Why Cockpit zoom is overpowered.

[Ralathon]

On the other hand, That's a feature I wouldn't mind: Make unrendered spaceships a tiny white dot whos intensity scales with distance and mass. Wouldn't cost much processing power at all and it would look really nice to look up at the night sky seeing debris and spaceships slowly moving around the sky.

[CoriW]

Right so I know that it's been mentioned over and over again that you can see the mountains on Minmus with the "telescopic" cockpit zoom... But has anyone even realized that the highest mountain on Minmus is 5725 meters? Minmus is only 120,000 meters in diameter, so those mountains are 4.77% the diameter of Minmus... Then the fact that the rendering artifacts (At least what look like rendering artifacts, the little white dots) also enhance the edges of said mountains, it's sort of obvious why you can make out the mountains with the, once again, "telescopic" zoom.

EDIT: Also, if you look at the size of the Mun in the sky without the cockpit zoom (Mun is 400,000 meters in diameter, orbiting at 11.4 Mm), then look at the size of Minmus in the sky without the cockpit zoom (Minmus is 120,000 meters in diameter, orbiting at 46.4 Mm), it seems to look like a pretty good scale to me, considering that the Mun appears as a giant object in the sky and Minmus appears as a little white dot.

Edited September 26, 2013 by CoriW

[Corw]

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.)

Not related to topic, but this is more convinient than maps http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

[bsalis]

But ... but... how else are you to do astronomy...

(not my gif)

[AmpsterMan]

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

To be fair, my comment has been ignored. I empathize with you in this regard.

P.S. The way your OP was worded could lead to some misunderstandings if it isn't read in a nuanced way I.E. It could be interpreted as a complaint of why something doesn't happen technically, rather than a "Hey this doesn't make much sense" kind of post.

[Rage097]

from the first post all I gathered was

A) You used the unique Kerbal eveolutionary trait of telescopic eyes.

you saw a LARGE object as opposed to a SMALL vehicle/station.

To be fair, you would more than likely miss an orbiting station than an orbiting moon.

Moon>station. By A LOT. Therefore, you see the moon; Minmus, instead of your station.

[UbioZur]

To know why the planets are so well rendered, check out the ksp video on unite 2013. It's long and very technical but you will understand why.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50414-Building-a-New-Universe-KSP-Discussion-at-Unite-2013

[Dooz]

Well kerbals have evolved eyes like that like i can see eve from LKO

[BostLabs]

Not related to topic, but this is more convinient than maps http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

I'm not trying to frighten you, but... There was no internet back then. Scarey, I know.

[BostLabs]

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.

You are correct. That is how I was reading it last night.

My apologies, TheAstronut.

[xclusiv8]

what i'm saying is:

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.

Since you obviously are a "coder" you must understand the reason for why ships are not rendered. What is the heaviest type calculations ingame? The physics between parts. What happens if you need to calculate the physics for all of your ships that are out in space all the time, even if you cant see them? Your cpu melts and your computer explodes into a million pieces.

A planet is a single object, not all that physics heavy.

[Moon Goddess]

I'm not trying to frighten you, but... There was no internet back then. Scarey, I know.

The horror!

Technically there was internet back then....sorta, or proto-internet, but you just didn't have access to it and you wouldn't recognize it since the world wide web didn't begin till late 80's early 90's.

[Camacha]

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.

I feel it already was a bit of a ridiculous argument, to be honest. It is a game, with some concessions regarding reality due to technical and gameplay related issues. Being able to see and distinguish the planets from the launchpad might be quite handy for a lot of players who try to get their timing worked out.

Long story short; I fail to really see a problem.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Camacha

[HeadHunter67]

Let's call it 20m

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.

Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate mathematically what I was trying to explain. You understand my point very clearly.

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

If a solar panel is "significantly reflective", it won't be a very effective solar panel. After all, a solar panel is designed to absorb solar energy, not reflect it.

[Starwaster]

The horror!

Technically there was internet back then....sorta, or proto-internet, but you just didn't have access to it and you wouldn't recognize it since the world wide web didn't begin till late 80's early 90's.

my last day of high school, our library got the most rudimentiriest of internet access. I ordered a free shirt. I no longer even remember of who or why, but there wasn't even a world wide web yet except maybe as a gleam in someone's eye. but I did receive my shirt...

[KrazyKrl]

Well, since physics are disabled on crafts, and they are on rails, and they are static in their reference frame until within 2.5km. I don't see why each craft couldn't have a simplified 1:6000 render for overlay into the map view that would be saved the last time it exited 2.5km. And it would only be added to the scene as a render if the distance makes the object more than 1 pixel in size, else it could just be an anomalous white dot in space.

Seeing your other crafts as moving "stars" would actually be quite amazing. But is only really eye-candy, unless you're doing a rendezvous.

[lajoswinkler]

I like the huge zoom when you look through windows (double click on them).

Today I've landed and prepared a base on Mün and later visited it using a lander which is a part of the station orbiting it. It was my most precise manual landing ever and I haven't even tried to come closer, though I had plenty of fuel left to do so. So I went on EVA and 432m later I'm in the base, looking at the lander.

It's interesting, kind of gives you a sense of distance.

[BeefTenderloin]

Also, you aren't seeing a rendered planet, just a 2d object.

[vetrox]

It would be nice if you could see your orbiting stations at dusk and dawn on kerbin (as you can in real life) as a small start going across the sky and remember, things in ksp are alot smaller than the real world. The planets and the distances between them and their moons.

I expect that if everything was to scale in ksp you would still be able to make out minmus with a pair of binoculars and no atmosphere or light pollution getting in the way. So it makes sense that you can zoom in on it. Have you ever tried looking at a sattellite through a telescope? its not easy and it still jsut looks like a star moving through the sky. So does the iss (well it does with my telescope anyway)

[boxman]

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.

It dosent cause much lag since there is little to no physics being calculated.. And the idea for future is that we have to look for planets using things like telescopes to discover them, this would not work if they put a cap celestial bodies. In a game like this you should be able to zoom in on a planet/moon even if it is far away.

[Zeblote]

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

Steps to fix this:

When you leave control of the ship, render ship from all 6 sides before unloading it.

When you control another ship, place billboards and load the renders on them, one for each of your ships.

[Technical Ben]

Also, you aren't seeing a rendered planet, just a 2d object.

AFAIK it is rendered.

[TheAstronut]

If a solar panel is "significantly reflective", it won't be a very effective solar panel. After all, a solar panel is designed to absorb solar energy, not reflect it.

Satellites are significantly brighter than anything in the solar system than the sun due to their reflectivity.

[HeadHunter67]

Satellites are significantly brighter than anything in the solar system than the sun due to their reflectivity.

Albedo .136, about that of worn asphalt.

You've disregarded science and game design the entire thread. Please stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.

[Motokid600]

I install solar panels for a living. I don't care what anyone says. On a clear day the reflection is strong enough to the point you cannot look into it. No its not a mirror, but still is significantly brighter then anything up there in orbit.