totm may 2024 [1.12.x] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

[RoverDude]

Nope just removed the lights, emissives should have still been there

[FirroSeranel]

11 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Now you really confused me...

Local Logistics is like... a couple of clicks (select the vessel, start transfers) and the transfer speed is very fast.  We're talking about the same thing right?  i.e. I am not talking about stock behavior (this is for inter-ship transfer, not intra-ship)

 

Oh, part of USI? I'm not sure... I don't think I've experimented with that yet. Is there a way to manually transfer stuff using local logistics? I've only ever seen the automated behavior.

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Nope just removed the lights, emissives should have still been there

Well what I mean is the lights cast from the four spotlights on the corners of the module. Those should still be there, casting onto the ground?

[sh1pman]

Just now, FirroSeranel said:

Oh, part of USI? I'm not sure... I don't think I've experimented with that yet. Is there a way to manually transfer stuff using local logistics? I've only ever seen the automated behavior.

Yea, it's a really cool feature that's been added recently. Allows you to manually transfer anything between vessels without KAS pipes or docking.

[RoverDude]

I could have sworn those corner lights were removed a while back (due to perf concerns - lights are expensive).

And yeah.. just go to the kolonization dashboard, last tab.

[FirroSeranel]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I could have sworn those corner lights were removed a while back (due to perf concerns - lights are expensive).

And yeah.. just go to the kolonization dashboard, last tab.

 

Even when off? If they're only expensive when on, why not just leave the user the choice?

[RoverDude]

Because that user choice causes support issues when bad choices are made

[FirroSeranel]

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

And yeah.. just go to the kolonization dashboard, last tab.

1

Ooh, very cool! Yeah, I'll definitely use that.

4 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Because that user choice causes support issues when bad choices are made

Yeah but... for people with modern graphics cards, lights are dirt cheap, and pretty, but part count is expensive. My GPU doesn't care how many lights are in scene whatsoever, from what I've seen. On the other hand, if I have to add other lights as parts, that adversely affects my game performance much more than lights added intrinsically to a part. It's one of the things I thought was really cool about the Duna modules, that they had built-in lights. I was really sad when they didn't work.

Plus... doesn't the max lights per pixel slider in the main game settings kind of limit player stupidity on that front anyway?

Edited March 24, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[sh1pman]

6 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

Ooh, very cool! Yeah, I'll definitely use that.

Yeah but... for people with modern graphics cards, lights are dirt cheap, and pretty, but part count is expensive. My GPU doesn't care how many lights are in scene whatsoever, from what I've seen. On the other hand, if I have to add other lights as parts, that adversely affects my game performance much more than lights added intrinsically to a part. It's one of the things I thought was really cool about the Duna modules, that they had built-in lights. I was really sad when they didn't work.

Plus... doesn't the max lights per pixel slider in the main game settings kind of limit player stupidity on that front anyway?

Believe me, lights do affect the framerate significantly. I have a GTX1070, 16 gigs of RAM, and an i7-4790k, and I lose like 10 fps with just a couple of lights turned on.

[FirroSeranel]

27 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Believe me, lights do affect the framerate significantly. I have a GTX1070, 16 gigs of RAM, and an i7-4790k, and I lose like 10 fps with just a couple of lights turned on.

That's... bizarre. I see no change at all with a 970.

Admittedly I don't have an FPS counter installed, and for a game like this, I don't really care what the FPS is as long as it's at least as high as my brain's primary clock speed (about 13 Hz). For a shooter, I need at least 30 FPS, and for a racing game, as much as 60 genuinely matters, but 50 is totally fine, but for KSP, I just don't want a slide show. I'd much prefer lights at 40 FPS than no lights at 50.

Yep, confirmed. All lights off, 22 FPS at my main Minmus base. All lights on (9 emissive lights plus dozens of glow map lights, not that that probably matters), 22 FPS.

Sure you don't have something else going on? What are your Shadow Cascades set to? In my experience shadows, especially soft shadows, have vastly more impact on FPS than lights. And of course, more lights mean more shadow sources, so higher shadow cascades could make a huge difference.

Edited March 24, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[damerell]

43 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

That's... bizarre. I see no change at all with a 970.

It's not that bizarre. If your framerate is currently limited by your CPU doing physics, more demand on the GPU won't make much difference. Hence it's very plausible that in some situations turning on the lights will have a large impact and in others it will have very little.

[RoverDude]

47 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

That's... bizarre. I see no change at all with a 970.

Admittedly I don't have an FPS counter installed, and for a game like this, I don't really care what the FPS is as long as it's at least as high as my brain's primary clock speed (about 13 Hz). For a shooter, I need at least 30 FPS, and for a racing game, as much as 60 genuinely matters, but 50 is totally fine, but for KSP, I just don't want a slide show. I'd much prefer lights at 40 FPS than no lights at 50.

Yep, confirmed. All lights off, 22 FPS at my main Minmus base. All lights on (9 emissive lights plus dozens of glow map lights, not that that probably matters), 22 FPS.

Sure you don't have something else going on? What are your Shadow Cascades set to? In my experience shadows, especially soft shadows, have vastly more impact on FPS than lights. And of course, more lights mean more shadow sources, so higher shadow cascades could make a huge difference.

An FPS of 22 is already pretty brutal though.

[FirroSeranel]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

An FPS of 22 is already pretty brutal though.

Yes, well, I have about 250 parts in scene, so it's physics-based. And... it's KSP, not a racing game. 22 FPS is only 2 off of movie framerates, so unless you sit in the theater complaining about there being too much flicker and low FPS, I don't really see how it's "brutal".

Which is exactly why I don't understand disabling the lights on the Duna bases. I can't even fathom a base design, or a CPU beefy enough, where some extra light emissives could make the slightest difference, compared to the extra parts to add lights myself after the fact. *shrugs* Especially if you added one broad, short-range emissive from the top-center of the part, rather than one from each light, and call it good enough.

My preference would strongly be for built-in lights. Maybe you can have separate buttons for cabin lights and floodlights, so people can choose?

Edited March 24, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[sh1pman]

6 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

I can't even fathom a base design, or a CPU beefy enough, where some extra light emissives could make the slightest difference

Well, I've just showed you my specs. Not exactly a potato PC. 70fps without lights, 60 with them. 

30 with Kopernicus, lol

Edited March 24, 2017 by sh1pman

[goldenpsp]

12 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

Yes, well, I have about 250 parts in scene, so it's physics-based. And... it's KSP, not a racing game. 22 FPS is only 2 off of movie framerates, so unless you sit in the theater complaining about there being too much flicker and low FPS, I don't really see how it's "brutal".

Which is exactly why I don't understand disabling the lights on the Duna bases. I can't even fathom a base design, or a CPU beefy enough, where some extra light emissives could make the slightest difference, compared to the extra parts to add lights myself after the fact. *shrugs* Especially if you added one broad, short-range emissive from the top-center of the part, rather than one from each light, and call it good enough.

My preference would strongly be for built-in lights. Maybe you can have separate buttons for cabin lights and floodlights, so people can choose?

I'm sure if @RoverDude decides he really wants lights back in his game he will put them back in.

[FirroSeranel]

16 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Well, I've just showed you my specs. Not exactly a potato PC. 70fps without lights, 60 with them. 

I can hit those numbers in scenes with fewer parts as well, but... again, it's KSP, not a racing game. And that 10 FPS isn't really very important. If it was dropping from 20 to 10, that'd suck, but 70 to 60 is from almost completely imperceptible to peripheral vision's fast motion pickup, to... still almost completely imperceptible to peripheral vision's fast motion pickup, but both are still well out of range of the point where it tricks your peripheral vision into sensing genuine motion instead of fake graphics (that starts at 90 FPS and trails off at around 150, which is why VR headsets run at 90 Hz and above, compared to 60 Hz for a typical monitor). Your high-resolution central vision cone can't even come close to sensing any of those numbers, and in fact can barely even detect 22 FPS. 13 FPS is where a flickering light looks like a constant beam, as far as light detection.

Besides which, it's -my- game, -my- visual experience, and -my- base. If I want to trade 10 FPS for much a much prettier scene with real lighting... why am I limited by some other people complaining that the built-in lights impact their performance too much? I just disassembled 28 parts in that scene, and went from 34% physics and 22 FPS to 48% physics and 26 FPS. In a full Duna-based base, to replace those built-in lights with stock lights, would easily be that many parts, and I doubt the lighting impact would even come close to the physics impact of those parts.

If you're a minimalist who likes fast frame rate (and there's nothing wrong with that), and the lights on the Duna modules included emissives, you could solve your problem by pushing a button to turn off the lights.

I'm not, I'm a visualist who likes pretty pictures as long as the frame rate is tolerable. To solve my problem, since they don't currently include emissives, I'd have to go in and edit configs to add the emissives back in myself, or install extra parts, impacting my physics rate.

Hence, I'd much prefer for the lights to exist, and for there to simply be an option to turn them off if you don't want them, rather than cater to the lowest common denominator of people who don't realize their computer can't handle some lights.

Edited March 24, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[Gilph]

13 hours ago, Deus Zed Machina said:

Does anyone know what modules and/or resources one should include when building a four-Kerbal interplanetary spacecraft that can sustain itself for about a year without resupply? Beyond an agriculture module and plenty of fertilizer, I'm not certain of the requirements for such a task.

Hi, been doing this very thing over the last few days.  Had about a 70 ton ferry I used between Kerbin and Duna that I have slowly been reducing over the past few days.  Can post some screenshots over the weekend if you are interested.

[RoverDude]

2 minutes ago, FirroSeranel said:

Besides which, it's -my- game, -my- visual experience, and -my- base.

And it's -my- mod, and -my- time.  

Not trying to be snarky here, but this is usually the part where I remind folks that every request takes time for me to do, so I only do stuff that either makes my life easier, or is something I want in the game.  I am not paid for this - other than donations, which are more of a 'thanks!' not a work contract.

[FirroSeranel]

10 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

And it's -my- mod, and -my- time.  

Not trying to be snarky here, but this is usually the part where I remind folks that every request takes time for me to do, so I only do stuff that either makes my life easier, or is something I want in the game.  I am not paid for this - other than donations, which are more of a 'thanks!' not a work contract.

 

 

I realize that, and I apologize if I seem too demanding. I just get upset when people use arguments like "because an FPS drop from 70 to 60 exists on my particular rig in this scene, nobody should ever be allowed to use built-in lights", which is what it felt like Sh1pman was saying.

In this case though, since the emissives used to be present, aren't we only talking about copy-pasting the light modules back into the config files for the next update? If that's an unreasonable ask, that's fine, and if you really don't want lights on those modules, that's your choice. But it seems to me that you did want them at some point, or you wouldn't have modeled them in the first place, and some complaints about performance irritated you enough that you went to the trouble of removing them.

Plus, you've at least hinted at, earlier in this conversation, editing the models to remove the corner lights, since you thought you already had, which if I'm not mistaken, would be a fair bit more work than adding the emissives back in.

*shrugs* It's a user request to put them back in, and my personal belief that (up to a point; it can go too far of course, but I don't think this is anywhere near that point), adding options for the user is preferable to removing features. But you're right, it is your mod.

Edited March 24, 2017 by FirroSeranel

[RoverDude]

Emissives are fine, those are freebies (and should be there).  Point Lights are a different beast and require a model change.

[FirroSeranel]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Emissives are fine, those are freebies (and should be there).  Point Lights are a different beast and require a model change.

Ah. I may be misusing terminology then. So it'd take a model edit to make the corner lights shine light cones into the scene? I thought you'd just disabled them through configs, not removed the light emitter from the model.

I may look into a separate lighting thing, like a scaled up version of the Sunflower, since if it's on a separate vessel it should have less physics rate impact.

[DDay2021]

Planetary logistics question(s):   I have a base on Minmus with a Duna Logistics hub (w/ pilot) and an inflatable storage unit configured for silicates/silicon,  I also have a un-kerballed mining rig 50 or so km away with a 3.75m flat tank kontainer configured for silicates, which is currently mining silicates.  Both the base and the mining rig have planetary warehousing turned on. However, I am not seeing the silicates show up in the planetary logistics tab.

1.  Does the mining rig need to have a logistics hub w/ pilot for planetary logistics to function properly?
2. Under which circumstance will the pull occur?
   • The rig's container is full?
   • There is a consumer at the base i.e. silcates -> silicon?
   • All the above?

[Gilph]

2 minutes ago, DDay2021 said:

Planetary logistics question(s):   I have a base on Minmus with a Duna Logistics hub (w/ pilot) and an inflatable storage unit configured for silicates/silicon,  I also have a un-kerballed mining rig 50 or so km away with a 3.75m flat tank kontainer configured for silicates, which is currently mining silicates.  Both the base and the mining rig have planetary warehousing turned on. However, I am not seeing the silicates show up in the planetary logistics tab.

1.  Does the mining rig need to have a logistics hub w/ pilot for planetary logistics to function properly?
2. Under which circumstance will the pull occur?
   • The rig's container is full?
   • There is a consumer at the base i.e. silcates -> silicon?
   • All the above?

1. It needs either a logistics hub or an MPL, but it does not require a Pilot to push. Even though MPLs don't manufacture Silicon, they can still push anything you drill.

2. Technically, I think they push to PL.  PL does not pull. It happens at about 75% iirc.

You didn't mention if you had a logistics module at the mining rig.  If not, that would be the issue.

[RoverDude]

11 minutes ago, DDay2021 said:

Planetary logistics question(s):   I have a base on Minmus with a Duna Logistics hub (w/ pilot) and an inflatable storage unit configured for silicates/silicon,  I also have a un-kerballed mining rig 50 or so km away with a 3.75m flat tank kontainer configured for silicates, which is currently mining silicates.  Both the base and the mining rig have planetary warehousing turned on. However, I am not seeing the silicates show up in the planetary logistics tab.

1.  Does the mining rig need to have a logistics hub w/ pilot for planetary logistics to function properly?
2. Under which circumstance will the pull occur?
   • The rig's container is full?
   • There is a consumer at the base i.e. silcates -> silicon?
   • All the above?

I would add... you're talking 50m... so are you looking to put the resources in PlanLog, or to use them on your other vessel (the non-mining one)?

[Gilph]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I also have a un-kerballed mining rig 50 or so km away with a 3.75m flat tank kontainer configured for silicates, which is currently mining silicates.

@RoverDude, his mining rig is 50 km away

[DDay2021]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I would add... you're talking 50m... so are you looking to put the resources in PlanLog, or to use them on your other vessel (the non-mining one)?

It's 50km so local logistic won't work.  It seems the source of my issue is the lack of a logistics hub at the remote mining site.  Although I could swear I read that kontainers could push to PL,  I've only had 2 cups of coffee this morning and my memory could be off.