[KSP 1.12.1+] Galileo's Planet Pack [v1.6.6] [23 Sept 2021]

[kraden]

On 12/29/2017 at 2:38 PM, Galileo said:

Would anyone be opposed to redownloading the  GPP_textures next update? I know it’s a large download, so I figured I’d ask before going forward. I am looking to replace gas giants because they don’t seem to scratch the itch anymore for me. There are a couple bodies other than gas giants I will be replacing. So, speak now or forever hold your peace..

This is the most beautiful planet pack IMHO.  If you say you can make it prettier, I will trust your judgement and gladly re-download the textures when the time comes. When you initially split the texture download off, I figured I'd still be downloading it every third or fourth update, so as I see it, you've done a great job saving us that download as long as you have. (Also, not that I expected big changes, but I figured small texture tweaks, like with other things, were likely)

[TachyonGMZ]

Is there a way to turn off the renaming system so this works with tourist contracts.

[JadeOfMaar]

20 minutes ago, TachyonGMZ said:

Is there a way to turn off the renaming system so this works with tourist contracts.

Delete GPP\GPP_Renamer\

[Spheniscine]

I think this contract might be a tad difficult

[Galileo]

45 minutes ago, Spheniscine said:

I think this contract might be a tad difficult

Insert usual joke about going at night

[JadeOfMaar]

Screenshot time!

Spoiler, this is TheMissingIrishman  @TheRagingIrishman

Spoiler

I heard you like Otho.

The Godrays almost make me think Grannus is causing them. If only Grannus and that lonely peak were aligned, haha.

Hephaestus over the mountain on the left. Perfectly positioned.

   

 

[Jdav232]

Hey o,

For some reason the DSN around Gael is not showing up. I checked the settings and it is enabled. Any ideas what may be gong on?

 

[Galileo]

9 minutes ago, Jdav232 said:

Hey o,

For some reason the DSN around Gael is not showing up. I checked the settings and it is enabled. Any ideas what may be gong on?

 

If you have Kerbal Konstructs installed, you have to disable KK ground stations in the difficulty setting and restart KSP.

[TachyonGMZ]

How would I go about putting planet textures down to 2k from 4k? That way it would use an acceptable amount of ram for my install. I know I could do half res but I already do that. I mean how could I make the actual textures 2k so in games its 1k

[OhioBob]

3 hours ago, TachyonGMZ said:

How would I go about putting planet textures down to 2k from 4k? That way it would use an acceptable amount of ram for my install. I know I could do half res but I already do that. I mean how could I make the actual textures 2k so in games its 1k

The only way to do that would be to resize the textures in something like Photoshop or GIMP.  You want to change them from 4096x2048 to 2048x1024, and then make sure to resave them in the correct format (you'll need a dds plugin).  If you don't have the means to do that, then you're out of luck unless somebody is willing to do it for you.  There's about 120 textures in all, give or take.  If you want to give it a try, I or one of the other developers can give you the information on format and compression types.  Also note that some of the format types are changing in the next GPP release, which should reduce RAM usage to some extent.

[TachyonGMZ]

I'll just wait till the next GPP release. Would there be a possibility to add a lower texture option? If the next update doesnt lower ram enough then i'll try it myself

Edited January 6, 2018 by TachyonGMZ

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, TachyonGMZ said:

Would there be a possibility to add a lower texture option?

That's up to @Galileo, but if he chooses not to, then it falls on you.  Just like any other software you'd consider using, GPP has certain minimum requirements.  I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's the responsibility of the consumer to meet the minimum requirements, not the developer to lower the quality of the product.

[TachyonGMZ]

I have 8gb so my computer is fine. I often like to use firefox while playing so that decreases the available ram. I know its up to me to have the minimum requirements. If I do have a go at it myself as I said I would if the next update doesn't lower ram enough, and successfully do it would I be able to give the files to @Galileo to add in the download for a low res texture option?

 

[AG5BPilot]

1 hour ago, TachyonGMZ said:

I have 8gb so my computer is fine. I often like to use firefox while playing so that decreases the available ram. I know its up to me to have the minimum requirements. If I do have a go at it myself as I said I would if the next update doesn't lower ram enough, and successfully do it would I be able to give the files to @Galileo to add in the download for a low res texture option?

 

In my experience, 8 GB simply isn't enough.  Should you decide to try making lower resolution textures, I wish you luck.  But if it's at all possible, I would strongly recommend upgrading to 16 GB.

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, TachyonGMZ said:

I have 8gb so my computer is fine.

I only had 8 GB until I upgraded last year.  The only thing I had issues with were the visual mods, i.e. EVE and scatterer.  With those installed GPP was virtually unplayable.  However, I had no problem at all with the 4K textures.

[Galileo]

@TachyonGMZ I don’t foresee making a low resolution version to be honest. In the next update, more GPP will have more textures utilize the PluginData folder which will free up a little more ram and will cut down on loading times. Another change that is coming on the Kopernicus side is a fix for on demand loading while using scatterer. On demand loading will only use textures when needed. That in itself will cut down on ram. So if you aren’t within an SOI for any given body, the texture will lie in wait until you get close enough. Currently, only people not using scatterer get that added benefit, but it will be fixed in the next update for Kopernicus so keep a look out for that.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Galileo

[dragonbone81]

I have a question about performance and maybe this goes more to scatter, but maybe someone here has a good answer

So with normal ksp with no mods, I get around 120 fps during launch of the included KerbalX and sometimes might go down to 90. However when I install GPP, the fps when just standing and the launchpad is a 60, and hovers around 30-50 during launch. Performance in space/non atmospheric planet is fine. So I assume this is scatter? I have installed this mod both with ckan and manually to test.

Now obviously this is playable framerates, but a 60fps drop from stock is pretty big so I was wondering if anyone else experiences this or if this is a normal thing and I should just suck it up for the beautifulness of scatter and stuff

 

My hardware is a ryzen 5 1600, gtx 1070 and 16gb or ram, none of which ever hit anything more than 50% usage.

Edited January 7, 2018 by dragonbone81

[JadeOfMaar]

@dragonbone81 If (for whatever reason) you have the fanciful scatterer ocean shader running then yes your fps will tank. It doesn't matter what planet pack, if any, you have installed. The difference is very real.

GPP is very well optimized to look great and not tax your PC (apart from the obvious bit of being a very large, very detailed planet mod).

Edited January 7, 2018 by JadeOfMaar

[Galileo]

2 hours ago, dragonbone81 said:

I have a question about performance and maybe this goes more to scatter, but maybe someone here has a good answer

So with normal ksp with no mods, I get around 120 fps during launch of the included KerbalX and sometimes might go down to 90. However when I install GPP, the fps when just standing and the launchpad is a 60, and hovers around 30-50 during launch. Performance in space/non atmospheric planet is fine. So I assume this is scatter? I have installed this mod both with ckan and manually to test.

Now obviously this is playable framerates, but a 60fps drop from stock is pretty big so I was wondering if anyone else experiences this or if this is a normal thing and I should just suck it up for the beautifulness of scatter and stuff

 

My hardware is a ryzen 5 1600, gtx 1070 and 16gb or ram, none of which ever hit anything more than 50% usage.

That’s normal. If you ran the stock game with a visual pack, you would also see the same dip in performance. That’s the price you pay for visuals. I have a 980ti  and a 1080 gtx and I also stay around 50-60 FPS with full visuals, and it only gets worse as I add more mods (particularly part packs). We can only make GPP as optimized as KSP allows and we are at a point where we can’t do anything else.

There is a patch in the OP that removes all volumetric clouds which helps a lot with performance. It’s was mainly for people with weaker systems, but I still use it because I spend more time in space than I do looking at clouds. Perhaps you can use that.

[TimboDyne]

22 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I only had 8 GB until I upgraded last year.  The only thing I had issues with were the visual mods, i.e. EVE and scatterer.  With those installed GPP was virtually unplayable.  However, I had no problem at all with the 4K textures.

That was my experience as well with 8GB. Couldn't actually install scatterer and play. Now I'm running on 32GB with a fairly recent processor/graphics card. Don't know why I waited so long! With this arrangement I can run along with browsers and run XSplit on the same platform. For me the expense was well worth the expense. Of course, your mileage may vary. :-)

[OhioBob]

3 hours ago, TimboDyne said:

That was my experience as well with 8GB. Couldn't actually install scatterer and play. Now I'm running on 32GB with a fairly recent processor/graphics card. Don't know why I waited so long! With this arrangement I can run along with browsers and run XSplit on the same platform. For me the expense was well worth the expense. Of course, your mileage may vary. :-)

It sounds like we both did the same thing.  I was originally going to increase to 16GB but decided to go ahead and max it out at 32GB.  I also replaced my crappy graphics card with a GTX 1060.  I'm pretty happy now, I can play just about anything and can have multiple stuff running without any problems.  I agree it was worth the money.

[TachyonGMZ]

Wnen I use the 10.6x rescale with this the clouds end up being far too high in the atmosphere at around 24000 meters. How would I go about reducing all clouds to about a quarter of what they currently are?

[Galileo]

1 hour ago, TachyonGMZ said:

Wnen I use the 10.6x rescale with this the clouds end up being far too high in the atmosphere at around 24000 meters. How would I go about reducing all clouds to about a quarter of what they currently are?

Are you using the Rescale! Mod that is recommended in the OP or are you using your own cfg? The code to make the clouds a realistic height is already in the rescale! cfgs. So unless something has changed in sigma dimensions, the clouds should be at the right height.

[TachyonGMZ]

I am using the rescale 10.625 that ckan lists is by you. Should I manually install it? @Galileo I think I might have found the problem though I do not have time to test it currently. There are asteriksks next to the numbers and the OBJECT. No idea how to write cfgs myself but looks different than the rest of it.

Spoiler

@EVE_CLOUDS:FINAL
{
    @OBJECT,*
    {
        @altitude *= 0.62
    }
}

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by TachyonGMZ

[Galileo]

13 hours ago, TachyonGMZ said:

I am using the rescale 10.625 that ckan lists is by you. Should I manually install it? @Galileo I think I might have found the problem though I do not have time to test it currently. There are asteriksks next to the numbers and the OBJECT. No idea how to write cfgs myself but looks different than the rest of it.

  Hide contents

@EVE_CLOUDS:FINAL
{
    @OBJECT,*
    {
        @altitude *= 0.62
    }
}

 

That is correct module manager syntax, not an error.