Why Cockpit zoom is overpowered.

[TheAstronut]

So i was trying to spot my Keosynchronous space-dock from the surface, when I'm like hey that little dot in front of the galactic plane must be it!

Err... no it's minimus...

Kerbals have telescopic eyes apparently...

(and i still couldn't see my keosynchronous spacedock :/ and it's significantly closer than minimus...)

EDIT:

This thread is actually complaining about the unrealistic detail of the terrain of minimus from the surface of kerbin, what i'm trying to say is that if i can't see my ship i should not be able to see the mountains on minimus, i should just be able to see a fuzzy outline of it.

Edited October 3, 2013 by TheAstronut

[HeadHunter67]

It's also significantly smaller than Minmus... by several orders of magnitude.

[WhiteWeasel]

(and i still couldn't see my keosynchronous spacedock :/ and it's significantly closer than minimus...)

Render range for all ships is 2.2 km. You won't see the further than that. Ships are also infinitely smaller in comparison.

[SkyRender]

Also, draw distances are such that you can't see non-celestial objects until you're at least 2.5KM apart from it.

[TheAstronut]

what i'm saying is:

1. It's ridiculous that i can see the terrain on Minimus from Kerbin.

2. If I can see with that much detail something that far away, if I can spot a mountain on Minimus, how come I cannot spot my ship which is significantly closer.

p.s.

I'm a coder, i understand that there is a drawing limit on ships etc. im not asking about that, im asking about why the limits set on celestial objects seem to bear no relation whatsoever to the limits on ships. What I want is the draw distance for celestial objects to be realistic for smaller celestial objects (like Minimus), I understand having high res from far away for large planets, but being able to see rocks on the surface of a comet-moon from over 2 Mm away is ridiculous.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TheAstronut

[WhiteWeasel]

what i'm saying is:

1. It's ridiculous that i can see the terrain on Minimus from Kerbin.

2. If I can see with that much detail something that far away, if I can spot a mountain on Minimus, how come I cannot spot my ship which is significantly closer.

In order to see your ship, It has to be rendered and all the lag will come with it.

[TheAstronut]

I am well aware of that, see previous post.

[Superfish57]

It's how the render distance works, all spacecraft cannot be seen if you are 2.5 km away. The reason you can see Minimus is because it is not counted as a spacecraft, the model is relatively simple compared to say, a space dock. To my knowledge there is no render cap on planets, just until they are too small to see I would imagine.

[HeadHunter67]

2. If I can see with that much detail something that far away, if I can spot a mountain on Minimus, how come I cannot spot my ship which is significantly closer.

The same reason that you can see the geography of our own Moon a quarter-million miles away, but can't spot a communications satellite that's 10 times closer. Your eyes don't have the resolution to pick out something that's thousands of times smaller than a celestial body.

Your ship is certainly less than 100m in diameter, orbiting 280km away. Minmus is 60km across, orbiting 47,000 km away.

[TheAstronut]

The same reason that you can see the geography of our own Moon a quarter-million miles away

With a telescope only.

Your eyes don't have the resolution to pick out something that's thousands of times smaller than a celestial body.

Like a mountain on a celestial body.

I'm complaining about a lack of consistency, not about being unable to see my ship (I know about lag issues with rendering far away objects, I'm a developer for a game on the Steam Store I totally understand), If Kerbals have telescopes for eyes let them have telescopes for eyes, if they have normal eyesight let them have normal eyesight. If you can't see a ship in KEO you shouldn't be able to see rocks on the surface of Minimus.

To my knowledge there is no render cap on planets, just until they are too small to see I would imagine.

This is what I'm trying to say, beyond a certain point a high-res render is not only lag-inducing but pointless and unrealistic, a cap needs to be added for celestial bodys as well.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TheAstronut

[HeadHunter67]

Telescope, nothing. You can see the variations of the surface of the Moon with the naked eye. You could identify the Sea of Tranquility without a telescope. You won't see mountains on the Moon because honestly, there really aren't any that qualify in the terms you are choosing to use.

Regardless, even a mountain is thousands of times larger than your spacecraft. If you live near a mountain, have a look at it from a distance of several miles, and tell me if you can see a house on it.

Feel free to render your ship and Minmus in a scale drawing and you ought to find your answer.

You're not satisfied with the in-game reasons, and you don't seem to want real explanations of why far smaller objects are less visible even though they are closer... so what sort of explanation, exactly, are you looking for?

[AmpsterMan]

Hey OP while I agree that Cockpit Zoom might be a bit much, I can't help but admit that I like it :3. You might also be surprised/irritated to know that one can see Jool as well.

As for the reasons (and yes I know you stated you know, but I will share my opinions anyway) It is because planets are rendered in 1:6000 scale when they are not in the "local view" but individual ships aren't rendered at all. What this means is that Minmus, at 2,000 KM is scaled 1:6000, enough for it to be visible with High Resolution with a Kerbal's Super Eyes (Hey, who says Kerbals don't have telescopic vision?)

I understand that you say that High Res versions of the planets shouldn't be visible from a certain distance, but tbh, I think it is a minor detail that is actually quite nice. (I like that I can zoom in on the planets from far and seeing that pale white dot rise in the sky when I am flying planes) Also, it can be handwaved away by just assuming that Kerbals have hi-rez telescopic vision.

Otherwise, I can empathize with you not liking something because it tickles you the wrong way, but I can't sympathize because I likes it the way it is

[SourMonkey]

The render distance for the ships makes sense, though I wish that were adjustable in settings.

I agree with you about the render distance with planets to an extent, but we're probably on a different page. A higher detailed render that would be used at an orbit should not be used for something incredibly far away. I haven't had any sort of noticeable performance impact from it, but I think it would make quite a bit of sense, especially when you zoom in so far (might seem more real-like). However, a distance cap on being able to see it at all (ei: it disappearing when too far away) is something I don't want to see.

[TheAstronut]

Just to clarify, Minimus is a lot smaller than our moon, and a lot further away in terms of scale, and i was not talking about large terrain features like the sea of tranquility, which you can only see as a discoloration with the naked eye, but actual depth and height/size of mountains that are significantly smaller over much greater distances.

Edit:

Thank you sour monkey that is exactly what I was trying to say, the render settings on small celestial bodys at great distances are unrealistic.

Edit 2: I wasn't suggesting a distance cap that prevents you from seeing it, i was suggesting something similar to the distance cap on large planetary bodies where you see a texture replace the 3d terrain.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TheAstronut

[Starwaster]

is it so far fetched that Jeb has a pair of binoculars in the cockpit?

case solved.

gimme my damned brownie point.

no wait keep the brownie point

just give me my brownie.

no wait keep the brownie, you know what I really want? some blood orange sorbet made by Ciao Bella. Or Talenti in a pinch. MmmmmmMMMMMMmmmmmmm.

You should try it some time.

[TheAstronut]

Binoculars only get you so far, you might be able to see minimus bigger but not in much better detail.

But that's nit picking... If i wanted to go that far i would complain about the lack of atmospheric distortion of orbiting bodys which would cause blurring with cockpit zoom but that would be being OCD if i did that.

[Burninate]

The same reason that you can see the geography of our own Moon a quarter-million miles away, but can't spot a communications satellite that's 10 times closer. Your eyes don't have the resolution to pick out something that's thousands of times smaller than a celestial body.

Your ship is certainly less than 100m in diameter, orbiting 280km away. Minmus is 60km across, orbiting 47,000 km away.

Quite a lot less than 100m in all likelihood. Let's call it 20m - the length of ~2.6 orange tanks, the diameter of 3 concentric ranks of 2.5m asparagus tanks using long radial decouplers.

arctan((20 m) / (280 000 m)) =

14.7 arc seconds

arctan((60 000 m) / (47 000 000 m)) =

263.316631 arc seconds

The Minmas surface should appear (263/14.7) = 17.9x as large on X and on Y dimensions as a ship of those specs, and before correcting for albedo, 17.9^2 = 320x as bright in the sky, as the KSO spacecraft. On Earth, the practical resolution limit from sea level on something 263as wide (dictated by atmospheric seeing) in a static image is going to be an image roughly 50-150 pixels on an edge, and no more.

KSO is *much, much* closer than GSO. It is a practical impossibility to image GSO spacecraft with all but the most sophisticated telescopes equipped with laser guide star AO.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Burninate

[Superfish57]

I just like to believe that a good sized telescope is a standard feature on all the capsules, probably stored in the "Not Food" section.

[TheAstronut]

The Minmas surface should appear (263/14.7) = 17.9x as large on X and on Y dimensions as a ship of those specs, and before correcting for albedo, 17.9^2 = 320x as bright in the sky, as the KSO spacecraft.

You aren't accounting for the albido of the spacecraft, solar panels are significantly more reflective than ice.

Also I was talking about the lack of realism on the part of small-celestial body rendering at great distances, not about the visibility of my spacecraft, what i'm saying is that, if the spacecraft isn't visible i shouldn't be able to make out minute terrain features on a small body that's further away, even one that appears 320x larger (which it won't as it would have a higher albido than Minimus anyway).

And for the record it's significantly bigger than 20m (here is two pictures of one half of the station (i couldn't fit it all in one shot) as it was planned out in the VAB (the orange tanks are for size reference)):

This is getting into a rather ridiculous argument, so I'm just going to say I have put forth my complaint about the way small celestial bodies are rendered and leave it at that.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TheAstronut

[Motokid600]

You wouldn't be able to see the space craft even if it was rendered. ( You need a telescope mod and a way to track it. Both are possible as is a 100km render range with the Lazor mod.) But what KSP doesn't simulate is apparent magnitude. Seeing anything with the "naked eye" is impossible.

Technically speaking. You should be able to see all ships in LKO from the ground with no zoom as moving stars. However only remain visible a few hours after dark and before sunrise. The satellites are so far up that there still illuminated despite it being dark on the ground. If you go outside and look up you will see atleast one in a few minutes.

As for planets. Eve, Duna and Jool should all be visible from the ground with the naked eye as well. Jool would look just like Minmus does. I hope one day squad can incorporate this. So until KSP can reflect light

All planets and crafts are going to remain dark.

[BostLabs]

eh! It's a game. darn good one too.

It also is a 32 bit game and I'm glad they don't allow objects that I have in various orbit visible from the surface of Kerbin (super eyes or not). if the game did show those objects I'd probably see this error "Could not allocate memory: System out of memory!" more often.

Kerbals eat lots of carrots ya know.

[TheAstronut]

This is why i hate forums, nobody reads anything anyone writes.

[BostLabs]

This is why i hate forums, nobody reads anything anyone writes.

But I did read everything you wrote. I understand what you are saying. But you say you are seeing mountains on Minmus and you think you should be able to spot your station in high Kerbin orbit. What you are seeing is shadows my friend. there is no detail worth mentioning in the screen shot you placed in your first post. Even with the zoom that the game allows and if the game did display your craft (I saw your station in another post. Pretty nice!) it would be a very faint dot the size of a single pixel due to the distance.

It is a pretty good size craft for sure, but at that distance there isn't much to see. So why bother with putting it in the skybox?

I remember seeing SkyLab going over the night sky when I was a lad. I knew it was SkyLab because I had tracked it with maps I got from NASA (You'd be surprised what the PR department will give a kid ) and the timing of the orbit (and I got lucky). It was a dot of light. And that was in LEO. I tied to grab it with my telescope. I managed to hit it once. I got a bigger dot. (A low powered telescope we got from Target if I recall.)

Edited September 26, 2013 by BostLabs

[Garek]

No you got it the wrong way round. He isn't saying he should be able to see his station, but that he shouldn't be able to see the mountains of minmus. But all I see in that screenshot is a not-so-round green ball with some wierd white spots, nothing really distinct as a mountain.

[roosterr]

what i'm saying is:

1. It's ridiculous that i can see the terrain on Minimus from Kerbin.

2. If I can see with that much detail something that far away, if I can spot a mountain on Minimus, how come I cannot spot my ship which is significantly closer.

p.s.

I'm a coder, i understand that there is a drawing limit on ships etc. im not asking about that, im asking about why the limits set on celestial objects seem to bear no relation whatsoever to the limits on ships. What I want is the draw distance for celestial objects to be realistic for smaller celestial objects (like Minimus), I understand having high res from far away for large planets, but being able to see rocks on the surface of a comet-moon from over 2 Mm away is ridiculous.

See Harvester's recent speech at the Unity Unite conference. It explains in detail how the visuals work. When you play, whether at KSC or in orbit, or in the capsule IVA mode, you are actually looking at several layers combined to form the entire view. Each layer has its own unique properties. The minmus you see from Kerbin is part of the "Scale View" and behaves differently then the layers in front of it.

See the original post here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50414-Building-a-New-Universe-KSP-Discussion-at-Unite-2013