[KSP 1.6.1] Stock Visual Terrain [v2.2.0] [20 March 2019]

[Galileo]

4 hours ago, Pake said:

Hi, very silly question here. Since I am manually installing this and not from CKAN like the 2.0 (the update is not yet present), the non LOW RES textures included are HIGH RES? From what I've seen usually you explicitly mark them in the release but this time you didn't (and in CKAN there is an older version which is not LOW neither HIGH res too). Thanks!

i do not understand.. 

[Pake]

7 hours ago, Galileo said:

i do not understand.. 

Are the textures packed in 2.0.1 High res?

[Galileo]

3 hours ago, Pake said:

Are the textures packed in 2.0.1 High res?

There is 2 different versions. One is a righ res and the other is low res. One says LR for low res so the other must be high res

[abserver]

Hi guys! I had a problem with multiple textures. In the first screenshot surface Minmus. As you can see there is some blurring of the camera at close approximation. If you look above (second screenshot), we see that the quality is very good. The same on the third and fourth picture, but with the Moon. So it should be? Or I have any problems? Download high-resolution textures. Where clarity?

1. http://pixs.ru/showimage/Minmusjpg_9911437_24908545.jpg

2. http://pixs.ru/showimage/MinmusLowj_8805467_24908550.jpg

3. http://pixs.ru/showimage/Moonjpg_6655892_24908556.jpg

4. http://pixs.ru/showimage/MoonLowjpg_9716260_24908564.jpg

[Galileo]

27 minutes ago, abserver said:

Hi guys! I had a problem with multiple textures. In the first screenshot surface Minmus. As you can see there is some blurring of the camera at close approximation. If you look above (second screenshot), we see that the quality is very good. The same on the third and fourth picture, but with the Moon. So it should be? Or I have any problems? Download high-resolution textures. Where clarity?

1. http://pixs.ru/showimage/Minmusjpg_9911437_24908545.jpg

2. http://pixs.ru/showimage/MinmusLowj_8805467_24908550.jpg

3. http://pixs.ru/showimage/Moonjpg_6655892_24908556.jpg

4. http://pixs.ru/showimage/MoonLowjpg_9716260_24908564.jpg

It happens sometimes. It's a limitation of ksp. It also happens in stock. 

[abserver]

1 hour ago, Galileo said:

It happens sometimes. It's a limitation of ksp. It also happens in stock. 

Strange. In version 1.0.5 it was much better.

[Galileo]

2 minutes ago, abserver said:

Strange. In version 1.0.5 it was much better.

Well, I have no control over it. And this mod didn't exist in 1.0.5.. unless you mean the stock terrain.   I don't remember the terrain from 1.0.5

[abserver]

4 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Well, I have no control over it. And this mod didn't exist in 1.0.5.. unless you mean the stock terrain.   I don't remember the terrain from 1.0.5

I'm here about. Version 1.0.5 was a Renaissance_Compilation mod. He also had the texture of surfaces and of blurring was observed. Now I, for objective reasons, it can not be established. Set your fashion as an alternative. And vstrelil blur textures. Just trying to figure out how to fix it. I tried to register the old texture in your mod - it turns out nonsense.

[HafCoJoe]

2 hours ago, abserver said:

I'm here about. Version 1.0.5 was a Renaissance_Compilation mod. He also had the texture of surfaces and of blurring was observed. Now I, for objective reasons, it can not be established. Set your fashion as an alternative. And vstrelil blur textures. Just trying to figure out how to fix it. I tried to register the old texture in your mod - it turns out nonsense.

@Proot's KSPRC mod did have a lot of custom terrain yes. I've actually been re-adding his textures for a project I'm doing and I can say that his textures also have a fair amount of blur in them - it's a limitation with the stock game and how it badly handles the fading in and out of textures . Not much that Galileo can do besides choose incredibly high resolutiontextures... which has it's own problems

EDIT: The textures in KSPRC tile extremely well and so he was able to tile them smaller at lower altitudes without them repeating visibly. Is that what you mean?

Edited January 25, 2017 by Avera9eJoe

[abserver]

6 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

@Proot's KSPRC mod did have a lot of custom terrain yes. I've actually been re-adding his textures for a project I'm doing and I can say that his textures also have a fair amount of blur in them - it's a limitation with the stock game and how it badly handles the fading in and out of textures . Not much that Galileo can do besides choose incredibly high resolutiontextures... which has it's own problems

EDIT: The textures in KSPRC tile extremely well and so he was able to tile them smaller at lower altitudes without them repeating visibly. Is that what you mean?

Yes, thank you! Now it is clear.

[HafCoJoe]

31 minutes ago, abserver said:

Yes, thank you! Now it is clear.

Np!  - I've decided I actually want to explain (to the best of my understanding) how KSP creates it's terrain textures:

- By defaut, KSP seems to have four different textures for each planet: steepTex, highTex, midTex, and lowTex. steepTex for slopes[mountains and steep hillsides on Kerbin], highTex for tops of mountains/tall terrain (Though I'm not exactly sure about highTex, haven't seen it used much), midTex for medium terrain[grass on Kerbin], and lowTex for lower terrain[beaches/KSC plateau]. Kopernicus lets you change which texture is used for these four levels, and it also lets you alter how it is tiled. By tiling I mean you can choose the size the texture is at different altitudes and the altitudes at which the texture fades out and replicates itself. Be 'replicates itself' I mean that the texture at the surface is maybe 100m across, and then at 1 kilometer above the ground the 100m across texture fades out and the texture fades back in again, this time 1 kilometer across. KSP does this so that you're always viewing the texture at a good resolution and so that you can't easily see it tile.

- I hope that makes sense. Please ask questions on anything that didn't in that statement and I'll do my best to explain it better

Edited January 25, 2017 by Avera9eJoe

[rozmetal]

What's the typical ram usage increase like with SVT? I'm Trying to figure out if this is normal or some obscure issue on my end.

Running Win7 and 1.2.2 KSP_x64.exe, with -popupwindow as the only launcher parameter I get:

Completely vanilla KSP - 2.62GB usage

With only Kopernicus, ModuleManager, ModuleFlightIntegrator, and SVT installed - 7.76GB ram usage.

This is with 2.0.1, when I downgrade back to SVT 2.0 and same dependencies installed I get ~6GB ram usage.

KSP.log

This is with default settings.cfg, except for changing resolution to 1920x1080 from the settings menu in-game.

I've verified steam cache as well as just outright deleted and reinstalled via steam and reinstalled SVT and it's dependencies each time as well. I redownloaded and reinstalled each version of SVT and dependencies as well.

I searched the thread and saw one similar post, but after moving forward several pages never saw a resolution given or it discussed further.

Edited January 27, 2017 by rozmetal

[Galileo]

3 hours ago, rozmetal said:

What's the typical ram usage increase like with SVT? I'm Trying to figure out if this is normal or some obscure issue on my end.

Running Win7 and 1.2.2 KSP_x64.exe, with -popupwindow as the only launcher parameter I get:

Completely vanilla KSP - 2.62GB usage

With only Kopernicus, ModuleManager, ModuleFlightIntegrator, and SVT installed - 7.76GB ram usage.

This is with 2.0.1, when I downgrade back to 2.0 ram usage with SVT and same dependencies installed I get ~6GB ram usage.

KSP.log

This is with default settings.cfg, except for changing resolution to 1920x1080 from the settings menu in-game.

I've verified steam cache as well as just outright deleted and reinstalled via steam and reinstalled SVT and it's dependencies each time as well. I redownloaded and reinstalled each version of SVT as well.

I searched the thread and saw one similar post, but after moving forward several pages never saw a resolution given or it discussed further.

at the moment, the average is what you are seeing. That's due to me using PNG textures for the planets because Linux and Macs are dumb and can't read .dds files correctly. I will upload a dds version tonight. It uses roughly 3gb so it will cut it down significantly.

[rozmetal]

Ah Ok, thanks for the heads up. There's no need to rush an update I can convert them on my own for the time being.

- edit -

Seems to have worked like a charm, down to 3.1GB and everything looks fine in tracking station, Thanks again for letting me know. 

Just to double check the process in case I missed something, I ran the .pngs through nVidia's DDS Utilities choosing to flip vertically and DXT1 for regular diffuse and DXT5 for anything with an alpha channel, Then changed corresponding .cfg entries to read .dds instead of .png then removed the .png files.

Edited January 27, 2017 by rozmetal
It worked :)

[Cheesecake]

Quote

I will upload a dds version tonight. It uses roughly 3gb so it will cut it down significantly.

Where can I find this download?

[Galileo]

I didnt upload it due to an issue with the kerbin map. I will upload it soon when i get time

[HafCoJoe]

13 minutes ago, Galileo said:

I didnt upload it due to an issue with the kerbin map. I will upload it soon when i get time

Is Kerbin too dark? I ran into an issue with that and was able to fix it after some tinkering.

[Galileo]

46 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Is Kerbin too dark? I ran into an issue with that and was able to fix it after some tinkering.

no Kerbin is not too dark. I converted the textures from your .dds version of endraxials textures to PNG so i could resave them. Your Textures were HUGE in file size.. kerbin was 45 mb or something like that. I know you added an alpha channel to all the textures but thats not needed on planets without oceans and they can be saved as DXT1 with 0 quality loss. When i convert kerbin to DXT5 i can get it down to 8mb so im unsure why yours was so large.. I messed up when using color range and bit into kerbins land too far and it was very noticeable in game. By the time i noticed that, it was super late so i turned in for the night and will fix the texture when i get the chance. I have National Guard stuff this weekend so it will likely be sunday or monday before i can get to it

[HafCoJoe]

9 minutes ago, Galileo said:

no Kerbin is not too dark. I converted the textures from your .dds version of endraxials textures to PNG so i could resave them. Your Textures were HUGE in file size.. kerbin was 45 mb or something like that. I know you added an alpha channel to all the textures but thats not needed on planets without oceans and they can be saved as DXT1 with 0 quality loss. When i convert kerbin to DXT5 i can get it down to 8mb so im unsure why yours was so large.. I messed up when using color range and bit into kerbins land too far and it was very noticeable in game. By the time i noticed that, it was super late so i turned in for the night and will fix the texture when i get the chance. I have National Guard stuff this weekend so it will likely be sunday or monday before i can get to it

Ah gotcha. Yeah I saved using these settings: 

When I first came out with WindowShine a user went onto my thread and insisted that I was saving all of my textures the wrong way. He gave me those settings to use when saving and I haven't bothered changing my Paint.net .dds save settings since. DTX5 doesn't break alpha channel with .dds files in-game which is extremely important for WindowShine and other things based around effectiveness on transparency. Hope that explains a bit.

 

9 minutes ago, Galileo said:

I know you added an alpha channel to all the textures but thats not needed on planets without oceans

:L I'm pretty sure it is. The reflectiveness of planets is determined by their alpha mask. If you don't want every planet to look covered in oil you should have alpha channel on them. or at least evenly dim the textures so that they aren't reflective.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Avera9eJoe

[Galileo]

1 minute ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Ah gotcha. Yeah I saved using these settings: 

When I first came out with WindowShine a user went onto my thread and insisted that I was saving all of my textures the wrong way. He gave me those settings to use when saving and I haven't bothered changing my Paint.net .dds save settings since. DTX5 doesn't break alpha channel with .dds files in-game which is extremely important for WindowShine and other things based around effectiveness on transparency. Hope that explains a bit.

i get that but i still dont understand why kerbin was 45mb.. Even if i changed all of the textures to DTX5, each one would be 8mb or less. when i save the oceanless bodies as DXT1 the are roughly 2mb, and it cuts the DL size down to 74mb as opposed to 175. I dont see why planet texture opacity would effect WindowShine. I can see how parts would need it, but i would assume it doesnt matter with planets as they aren't reflecting anything. I use photoshop with the nvidia plugin. 

[HafCoJoe]

31 minutes ago, Galileo said:

i get that but i still dont understand why kerbin was 45mb.. Even if i changed all of the textures to DTX5, each one would be 8mb or less. when i save the oceanless bodies as DXT1 the are roughly 2mb, and it cuts the DL size down to 74mb as opposed to 175.

...

 I use photoshop with the nvidia plugin. 

xD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Might be that you're using Photoshop with an nvidia plugin and I'm using paint.net? I can't really say why it's so.

31 minutes ago, Galileo said:

 I dont see why planet texture opacity would effect WindowShine. I can see how parts would need it, but i would assume it doesnt matter with planets as they aren't reflecting anything.

I had a chat with Porkjet on this when talking about a new reflection plugin. Let me quote what he said on this:

"Every planet (and part) in the game uses what's called a 'BlinnPhong' lighting model. it isn't actually reflecting anything, just adding a fake highlight."

You can see it in the oceans on Kerbin (Though it's water in that case), but you can also see it on land masses of other planets (Especially Eeloo). That's why it is that planet textures always have the ocean 100% visible, and the land masses almost invisible.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Avera9eJoe

[Galileo]

27 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

xD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Might be that you're using Photoshop with an nvidia plugin and I'm using paint.net? I can't really say why it's so.

I had a chat with Porkjet on this when talking about a new reflection plugin. Let me quote what he said on this:

"Every planet (and part) in the game uses what's called a 'BlinnPhong' lighting model. it isn't actually reflecting anything, just adding a fake highlight."

You can see it in the oceans on Kerbin (Though it's water in that case), but you can also see it on land masses of other planets (Especially Eeloo). That's why it is that planet textures always have the ocean 100% visible, and the land masses almost invisible.

I assume this is no longer the case and his advise may be irrelevant now except on oceanic bodies. I have compared both types of textures and there is 0 bit of difference. As far as I can tell creating all textures with alpha channels doesn't serve a purpose besides bloated DL sizes.

@Poodmund has far more knowledge than I do though. Maybe he can explain it better

[Poodmund]

So KSP treats the Alpha Channel on the Scaled Space textures as a Specular Mask and the higher the value of any pixel on that mask (i.e. greyscale range) the higher the intensity of of the diffuse-specular light combination that is reflected off that surface back to the camera?

Looking at both OPM and KSPRC textures there are differences. OPM textures sometimes have a full, solid white Alpha or no channel at all. The KSPRC textures seems to base the intensity on the Alpha channel on what looks like to be the slope angle of the terrain.

Some clarification/confirmation on all of this would be appreciated.

[HafCoJoe]

Hm, it was the case when I first made the alpha masks but that was a few versions ago. Good to know if I no longer need alpha masks on non-ocean bodies.

[Vinil]

First time using this mod along with SVE without scatterer (that thing is too heavy). Unfortunately, my Sun is looking like this:

Tried installing scatterer just to be sure and noticed something a little weird: firstly I went to the Tracking Station and the Sun was exactly the same, then I loaded one of my crafts and suddenly the textures appeared like they're supposed to. But sadly my PC can't stand scatterer, so anyone have a clue how to fix this?

 

Thanks!

Edited February 1, 2017 by Vinil