

I don't really remember how positions are specified right now, but either you put all statics needed to build a base in the same node, or give each of those the same unique ID (numerical) so that I can check it with MM

but first I need to make sure mm can do cosins and sins, otherwise this will be a waste of time

Edited May 12, 2016 by Sigma88

[ShotgunNinja]

I'll give you an idea of the algorithm, once you have the clusters. IMO it is a bad idea to even think of using ModuleManager for this, but if you manage to do that with MM alone, then you are a monster

 

Spoiler

// this is for each cluster, p is the original point converted to spherical coordinates, eg: like this:
//   p = to_spherical(original_point)

avg_p = [0,0] // theta, phi
count = 0

foreach(p in cluster)
{
  avg_p.theta += p.theta
  avg_p.phi += p.phi
  ++count
}

avg_p.theta /= count
avg_p.phi /= count

foreach(p in cluster)
{
  q = p - avg_p
  q /= 6.4
  p = q + avg_p
  p *= 6.4 //< this is the final result
}

// bonus: now re-adapt all the points to the heightfield
// bonus: do it recursively, first by city then by building

 

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by ShotgunNinja
little change

[AlphaAsh]

1 hour ago, Sigma88 said:

is find the correct latitude/longitude for the statics and overwrite it with a patch.

Alas no. The RefLatitude and RefLongitude in an instance are just that, references. Static placement relies on PQSCities, which uses radial positions. And on a scaled up body, I'd assume you'd need more precision or still risk drift.

Edited May 12, 2016 by AlphaAsh