lajoswinkler

Am I looking for support? I'm just contributing to the discussion of the latest version. I do use Steam and I wiped the whole game. Uninstalled it, deleted the game folder completely (Stem initially doesn't do that). Perfectly clean installation. And yes, even tried validating game files. For some odd reason every time I do it after playing the game, it finds 47, now 48 files that need to be retrieved. I don't know what I'm missing here.

I wouldn't come here and complain if I had a modded game, as this subforum isn't meant for that. Stock game.

New savegame. One segment of the runway is missing. Hangar is not connected to runway. Random skybox side is missing. Resource overlay is not working. Performance is mostly better. Redesigned surfaces of planetary bodies look nice.

This is an excellent idea.

I needed this as a counterweight for centrifugal stations, thanks.

OK I get it for Murph, but why does Klaus have such huge surface gravity? Also, Klaus spins as 1 Hz which makes it a slow rotating neutron star, not a fast one as it says in the description. Basically all neutron stars are spinning like crazy. BTW can I prune the planetary system without the rest getting wonky? For example if I remove the star, will Murph and Klaus remain functional?

I usually have OPM or Realistic atmospheres, but not always, and I never removed Kopernicus... somehow I forgot what requires it and what doesn't. Oh, boy...

Wait a minute. Did I use Kopernicus for no reason all this time? Was Scatterer always independent of it? My framerate issues...

I like the concept, but there are some design issues with it. Black hole has 56 g at the surface, and neutron star over 172 million g. Escape speed of the hole is 0.0009 c, and of neutron star is little over 0.033 c. These values make no sense. Also, in my humble opinion, there is no need for this many planetary bodies.

How exactly does this work if Kopernicus still doesn't support latest KSP?

Oh, that. Yes, that will work, but gamewise, that tank is not inside the service module. I thought you put the tank inside, and then pulled it outside, my bad.

That doesn't work since translation doesn't shift actual "what comes first" thing. It's still in the order in which it has been joined. Solution with the pipe is so simple, but many people, me included, never thought about it.

Oh, in the meantime I found a solution. Connect the fuel tank directly to the service module using the fuel pipe, as if it's another fuel tank. That worked for me.

So what you're saying is that you fell for an capitalist entertainment advertisement and you're angry because you got tricked? If I were you, I'd be angry at myself for being so naive but that's just me.

OK I watched it and I can just snort and sigh derisively towards people who got their nipples twisted about it. It's, again, a problem of folks who come to watch a film expecting one thing, and then they squeal like babies when they get another thing. It's like hearing people complain about "First man", saying: "Boo hoo, I expected a space movie!". I suppose they'd get the same reaction with Soviet SF classics like Tarkovsky's "Solaris" because "the rocket is wrong" or some other stupid complaint like that. The film is an SF drama. It deals with parental bonds and final coping with loss. What struck me is how very little annoying cliches it has and how calm it is. It truly lifts itself above the mediocre of Hollywood because it's so oddly calming in the way it guides us through what's happening. Not much is happening in general; there isn't some intense, larger/louder/brighter than ever thing, no DUN DUN DUUUUUN reveal. It doesn't try to please the audience numbed with fast camera, loud noises, excessive emotions or mindnumbing blather. It has a zen quality to it and doesn't make you mentally tired from trying to follow the plot. It just is and it manages to do it in a visually appealing way. There are some things in the facts department that could've/should've been better without much expense, but they are not sticking out like a sore thumb. Also, there are things that producers seem to be picking up after "Gravity", namely in the sound effects, which is a very important, immersive thing. I recommend this wholeheartedly. Watch it in a cinema if you can.

Indeed, I've misread it. I've seen many new players claim this so there's that. I still don't understand why the knuckle cracking is problematic.

I'd be ok with such treshold, of course. Bloom does appear when conditions are right - high apparent luminosity and high contrast. Combined with necessary disappearance of skybox it would be a good visual tool to indicate brightness. BTW I've added vignetting to the list.

You're absolutely wrong. They always had fingers. Even in the Kerbalizer program they had them.

One more time.

Made this today in a creative moment that sometimes suddenly strikes me. I was playing UGG and remembered there were two really good trailers for KSP that could be joined into a funny crossover picture.

Nobody is making any personal attacks on this thread. Atmosphere does not look nice because of bloom. It looks nice because it blends with the surrounding, pitch black void. Same as Scatterer does rather well when you're in orbit, and stock KSP keeps ignoring for years. As for the strong light sources, yes, healthy human eye does see bloom in occasions where source of light is very small compared to the rest of the darkness, and when the source is extremely bright. It does not appear with distant stars, the full Moon. It will appear with things like candles up close, last stages of total eclipse before totality (when the sliver is still shining), street lamps up close in the night. It would appear with high albedo objects reflecting sunlight this close to the Sun where we live (like if Enceladus was moved here for a moment, it would certainly be difficult to look at in the night sky). There is also a variation of bloom that arises from UV fluorescence. Less in cameras because glass can be chemically formulated to minimize the effect, plus there are UV blocking filters that are put in front of cameras. However, human eyes are very susceptible to this because our vitreous body is very fluorescent in soft UV. If you ever looked at a blacklight in darkness you noticed how rest of the scene gets an annoying, dim, cyan tint that is gone as soon as you cover the light source with something. All these occasions are pretty specific and don't happen often. Therefore I'd be totally ok with it if the developers would add them accordingly, but if they say: "That takes too much time and resources, let's just slap significant bloom as a visual constant throughout the game", then no, I would be highly against it. Why should all other scenes where bloom would not appear, which exist in far greater number, suffer because of few occasions where smaller degree of bloom is justified? I don't want the game to look cheesy like that. BTW, no, Sun's corona is not bloom. Bloom is an artifact of the image detector system. Corona and atmospheric halos exist by themselves. This training is done excessively and for the most part it's not realistic, therefore certain things it uses should be ditched. As I've said to Concodroid, very careful, realistic (lens flares in human vision are a symptom of pathological changes therefore pls no), measured and tasteful addition of certain effects is more than welcome, but if the only options are: a) to make the game free of them b) game drenched in excessive effects that someone could just turn into "Ophthalmic pathology mod" I choose a). Sorry but not sorry - I don't want the feeling of getting blind, wiping my glasses or screen while I play my favorite game/simulator.

1) Razark explained it nicely, see his reply. 2) I urge you to go to the ophtalmologist because what you see could easily be a sign of degenerative pathological processes in the eyes. I don't see bloom around full Moon. It would require a much brighter source of light to cause scattering in my eye goo, like staring into a lightbulb up close. I see the atmosphere scattering that remains the same even if I eclipse it with my thumb and the clearer the atmosphere is, the less prominent it is. It would be unethical from me to diagnose you over the forum so I can only advise you to visit your doctor.

It's always assumed you are looking into the scene with your own eyes, not with a camera in front of them. This is KSP, not Slender. If someone wants to look at the game through the diseased eyes of an 80 year old man, we have mods for it. I sure don't see any reason for the developers to waste resources on making the game look crummy for everyone, not even as an option. I'd rather they worked on the game itself.

I wasn't talking about HDR. If you check my post, it talks about bad HDR which some "photographers" (people on social networks who have a camera and no knowledge of photography) consider "artistic" therefore "beautiful", but is actually a horrible eyesore. Yes, of course there has to be a certain level of luminosity adaptation. That's how our eye-brain system works. Nothing wrong with that. But bloom, that's something that happens with people who have cataracts. I don't. I don't look at the world through fogged eyeballs. So when you play a game, it's not a character or "you" you're looking through, it's a camera with faulty lenses? Besides, what you show as examples here have little to nothing to do with my post. If you think this is how real world looks, I have to suggest you visit your physician and get an appointment with an ophtalmologist. This is not normal vision. I don't care if it looks "nicer". It's a sign of pathological changes in the eye. It might be cataract or glaukoma.

No, it is not. They are governed by natural laws of physics and some things are just not possible. The game looks like an even more horrible looking early KSP and it's not just about one person developing it. It's about knowledge of astronomy and photography that's seriously lacking here. I can't say anything about the gameplay but the trailer you made is interesting. You did a good job.