[Plugin/Tool] [1.1.x] HeightmapExtractor v1.1/HeightmapManager v1.1 | 03/05/16

[jsimmons]

This will be a awesome tool for my 10x Kerbol work. The maps extracted are 16bit. Does KSP support that bit resolution for the heightmap? Could I ask for support of height maps up to 8Kx4K for RSS modes. Also are their plans to support exporting it to DTX L8 mode? Looking forward to using this tool.

[stupid_chris]

This will be a awesome tool for my 10x Kerbol work. The maps extracted are 16bit. Does KSP support that bit resolution for the heightmap? Could I ask for support of height maps up to 8Kx4K for RSS modes. Also are their plans to support exporting it to DTX L8 mode? Looking forward to using this tool.

They are not exported as actual heightmap data, those are simply binary dumps. This is literally a a short array saved to the disk under .bin format. I don't believe you'll be able to use it to have KSP use it as a heightmap. This tool is for usage by plugins who need to read the height data of bodies on the go to save the ridiculous time wasted with the PQS. As for 8kx4k, sure, go ahead, the only size limitation to the maps is the maximum size of ushort, so ~65kx65k.

[NathanKell]

jsimmons, it's also worth noting that the heightmap you feed to KSP is just the heightmap for the VertexHieghtMap PQSMod, not the final "height map" used for the planet (which isn't a height "map" at all, since most of it is purely procedural). This, however, is the final product (i.e. the combination of the original heightmap and all the other PQSMods), and thus not the best thing at all to feed in at the source unless you want all the procedural effects to be doubled, basically.

To pass a heightmap to KSP, you are limited to 8192x4096 and 8bit. To go beyond that you would need to write a custom heightmap PQSMod, and in particular something other than MapSO to use for it (please, please, please).

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Hey stupid_chris, mind if I ask how do the values in the bin files relate to actual height? I went and took a look at the code but my C-foo is weak. As I understand those are 16-bit signed integers, right? But how do they correlate to actual height?

[stupid_chris]

Hey stupid_chris, mind if I ask how do the values in the bin files relate to actual height? I went and took a look at the code but my C-foo is weak. As I understand those are 16-bit signed integers, right? But how do they correlate to actual height?

The signed interger is the altitude value at this specific point. That's all.

[Proot]

Some questions.

This runs in 1.X or must I use it with 0.90?

Can the stock heightmaps be extracted at higher resolutions than 2880x1440px?

Is that the "max heightmap resolution" contained by default in the game? (that will be surprising for me)

I'm very interested in this to improve some normal maps for the game, specially for Kerbin and some smaller bodies. Get the stock heightmap at 4k or more would be the ideal for Kerbin.

I'm considering too improve some heightmaps (like Minmus). But I'm afraid I'm still confusing among PQS and height maps...

[Proot]

Seems to work, but I don't know if +30000.00s (and counting) is normal just to extract the minmus map at 8192x4096...

[NathanKell]

That's 500 minutes. That seems a bit much.

I would expect 8192s to take about 40 minutes or less, though it depends on your CPU.

[Proot]

That's 500 minutes. That seems a bit much.

I would expect 8192s to take about 40 minutes or less, though it depends on your CPU.

So I guess this is not working for me.

[sashan]

So, can anyone who got this mod working just extract the heightmaps in highest resolution possible and post them somewhere? Would be a great asset for community.

Edited August 24, 2015 by sashan

[KazanNinja]

On 8/24/2015 at 2:42 PM, sashan said:

So, can anyone who got this mod working just extract the heightmaps in highest resolution possible and post them somewhere? Would be a great asset for community.

By highest resolution possible you mean 65kx65k? Im trying to do 16384x8092 and its taken about 7000 seconds (it's stuck at saving). 65k would take forever!

[sashan]

On 30.12.2015 at 8:37 AM, KazanNinja said:

By highest resolution possible you mean 65kx65k? Im trying to do 16384x8092 and its taken about 7000 seconds (it's stuck at saving). 65k would take forever!

I've meant resolution they have in game.

[stupid_chris]

On 30/12/2015 at 1:37 AM, KazanNinja said:

By highest resolution possible you mean 65kx65k? Im trying to do 16384x8092 and its taken about 7000 seconds (it's stuck at saving). 65k would take forever!

You have to realize that there is an internal resolution limit. This mod can't extract a greater resolution that the one used internally to create the PQS heightmaps. I don't think such high resolutions would be relevant at all. That resolution is ~11 times larger than one of those I'm using, and remember that this is quadratic, so this means it would be about 121 times longer than the 1440x720 maps. And this is per map. You're not gonna see the end of it.

At this point it's just important to understand that larger is not always better, really the benefits of going through that are near null.

[KazanNinja]

1 hour ago, stupid_chris said:

You have to realize that there is an internal resolution limit. This mod can't extract a greater resolution that the one used internally to create the PQS heightmaps. I don't think such high resolutions would be relevant at all. That resolution is ~11 times larger than one of those I'm using, and remember that this is quadratic, so this means it would be about 121 times longer than the 1440x720 maps. And this is per map. You're not gonna see the end of it.

At this point it's just important to understand that larger is not always better, really the benefits of going through that are near null.

Yes that's what I thought, after doing several different resolutions, I didn't see much change in detail. Thanks for the info, I wish there were higher resolution maps.   :\

 

[stupid_chris]

56 minutes ago, KazanNinja said:

Yes that's what I thought, after doing several different resolutions, I didn't see much change in detail. Thanks for the info, I wish there were higher resolution maps.   :\

 

I'm not seeing the point to go to such ridiculously high resolutions to be quite honest, at *worst*, 5760x2880 should do the job in all the needed cases, but even then I'm doubtful internal resolution goes that high, I think it's 2048x1024 (or 4096x2048, this would require checking)

[KazanNinja]

2 minutes ago, stupid_chris said:

I'm not seeing the point to go to such ridiculously high resolutions to be quite honest, at *worst*, 5760x2880 should do the job in all the needed cases, but even then I'm doubtful internal resolution goes that high, I think it's 2048x1024 (or 4096x2048, this would require checking)

I'm using these maps for 3D models of the planets to give correct displacements, like mountains, so a high resolution map would be awesome to have. I see what you mean though. 

[stupid_chris]

7 hours ago, KazanNinja said:

I'm using these maps for 3D models of the planets to give correct displacements, like mountains, so a high resolution map would be awesome to have. I see what you mean though. 

Then I really highly doubt this is the right tool for you, this is meant for quick runtime access to the height data, not to render 3D models. If you used this you would have major resolution differences between the poles and the equator and that could end up looking rather unsightly.

[KazanNinja]

6 hours ago, stupid_chris said:

Then I really highly doubt this is the right tool for you, this is meant for quick runtime access to the height data, not to render 3D models. If you used this you would have major resolution differences between the poles and the equator and that could end up looking rather unsightly.

Yep I also notices that, the poles are very blocky. Either way it still looks pretty good, and I can get the base models of the planets.

[stupid_chris]

Updated this to KSP 1.1, didn't notice any performance upgrade, but it works just as well as before.

[Cyriak]

Thank you for updating this Chris... Seriously thank you so much!

[Cyriak]

@stupid_chris Is there any way to get this working with KSP 1.1.2?

Thank you

[Proot]

Current KSPRC wouldn't be possible without this tool. Thank yo very much @stupid_chris!

[stupid_chris]

On 5/30/2016 at 11:35 AM, Cyriak said:

@stupid_chris Is there any way to get this working with KSP 1.1.2?

Thank you

it probably just need a recompile. Later.

[Cyriak]

17 minutes ago, stupid_chris said:

it probably just need a recompile. Later.

I got it working, had to place both the .dlls in the plugin folder...

BTW, I added your name to my latest map and will continue doing so for future maps

[stupid_chris]

14 minutes ago, Cyriak said:

I got it working, had to place both the .dlls in the plugin folder...

BTW, I added your name to my latest map and will continue doing so for future maps

yes, the extractor does need both. and thanks, appreciate the attribution