Nansuchao Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Post your mod list, and check your output log for NullReference Exception. Sometimes a little mod can make big damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Just now, Nansuchao said: Post your mod list, and check your output log for NullReference Exception. Sometimes a little mod can make big damages. oh god don't look at the NRE's SVE thows them like crazy with our mod but it doesnt hurt anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nansuchao Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Berlin said: oh god don't look at the NRE's SVE thows them like crazy with our mod but it doesnt hurt anything You can see usually which NRE are very bad and which are more or less harmful. For example I had a ton of NRE from one of the previous version of Scatterer that made KSP unplayable. Just reinstalling it fixed rhe problem. KSP isn' made of code, but with some magic chemistry... And btw, with the last version of SSRS my performances went lower than before. Tomorrow I'll investigate. Edited May 11, 2016 by Nansuchao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 20 minutes ago, Nansuchao said: You can see usually which NRE are very bad and which are more or less harmful. For example I had a ton of NRE from one of the previous version of Scatterer that made KSP unplayable. Just reinstalling it fixed rhe problem. KSP isn' made of code, but with some magic chemistry... And btw, with the last version of SSRS my performances went lower than before. Tomorrow I'll investigate. I don't know if @sDaze used it but some configs I sent him had fixed a cloud layer on Earth, that cloud layer once working as SVE intended tanked my FPS. But I have not noticed it too bad in the newest version, I have a GTX570 on proprietary drivers in Linux so I should get a worse FPS than any Windows user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lCristol Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 32 minutes ago, _Krieger_ said: Yeah I'm on Mac, but thanks for the response anyway. Cheers You can take my settings from this thread and copy them by hand into the scatterer configs of each planet. The ring artifacts will then be gone at all planets. The flickering of Pluto and Triton is another matter though . However I will work more on the settings of the gas giants and some smaller moons. But Earth and Venus are already beautiful with this settings. I'm also playing on OSX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 46 minutes ago, _Krieger_ said: The atmosphere of Titan and that of some gas giants have flickering edges, and some planets have an atmosphere ring with a hard edge around them. The flickering on those planets are a scatterer issue. while I fixed it somewhat on Earth I cannot say the same about titan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 10 minutes ago, Berlin said: The flickering on those planets are a scatterer issue. while I fixed it somewhat on Earth I cannot say the same about titan Can you try @lCristol scatterer settings in windows? If they work just as well then there would be no need for two configs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 14 minutes ago, selfish_meme said: Can you try @lCristol scatterer settings in windows? If they work just as well then there would be no need for two configs? While I don't think this looks horrible, I don't like how much glow is around the planet. this is from 600,000km I feel like the atmosphere shouldn't look THAT big as opposed to this :?/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Example Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 changin one of the values on the startup settings window for scattering to max fixed the flickering for me, i set it to 256 i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styckx Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 @Berlin Yeah.. The top pic is definitely overkill and unsightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Example said: changin one of the values on the startup settings window for scattering to max fixed the flickering for me, i set it to 256 i think. yeah you can do that. setting it to 64 allows for a little better FPS for some. good thing you can adjust it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 4 hours ago, lCristol said: OK, the artifact ring is in direct correlation to the atmosphere height and the experimentalAtmoScale value. With this values on Earth: (I made some corrections to simplify it. 8500 difference between Rg and Rt instead your 8105 and then 200 from Rt to RL experimentalAtmoScale = 4 Rg = 637100 Rt = 645600 RL = 645800 And the same atmosphere height on Venus and experimentalAtmoScale: experimentalAtmoScale = 4 Rg = 604900 Rt = 613400 RL = 613900 The ring is gone. When the atmosphere is higher, I also need a higher experimentalAtmoScale value. Your setting for venus was: experimentalAtmoScale = 1 Rg = 604900 Rt = 613631 RL = 614734.4 Thus artifacts were ensured. After some testing I can propose that the difference between Rt and RL isn't that important. I would suggest 500. So I'll right now take your ground at Rg add 8500 to Rt and then 500 to RL. ExperimentalAtmoScale 4 at every planet. Time will tell if this looks fine. Dunno if this statement is still correct with the gas giants. I'm on the way Your experimentalAtmoScale of 4 does not work for me (OpenGL, Linux), see image below, for @Berlin this ring only appears with sunlight so you cannot test it at night 10 minutes ago, Berlin said: While I don't think this looks horrible, I don't like how much glow is around the planet. this is from 600,000km I feel like the atmosphere shouldn't look THAT big as opposed to this :?/ I think 4 is too high as well, and does not eliminate the ring for me anyway at 100km, interesting, the ring only seems to be there below 170km then it dissapears, I think this needs to be tested at different heights, I will go back to default settings, it may be a transitory thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) This is what stock looks like at 1000km for me This is what it looks like when I change atmoscale to 3 (which is the closest to Berlins ideal for me Here is what 4 looks like for me I just looked at that post and realised the small pictures don't show the difference except for the ring, you have to enlarge them , but 4 has a noticeably larger glow Edited May 12, 2016 by selfish_meme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 @selfish_meme if I'm not mistaken you will have to go through each layer of scatterer and change it to whatever you want. That's why it looks different depending on how close or far you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Berlin said: @selfish_meme if I'm not mistaken you will have to go through each layer of scatterer and change it to whatever you want. That's why it looks different depending on how close or far you are I put a probe in a highly eccentric orbit and went through a few revolutions and besides having to rebuild the oceans once or twice ( a known issue) 3 gave me the most reliable experience, I don't know what the other changes @lCristol made do, but these seem the best for me, but if @lCristol is getting artifacts at 3 then there is going to be no simple answer to this I am afraid Edited May 12, 2016 by selfish_meme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 So the clouds on the terminator are stalled for now. I can get them lined up but over a long period of time, the clouds eventually move faster than the terminator even with the rotation and speed set to 0. The only fix I think would be to set the clouds to the exact same speed as the terminator but that is a lot of maths and I don't math, bro. I don't even know where to begin looking for that info. @Poodmund maybe you have a better solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Berlin said: So the clouds on the terminator are stalled for now. I can get them lined up but over a long period of time, the clouds eventually move faster than the terminator even with the rotation and speed set to 0. The only fix I think would be to set the clouds to the exact same speed as the terminator but that is a lot of maths and I don't math, bro. I don't even know where to begin looking for that info. @Poodmund maybe you have a better solution? I doubt the dust storm would actually be visible from the surface anyway, A very light smattering of suspended particles might be all that is visible for a while after landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, selfish_meme said: I doubt the dust storm would actually be visible from the surface anyway, A very light smattering of suspended particles might be all that is visible for a while after landing. I know I just thought it would be really cool to be scientifically correct for now I'll just have to use the other version I had earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styckx Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 High School: Pfft. Math.. When will I ever need this in the real world.. Real world: No one told me math would be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, styckx said: High School: Pfft. Math.. When will I ever need this in the real world.. Real world: No one told me math would be involved. exactly. when you need it its on the dumb stuff that isn't important but you really really want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap1723 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I might have come across a bug with SCANSat. I am trying to use the RADAR part to do an Altimetry scan of Earth. I am cruising along at 100km, just above the atmosphere and the Part is saying that I am too high. The limit for this part for scanning is 500km so there is something weird going on with how it is calculating the orbit or distance from the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, pap1723 said: I might have come across a bug with SCANSat. I am trying to use the RADAR part to do an Altimetry scan of Earth. I am cruising along at 100km, just above the atmosphere and the Part is saying that I am too high. The limit for this part for scanning is 500km so there is something weird going on with how it is calculating the orbit or distance from the planet. you'll have to go to the Scansat devs for that, man.. I'm purely aesthetics here they will probably have to tweak things specially for this mod. The way this mod is set is scaled its bound to cause issues with other mods. Edited May 12, 2016 by Berlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap1723 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 13 minutes ago, Berlin said: you'll have to go to the Scansat devs for that, man.. I'm purely aesthetics here they will probably have to tweak things specially for this mod. The way this mod is set is scaled its bound to cause issues with other mods. I assumed it was probably a scaling issue. Let me see what I can work out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap1723 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 It is looking like there are some things that need to be modified using Sigma. There is a file called rescaleSCANsat.cfg in the Sigma folder. Now to try to figure this out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap1723 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 So here is what is happening as best that I can tell... There is a file in SSRSS folder that sets the SCANSat data. This looks like a holdover from full scaled RSS. There is a second file that is in Sigma folder that then changes the SCANSat values based on the new scaling. I think the SCANSat values are being scaled down way too much. I am removing the files from the GameData folder and testing. Will report back soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts