Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Proot

  1. The config tool for that mod allows to generate new precomputed tables for the Scatterer atmospheres, is the way to tweak the appareance (altitudes, colors and so on). Rg is planet radius (says diameter but is wrong), Rt is height of the atmosphere, RL is the limit of the atmosphere. I can manage this to get decent visuals, but not with accurate/realistic data. But above all, what I don't control/understand at all are the half heights. Would be amazing to have accurate a rightly done stock configs; even better if the configs are according to your new atmospheres.
  2. I love this idea! Could I add this by default in KSPRC? (of course under your authory and license!!) And btw, @OhioBob seems that you know about atmospheres and so on... could you tell us the correct settings for your atmospheric values using the Scatterer's config tool? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/103963-wip11-scatterer-atmospheric-scattering-v00244-17042016-11-compatible-faster-loading/ To have the most realistic and accurate parameters for the visual side of the atmospheres is something that is itching me since so much of time...
  3. Kopernicus serves for the terrain (PQS) enhancements in KSPRC. Mainly. It also adds a lot of several details in many other aspects.
  4. Thank you all! All is near to be ready, I just need a Kopernicus version compatible with 1.1 to finish the next KSPRC.
  5. Very fast!! And now looks much, much better!! Infinite thanks @rbray89!! I don't know if I'm missing something but seems like in this last version the particles keeps rotating even at rotation 0. And by the way... what does and how works "noiseScale" in layerVolume?
  6. Hi @rbray89, first of all: thanks for your efforts, as always. I've been observing the cloud system for awhile. And I've noted that the cloud particles spawn/speeds are "linked" to the main texture. While this is fine for the stock configs, the particles blinks when you use bigger/faster cloud detail textures. In many cases this spoils the "consistence" of the clouds. My question is: would be possible, in future versions, to have a switch to change the "particle link" between the main texture and the detail texture? I think that be able to link the particles to the detail, instead to the main texture, could do a great change in favour of realism, changing the blinking of the particles to a more natural "cloud evolution", based in the detail texture, but with the effect defined by the main thexture. In any case, thanks again for all!
  7. I started to use that trick with EVE, time ago in KSPRC (after start to use layers to simulate fake scartterings) to fake the surface shining on non atmospherical bodies. All packs were using that method in one way or another after a short time because is a "cheap" and easy way to reproduce those effects. But EVE was not designed with that in mind, so the effect was better at high distances than near: if you don't dim the effect rightly (to disappear at near distances) you get that "fog" effect over the bodies... fog which -personally- I have come to hate along the time. Anyways, and IMHO, combining Planet Shine, Scatterer and EVE you can get that effects again. But what I wish to see some day is something like this:
  8. I was desiring sunset colors at terminators since so much time... Amazingly good work. Also that color on the clouds, omg!! Right now I'm drooling like Homer Simpson.
  9. I can't agree. I love the possibilities with Blackrack's flare and I'm using it right now, but still needs to be tweaked a bit more (no hurry btw, is not urgent): the ghost remains always at the same size and the flare glows over the sun's surface in close-ups (which is 100% realistic for a regular camera or the human eye, but in that way you can't enjoy that taste to the cinematic suns or the telescopic images -like in stock, where you can see the surface of the sun-).
  10. I don't understand your question. I use the nvidia plugin for DDS files and normal maps in photoshop. If I want a more accurate result then I use my old Ndo plugin for Photoshop (from when it was just a plugin, not a full suite like now). I use gimp for save the final result in DDS format, since the GIMP plugin for DDS (to create the normalmaps for KSP in DTX5 NM format) outputs much better results than in photoshop.
  11. Usually I create a texture and then I generate and retouch the normalmap from that texture, using plugins. I do all the process in Gimp/Photoshop.
  12. Very nice work with the new sunflare system! I'm doing my first steps customizing it. Despite the small issues, all works and looks stunning! Curiously the pic was done via "Impr Pant", seems like "F2" doesn't capture the sunflare changes (the screenshots shows the stock flare). [Windows 64bit v1.1pre-release] This is stock + scatterer and my new sunflare: I miss a couple of instances more for the 2º ghost, and maybe another optional ghosts, to add some lens/dirt effects. But, seriusly, I think this is much more flexible and looks much better than the stock sunflare system. Congrats and many, many thanks blackrack!
  13. Back in business! Sorry for the total absence but my IRL works are usually commissioned and sometimes I have epochs like lately, where all becomes a madness!. But seems like I'm gonna have a small break, so I'll try to port KSPRC to 1.1! I'm trying to use my lensflare in the Scatterer lensflare system. I must check EVE yet. Waiting for 1.1 final release and Kopernicus for the rest. Texture Replacer could be available relatively soon too, so maybe we can have the visuals working under 64bit windows, finally! My war for the collisions agaist the terrain scattering is in stand-by. At some point the collisions never worked again... and I can't find where is my error. So I'm pretty frustrated about it, because I've worked to get a really nice variety of terrains... And what the h**l!!: is awesome to climb munar rocks or avoid the rocky crags while you land in Duna!
  14. Seems fixed for me, but I haven't played as much as usual in the last one or two weeks... My only change for all this since previous version is, in the pqs.cfg file: PQS_MANAGER { OBJECT { body = Kerbin deactivateDistance = 160000 } OBJECT { body = Jool deactivateDistance = 175000 } }
  15. The framerate drops are not related to the textures, as far as I know... Sorry I'm truly busy lately IRL and I keep strugling with the terrain scatters. I think I've made a mistake which I can't find, so all colliders are off, even when the configs appear to be right. If I can't find the error soon I'll release the update without this, delaying the terrain scatters for a later update.
  16. About the "realism debate": Make no mistake, the earth haven't an "concrete aspect". What we imagine as the reality is more like an "overall". As a lot of other things, depends on the "espectator" and "his eyes"... is not the same a black and white photo from a satellite at high distances and with false color (no matter how good were the colored) than -as example- a regular photo taken by an astronaut, from the ISS. For the same reason, imagine you are at EVA around earth, is not the same to get a picture of the "edges" of the planet and his atmosphere than get the photo of the earth just below you: the atmosphere scattering has an "acumulative" visual effect, so if you are seeing the horizon/edge, no matter at what height, you gonna see much more color and "fog" effect there. And at the contrary, if you look at a very "general" plane of the earth, or in the earth plane perpendicular to you in that imaginary EVA, you'll see a "clear" earth with a barely visible coloration/fog-effect coming from the atmosphere scattering. So, IMHO, there is no solution until we can get a barely decent HDR in KSP, which could cover an enhancement of all those small changes of "perception". Meanwhile, we must settle a concrete look and, @blackrack, humbly I vote in favour of that last kerbin look. Anyways, you have done all configurable here, so the look in the main release of scatterer shouldn't be too debateable, right? lol
  17. I'm using the same format as in my old files. Transparent PNG. As far as I know The 2D layers can't be compressed. BTW, @rbray89 I've tried the last master and the cloud gaps at mid heights seems solved, many thanks!
  18. The framerate losses are a sum of causes. I'm working on it. One of the causes, this is right, is at the particle emitters in the sun, which are always active, resulting in a obvious framerate drop in some computers. Clouds problems seems to be solved solved atm; right now I'm just struggling with the terrain scatter collisions.
  19. I'm guessing: in that way, using the color channels, you can have more than one texture in the same file. EDIT: I was having the same problem and all was my fault in pqs.cfg and textures.cfg. Once you start you game, open the EVE GUI, select the correct cubemap format (when the line becomes white instead red), then re-save your cloud configs from there. Should work in the next start.
  20. Thanks Joe. Yup, the plan is have risky landings and many other funs. For example you should drive a bit more carefully in Kerbin, taking in count the rocks, the trees and other obstacles... or you must search for a clear zone for your landing if you are in the middle of a forrest, to avoid destroy your vessel against the trees. Also, all this should be persistent: if you go to a place, you should see the terrain scatters just there, not an empty zone with added decoration in the next loading (like in the stock behaviour). Probably a new place to discover too, I don't want to spoil more. Next step, for my dreamed "Laika Sir Common Enterprises" is to creat and add -all we, together- sicence experiments for all this new objects, like experiments for rocks (exogeology!), with plants in Kerbin (biology!) or in the deep ocean (oceanography!). Of course all this possible thanks to Kopernicus Mod, a.k.a. @Thomas P.'s amazing work. So if you like all this, you should be giving thanks to him and support to his project which -by the way- maintains just by himself: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/103277-105-kopernicus-beta-06-december-28/&page=1
  21. If may I ask... from where you "take" the terrain volumes? Maybe... could you "fill" the geometry gaps using the low poly model used in scaled space? Probably the result will be not acurate, but nearest to the real mesh? Just an idea, I don't know if it is possible. EDIT: btw, with Kopernicus you can generate a .bin with the lowpoly mesh of the bodies.
  • Create New...