eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 So I am done with "no cloud" HD at 16kx8k.. that was easy ,) Testing in-game first though... by the way, saving this document to PNG took 3 minutes ;P .. let's hope it doesn't need that long to load it.You making a High res planets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacex34 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 ok I tested the map in HD ( 4K and 8k)I think 8k is perfect for better graphics16K map is 90 mo in PNG and does not work for meI'm waiting for the clouds on Kerbin in 8k and a pack withoutCompareKSP 4K with cloud (Naaaaah I don't like)Yeah Baby ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRe4s3r Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Planet .. singular. Kerbin Only. And I still am in the testing phase.. I've seen some stitching errors in the original source that need fixing.Sooooo...a 16384 * 8192 png is only 88mb.. ;P And sadly it doesn't actually LOAD... argh. Just a weird graphic error instead of planet Kerbin. Looks like Unity can't handle this texture res ,/ Testing with TGA.. maybe that works better. Edited August 8, 2013 by eRe4s3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Planet .. singular. Kerbin Only. And I still am in the testing phase.. I've seen some stitching errors in the original source that need fixing.Ha, well by tommrow as I said I'm going to release an HD version of all planets and stars (I hope), what error did you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimMartland Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Convert not, but the map data is shifted horizontally. So we need to match it with Kerbin texture properly first. So you just want a plain Kerbin HD texture with no clouds?Make sure you download the correct file, not the SRC (Source)Aside that there should be folder structure in the archive like with all plugins....Thanks, just realised I had to use an archive program (WinRAR for me) but I was going through the source one XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRe4s3r Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) So yeah, looks like KSP (or rather Unity) can't actually a load a texture with 16k*8k[LOG 23:31:41.935] Load(Texture): UniverseReplacer/Textures/Planets/Kerbin/Kerbin1[ERR 23:31:43.763] Texture has out of range widht / height[EXC 23:31:43.769] UnityException: Failed to create texture because of invalid parameters.Loads with 8kx4k though .. gonna test what the limit is.. hope not 8k...haha Oh man.. that's Unity for ya...Maximum Texture Resolution 9999x5000 This is obviously no good 9984 * 4992 is the highest "optimal" texture resolution we can have. Maybe we can convince Tingle to hack it so that the Kerbin1 texture loads as 2 halves. So we could have full quality planet texture.Performance impact is NILL by the way. For me anyway. Doesn't really make me super happy.... only 60% of the resolution we could have Edited August 8, 2013 by eRe4s3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Trying to convert tif file into png file... taking 2 hours... anyone got any idea?Edit: found an idea, Print Screen ftwGot a plan for the next few days, tonight I'm going to make the HD pack and tommorow I'm gonna make the "Spin-Off" "Sol Moons" Edited August 8, 2013 by eran100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientGammoner Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Yeah I thought I was doing something wrong when I tried converting it myself, but yeah I guess it doesn't support 16k textures. It does look really nice even at 8k, the difference is huge:BeforeAfter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiggles Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Trying to convert tif file into png file... taking 2 hours... anyone got any idea?Edit: found an idea, Print Screen ftwFind a computer with more RAM? Photoshop is nuking my PC with the 16K Tiffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRe4s3r Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Mhh, need more time still, found another stitch error ;P Edited August 8, 2013 by eRe4s3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Mhh, need more time still, found another stitch error ;PDamn son, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ace.1991 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 You can crank it up to 9984 * 4992 Should I post the kerbin1.png with clouds at 9984 * 4992? It'd take a while to upload (70mb)would you be willing to do the same with Duna (but 3068 x 1529)? I've got Duna and Eve at that size 'HD' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 How do I make it 9984*4992? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRe4s3r Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) would you be willing to do the same with Duna (but 3068 x 1529)? I've got Duna and Eve at that size 'HD'I won't guarantee it.. This doesn't produce quite the result I wanted. There is still more resolution needed for it to "work" at a 150k orbit. (9k is enough for 300km orbit though)Here is how it looks (Imgur Album)Kerbin Map Data + Nasa Cloudshttp://imgur.com/a/KGQS7#0Stock Texturehttp://imgur.com/a/Wyd7c#0But yes, the difference to the normal planet texture is quite drastic. Sadly it gets away with low res because of 0 details. With more details, we need more res... ;/As it seems we also need more BUMP resolution.. oh boy... no idea how to make that texture Edited August 8, 2013 by eRe4s3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 I won't guarantee it.. This doesn't produce quite the result I wanted. There is still more resolution needed for it to "work" at a 120k orbit.Here is how it looks (Imgur Album)http://imgur.com/a/KGQS7#0Wow, that looks good, well, I foud out that the textures I used for HD Kerbin were not in place and cannot be fixen... How can I make A picture HD and at 9948*4992? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoMorph Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 That is really nice eRe4s3r... Makes one want to sit in the cupola and watch the clouds go by... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Anyone know where can I get all Kerbol's planets and moons surface maps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRe4s3r Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Sorry eran100 I can't help you do this The link to the maps is https://mega.co.nz/#F!8EAnSL5Z!OAyLBQqrQtlmfL0GT8fcQg!EBYyXRxABut it requires a massively beefy PC to edit. And some skills as well, since it isn't aligned.Ok, so anyway, last quest is to get the "bump" in at that resolution. That is causing some issues with the clouds, since clouds + planet obviously need their own bump map at least at half the resolution, but why do that, when there is overkill to be had ;P The problem is, I don't get what the bump texture is supposed to even *be* isn't a normal map I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Yeah I thought I was doing something wrong when I tried converting it myself, but yeah I guess it doesn't support 16k textures. It does look really nice even at 8k, the difference is huge:BeforeAfterI have two question for you, one is how did you make this, and two can I have download link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Sorry eran100 I can't help you do this The link to the maps is https://mega.co.nz/#F!8EAnSL5Z!OAyLBQqrQtlmfL0GT8fcQg!EBYyXRxABut it requires a massively beefy PC to edit. And some skills as well, since it isn't aligned.Ok, so anyway, last quest is to get the "bump" in at that resolution. That is causing some issues with the clouds, since clouds + planet obviously need their own bump map at least at half the resolution, but why do that, when there is overkill to be had ;P The problem is, I don't get what the bump texture is supposed to even *be* isn't a normal map I have ever seen.Well, Atleast I can put other plantes texutres... I'll use the cloud mod for the ones with atmosphere and the hd for non atmosphere!Edit: FFS double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El wonso Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 But it requires a massively beefy PC to edit.Does it? I know nothing about actually aligning the texture, but resizing from 16k to 9k-somethinglike took almost no time on my rather old and not beefy pc (Intel E8400 - 2x 3GHz + 4GB 800Mhz CL5 I think). Same for saving file as png. Just a few secs (sex hehehehehehe)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C7Studios Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 So yeah, looks like KSP (or rather Unity) can't actually a load a texture with 16k*8kMaximum Texture Resolution 9999x5000 This is obviously no good 9984 * 4992 is the highest "optimal" texture resolution we can have. Maybe we can convince Tingle to hack it so that the Kerbin1 texture loads as 2 halves. So we could have full quality planet texture.Performance impact is NILL by the way. For me anyway. Doesn't really make me super happy.... only 60% of the resolution we could haveThis isn't an issue with Unity. Instead it is a fundamental restriction of DirectX's Direct3D feature specification. You need to have directX 10 or 11 level hardware and rendering to support textures of those sizes. It's quite possible that Unity has it's own hardcoded limits. If that is the case, they would most likely be restricting at around 8192 x 8192.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476876(v=vs.85).aspxYou can force DirectX 11 rendering in Unity with this command line switch.-force-d3d11 Keep in mind that this only applies to Windows based operating systems, and you'll still need to have the right hardware and OS. In the case of Mac and Linux, Unity will run to OpenGl specification for rendering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simplicity Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 SD version (2048 x 1024)Put your SD version on this morning, doesn't effect my machine one little bit performance wise and they look just as good as the hi-res ones, Brilliant work and thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eran100 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Currently I'm worknig on HD planets! Finished Dres, Eeloo and now doing bop. I hope by the end of the night I'll finish this project and release it.Question, what is the resolution of this pictures, is it 8k or less?https://mega.co.nz/#F!8EAnSL5Z!OAyLBQqrQtlmfL0GT8fcQg!EBYyXRxA Edited August 8, 2013 by eran100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRe4s3r Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) This isn't an issue with Unity. Instead it is a fundamental restriction of DirectX's Direct3D feature specification. You need to have directX 10 or 11 level hardware and rendering to support textures of those sizes. It's quite possible that Unity has it's own hardcoded limits. If that is the case, they would most likely be restricting at around 8192 x 8192.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476876(v=vs.85).aspxYou can force DirectX 11 rendering in Unity with this command line switch.-force-d3d11 Keep in mind that this only applies to Windows based operating systems, and you'll still need to have the right hardware and OS. In the case of Mac and Linux, Unity will run to OpenGl specification for rendering.Interesting.. and thank you for this info. Will test whether that switch makes the 16k original texture load, because that'd be absolutely mindblowing awesome.Does it? I know nothing about actually aligning the texture, but resizing from 16k to 9k-somethinglike took almost no time on my rather old and not beefy pc (Intel E8400 - 2x 3GHz + 4GB 800Mhz CL5 I think). Same for saving file as png. Just a few secs (sex hehehehehehe)...Yeah re-aligning and converting to PNG + clouds I meant.. takes quite a toll. The compression for PNG runs only on 1 core, and is extremely slow at 16000+ resolutions... Edited August 8, 2013 by eRe4s3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts