Gameslinx

It is random based on a curve, meaning you can control where it is applied. Squad does use this, but not to its full effect. They really need better heightmaps in order to increase the diversity of terrain and improve the overall look, which is what we want.

Then you're using the wrong pqsmods and the wrong settings. Again, check my planets and planet heightmaps - that's how I get around the pixellation.

It definitely is a mix of that and a lack of pqsmods. The pixellation is due to a high resolution heightmap coupled with no pqsmods. You NEED pqsmods for planets of large size otherwise you're stuck with rounded edges. I see what you mean with the coastal, but I can't see any shine on it, which made me think it was land. And keep in mind that Mars is HUGE, 1 pixel on your heightmap will cover miles of land, missing out entire hills and even sand dunes which can be made using PQSmods. It is a lack of detail on the heightmap and a lack of pqsmods.

GPO has updated to 3.2. Important Notice - File structure changes. New dependencies. Do not use CKAN until you hear otherwise. Updated Kopernicus dependency to 1.3.1-6 Added "Screamer" which will politely let you know when YOU'RE USING INCOMPATIBLE MODS Replaced LSM with Sigma Loading Screens. Credit Sigma88. Fixed Sojos volcano Facelifted Nievis Improved Niebos rings

It looks good at a glance, but if you strip away the visuals (EVE and scatterer), the planet has no terrain detail at all on the desert and grassy regions apart from the canyon. The ocean doesn't cover the land which is coloured blue - it falls short. The planet isn't complete and lacks detail, which is why it doesn't look good from orbit or surface. You can tell a planet is good on the surface from its orbital look if you can see the normal map.

For others, they wouldn't have to turn the graphics down. Point is, stock planets need to look better and this doesn't have to be higher res textures. Better terrain and a texture update without resize would have no additional performance impact.

This isn't really the thread for it, but definitely do a quick google search for TWG's tutorials i mentioned earlier. They are what got me going. You will need Notepad++ and Gimp (both are free). Notepad++ is extremely useful for config editing, and Gimp is a very powerful image editor. Steep learning curve, but practise makes perfect The average PC has around 8GB of RAM. KSP uses hardly any of that amount. Bettering the planets will have a minuscule impact on the performance and RAM usage. If there is any impact, just turn down the texture quality...

I haven't made them yet. I'm planning to. I made another speedart video a while ago using the proper tools, which i shall link.

The White Guardian has created some (relatively outdated) tutorials which do still work on how to get a basic planet up and running. I have agreed to expand upon these with videos in the future.

wh- What? What sort of points are those?? For your first point, I go by my rule that I will bundle everything for the mod to function in one download. This eliminates nearly all cases of bad installation AND difficulty for the user. It's all about being user friendly. Nothing stops me from bundling Kopernicus, and in this case it is actually better, and this is exactly why I do it - the mod still works if the dependency updates. I don't have any control over the .netkan, i physically cannot change it. I recommend manually installing ANY planet mod. It just so happens that Kopernicus updated and this isn't accounted for in the .netkan because of major core changes to kopernicus which mean i need to rewrite a lot of my configs, which i no easy feat. For your second point, that's exactly what i'm doing right now.

Exactly. Better terrain is needed. Check some of my screenshots from the surface on my GPO thread or AfK thread

I don't mean scatterer or EVE (those lag). Higher res planet textures will use more RAM (most people have 8 or even 16 now. Ksp uses 3, stock) but won't impact performance much if at all.

Things we don't need like the "making his-" It took me two hours with the wrong tools to make a good looking planet comparable or one that exceeds the other planets. And a message to squad, someone has already offered to make planets for you FOR FREE. I am also willing to do this, but it seems as if you don't care at all how the planets look. They're terrible and are in desperate need of a retexture. We don't need more parts. We need better planets. (Also to those saying that it's about how the planets are, not how they look, remember when squad retextured some of their plane parts? Yeah. The same argument could be applied there, but we're all happy that they look better).

It depends. There aren't really any advantages in switching to the new Kopernicus for you guys, so it isn't a massive priority. It depends on whether I can get the oceanFX node working again or not

It isn't up to modders to develop squad's game for them. We make mods to improve the game and build upon it, but for those who don't like using mods and in general, the stock planets are not the best looking. Anything with a large amount of features, is a more accurate description. Paint and Word are the worst of the worst to use, which is why I used them to prove my point.

Let me ask you - what do you think of the stock planets? If I was to answer my own question, I would (constructively, of course!) say that they're... Not exactly in tip top condition. There are many things that can be improved about them, such as the actual terrain, the detail or how Gilly and bop look like mud balls instead of asteroids. However this isn't just about Gilly or bop. This thread is about how badly the planets need a makeover. As some of you may know, I'm a planet modder. I make planets. Now put into perspective, I would like to compare Kerbin (and also duna) with a planet I created. The reason why I am comparing two planets is because squad didn't actually 'make' kerbin. Kerbin's colour texture comes from the Libnoise first example, not squad. Now then. Assuming that duna was created by a much more skilled creator than myself, with more experience, qualifications and is employed to do exactly this sort of work, why am I able to do better using paint and Microsoft word. I'm not joking. I made a relatively decent planet with two free programs in 2 hours. I'm not tooting my own horn or saying that squad is lazy or bad, I'm saying they could do much, much better. I shall elaborate. Planets consist of three textures - a height, normal and colour map. The normal map is generated from the completed heightmap. The other two are created manually. I created the height map with Paint and Paint alone. No filters, no layer system. I just used a paint brush and drew on my texture. Squad would likely use Photoshop, or gimp at the least to make their planets. Maybe even a professional drawing program. They'd certainly not fire up paint and set to work. The colour map, admittedly, was created with Adobe After Effects, however this exact effect can also be achieved using the planet config, albeit it is more time consuming. Here is the video where I create the planet, then I'll talk about my next point. Now, by no means am I trying to show off. That is not the purpose of this thread at all. If I can make a planet which looks arguably just as good, if not better than kerbin in 2 hours, squad can do the same with their professional tools and heightened knowledge of the game. "But Linx, the planets do not have to look good, they just have to be there for us to land on" Alright, so who goes to duna and says "actually yeah, this is a good spot I'll visit again! I love the terrain here, the colour and detail is simply breathtaking. I love this planet!" Right. Barely anyone. Because duna is just bump after bump with no variation at all except for the poles. Not to mention that most of the bumps are procedural and not textured, which is just as easy to accomplish (as I used procedural noise mods on my planet, too) Now then, duna is not a particularly interesting planet with much diversity except for the poles being the only difference. I would love for duna to have more colour variation, more evidence of previous water (assuming it is a Mars analogue), more pronounced terrain variation such as mountains, small cracks and such. The same goes for other planets like Dres and tylo. They don't really look very interesting or worth exploring as they have no canyons (Dres has one, but nothing more) or defined mountains. Even Jool needs a facelift! I'd love to also see more craters or evidence of past activity on the planets and moons to make them more diverse and interesting, not to mention that squad MUST rely less on procedural noise mods, as they make the planets and moons incredibly "samey". A balance must be achieved and at the moment, we can be safe to say that the planets are a really weak point in the game, especially since they're supposed to be a substantial goal within the game's progression. I'd like to hear your view on this situation. - Linx.

Hotfix incoming hopefully tomorrow evening to fix some randomly occurring graphical bugs on dread and olemut. Terrain may change slightly as the noise mod used could be bugged or contains a syntax error. Nothing drastic. I'll likely convert to a heightmap and use that instead of the procedural aspect of the terrain to minimize terrain alterations. Let me know if you've encountered this bug (disappearing terrain under certain altitude) on which planet and where if possible.

Before Kerbin updated to KSP 1.3.1. I like the idea. Perhaps the kerbals could start on an icy world around a dead kerbol, then make their way to the next star.

I've never been able to build good looking stations - that looks awesome!

You don't have GPO installed You're using opmvo which is not compatible with gpo's visuals I haven't uploaded the new Kopernicus version yet because the old Kopernicus works fine and I'd like to fix some bugs before releasing the newest GPO.

Good news! Just managed to fix up GPO for Kopernicus 1.3.1-6. Of course i'm writing this after the first successful load of the mod... But it's a start!

TextureReplacer is incompatible with KSP 1.3.1, but the version that I distribute in the mod download works fine. KSP 1.3.1, TR installed, using GPO. Works fine. Can you send me a screenshot of your gamedata folder along with your KSP.log and Kopernicus.log please. This is because Kopernicus updated. And I say an awful lot that CKAN is terrible with planet mods and messes up the GPO installation every single time. Manual all the way. However I am looking into fixing up the CKAN script so that it install properly - I did not write the script.

I can't reparent the home body around anything but the "Sun". Well, i can, but there would be multiple graphical glitches and that wouldn't be good to look at, so it's Duna.

Oxygen will be re-enabled on Niebos when I come home from my break. I mean, you can install it manually without any problems...? CKAN messes it up every single time.

Yes