WIP - Environmental Visual Enhancements Development

[pingopete]

Stacked 2D layers, yes. And works pretty cool, imho.

Cheers man, btw with the falling snow did you have an issue with the snow texture rotating/spinning by any chance?

Edited January 5, 2015 by pingopete

[Proot]

Cheers man, btw with the falling snow did you have an issue with the snow texture rotating/spinning by any chance?

All particles "rotates", I think. I guess that's how Rbray simulate the volumetrics clouds, so all particles seems to spin when you move around. Plus, if you use "snow" particles in the poles the effect is more obvious, because the poles are the texture's pivot points.

[Thesonicgalaxy]

Yeah me two though I was hoping there may be some, more efficient, system I didn't know of yet

EDIT: TSG in response to your 'best song':

Not that I can think of. Then again I haven't really touched the E.V.E overhauls too much, so maybe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53wbgkIC0wg, okay, now let's not go off-topic.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Thesonicgalaxy

[pingopete]

All particles "rotates", I think. I guess that's how Rbray simulate the volumetrics clouds, so all particles seems to spin when you move around. Plus, if you use "snow" particles in the poles the effect is more obvious, because the poles are the texture's pivot points.

Hmm that';s a shame, Else it would've made quite a nice fly-through snow effect, though I don't know how one would make it 'fall' downwards continuously, man having dedicated effects perpendicular to the 2D layers would be so epic, would mean you could have stuff like '3D' auroras coming out of the planets, volcanic explosions, geysers and more Maybe in the future

[Proot]

Hmm that';s a shame, Else it would've made quite a nice fly-through snow effect, though I don't know how one would make it 'fall' downwards continuously, man having dedicated effects perpendicular to the 2D layers would be so epic, would mean you could have stuff like '3D' auroras coming out of the planets, volcanic explosions, geysers and more Maybe in the future

Yeah, I'm proposing precisely that to Rbray from a few pages ago. But I assume that is not easy, because that's a great change in the particle system. Anyway, I think the new system is quite flexible, right now.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Proot

[pingopete]

Yeah, I'm proposing precisely that to Rbray from a few pages ago. But I assume that is not easy, because that's a great change in the particle system. Anyway, I think the new system is quite flexible, right now.

Yeah having said that I think extending the already existing billboard system into scaled space might at least provide a decent substitute for the time being. It'd allow 'outstanding' clouds like cumulonimus' from the 2D layer in orbit which could be seriously epic looking! though like you said I think he said the rotational effect may be an issue here also..

One day... One day.

On another note having control over the power of the cloud shadow would be a nice feature, I feel as such a wonderful thing has now been implemented it'd be nice to get the most out of it; they're currently fairly faint and difficult to see.

Edited January 5, 2015 by pingopete

[silverfox8124]

SilverFox here from Kerbal Weather Systems, reporting in! I just came to check up and see how this place is doing. All seems well, and to answer the questions about how "falling" snow would work, my suggestion would be to have them linked to particles and have the particle's position literally fall on the particle's -UpAxis, and then destroy itself upon ground contact. That will most likely be the way I will do it with Kerbal Weather Systems.

[Proot]

Yeah having said that I think extending the already existing billboard system into scaled space might at least provide a decent substitute for the time being. It'd allow 'outstanding' clouds like cumulonimus' from the 2D layer in orbit which could be seriously epic looking! though like you said I think he said the rotational effect may be an issue here also..

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/articles/images/clouds/earth.jpg

One day... One day.

You can do that now, in fact I have a similar clouds config right now. But you can't see the effect clearly from space. And I'm afraid that is quite hard, for not to say impossible. We have two problems here:

1º. (Non from EVE) The two cameras system from KSP... You see one thing from scaled space, and another for the rest. That is why we suffer it (imho) terrible gaps in the change of the view.

2º. (From EVE in some way, because in reality it's a problem in all volumetrics systems) Is quite impossible to achieve a particle system enough good and not too expensive to cover all the globe

Probably nothing that Rbray can solve by his own.

So the easiest way to get that effect is using very-well-done normal maps for the clouds, as was possible to do some EVE versions ago. But that, again,under the new system will be quite expensive in performance terms...

On another note having control over the power of the cloud shadow would be a nice feature, I feel as such a wonderful thing has now been implemented it'd be nice to get the most out of it; they're currently fairly faint and difficult to see.

Yeah, I said that too. Will be quite interesting, specialy in planets as Eve, with dense atmosphere and so on...

[pingopete]

You can do that now, in fact I have a similar clouds config right now. But you can't see the effect clearly from space. And I'm afraid that is quite hard, for not to say impossible. We have two problems here:

1º. (Non from EVE) The two cameras system from KSP... You see one thing from scaled space, and another for the rest. That is why we suffer it (imho) terrible gaps in the change of the view.

2º. (From EVE in some way, because in reality it's a problem in all volumetrics systems) Is quite impossible to achieve a particle system enough good and not too expensive to cover all the globe

Probably nothing that Rbray can solve by his own.

So the easiest way to get that effect is using very-well-done normal maps for the clouds, as was possible to do some EVE versions ago. But that, again,under the new system will be quite expensive in performance terms...

A procedural system would apply the particle effects at the current screen resolution making it the most efficient balance between performance and quality; never rendering at a higher res then needed at any one moment, it'd also be completely continuous and thus seamless, however obviously it'd require a completely new system design and I'm unsure whether it'd be out of the capabilities of Unity currently let alone EVE mod in KSP. It'd sure be the best 'ideal' solution, and could also be applied to the terrain using noise algorithms to produce hills, mountains, rivers etc.

-I've been thinking though that now KSP is almost out of Beta, and will soon no longer be building inwards but outwards maybe... hopefully they'll re-conciser the incorporation of a proper procedural weather system we saw some preliminary screens of so long ago.

For the time being however I'm still amazed at what has been possible through the current system, so bravo rbray, bravo!

One thing I'd Reeeeaallly like to see would be normals for detail textures, all round, clouds and terrain, it'd make things incredibly beautiful from orbit, just think of those detailed mountain ranges

Edited January 5, 2015 by pingopete

[silverfox8124]

@pingopete, My weather mod will soon be dealing automatic cloud cover, where some cells will be clouded, and some sections not clouded. Procedural cloud generation used to be a thing a waaay long time back, Harvestr actually did it once, but dropped it for some reason.

[Hyomoto]

The way that the scene is built in KSP means you really only have to render the weather separate from the scene and apply it as another layer on the view. It may not be what rbay is doing at all, but it's certainly within the realm of Unity's capabilities. I mean we've seen the effect used countless times and it would be a much cheaper alternative than trying to create volumetric or particle-based weather and would work in or out of cockpit mode. I imagine we'll see stock weather come along one of these days, there's no way Squad isn't interested in it at least at a basic level. The real issue would be seeing the weather at a distance, but you might get a decent effect with animated billboard sprites.

[pingopete]

@pingopete, My weather mod will soon be dealing automatic cloud cover, where some cells will be clouded, and some sections not clouded. Procedural cloud generation used to be a thing a waaay long time back, Harvestr actually did it once, but dropped it for some reason.

Really?? WHY would anyone drop something like that!! :L How do you mean a thing of the past? Cool I'll have to check that out.

[silverfox8124]

@pingopete, I heard talk of it in an IRC channel. I was even provided screenshots, go through every previous changelog for KSP and see if you can find it. I forget which version it was in.

[pingopete]

@pingopete, I heard talk of it in an IRC channel. I was even provided screenshots, go through every previous changelog for KSP and see if you can find it. I forget which version it was in.

It was in a version OF KSP?!!?!?!?! ... ok will do lol

[Ralathon]

It was in a version OF KSP?!!?!?!?! ... ok will do lol

Yea, a ksp test version once had a procedural cloud cover. They dropped it because it looked quite bad and clogged performance.

[tygoo7]

Yea, a ksp test version once had a procedural cloud cover. They dropped it because it looked quite bad and clogged performance.

I believe these were the development pictures.

[Agathorn]

Hi,

In the really older versions of this mod I had made some config files, that unfortunately do not work anymore. I was trying to re-create them but the controls are very different.

You used to be able to give it one large image that it would wrap around the whole planet, and you could set the radius of the sphere it was wrapped to, as well as an X/Y offset to align things. I can't seem to figure out how to do that anymore. Is this no longer possible?

Still wondering on this if anyone can please help. I want to be able to take a series of 5 or 6 overall images on layers and line them up together to form one continuous texture over the planet.

[pingopete]

Still wondering on this if anyone can please help. I want to be able to take a series of 5 or 6 overall images on layers and line them up together to form one continuous texture over the planet.

The new layer velocity is now not only proportional to its altitude but is also persistent amungst saves, making this kinda thing next to impossible. If you wanted to have say two clouds at varying altitudes but remain next to each other vertically you'd need to find the orbital velocity for any given object orbiting at kerbin/earth at a given altitude then use that as a scaling factor and extrapolate/interpolate that up or down to find the slight speed increase or decrease necessary to maintain a cloud layer at the higher or lower alt. I.e. A cloud layer at 2000m with a speed of 100 would need an adjacent layer beneath to have a speed of something like 99.998472 (or something) to be rotating the the same speed relative to each other. Even then over greater time warps they'd still become unaligned, not to mention that persistent saves would change their placement on anyone else's career.

Edited January 6, 2015 by pingopete

[Agathorn]

The new layer velocity is now not only proportional to its altitude but is also persistent amungst saves, making this kinda thing next to impossible. If you wanted to have say two clouds at varying altitudes but remain next to each other vertically you'd need to find the orbital velocity for any given object orbiting at kerbin/earth at a given altitude then use that as a scaling factor and extrapolate/interpolate that up or down to find the slight speed increase or decrease necessary to maintain a cloud layer at the higher or lower alt. I.e. A cloud layer at 2000m with a speed of 100 would need an adjacent layer beneath to have a speed of something like 99.998472 (or something) to be rotating the the same speed relative to each other. Even then over greater time warps they'd still become unaligned, not to mention that persistent saves would change their placement on anyone else's career.

What about at the same altitude though? My problem is the old system I could take two image, and adjust the X,Y offset to make them line up. This new system has an offset given in 3 values that I don't seem to understand because change any of those 3 values doesn't offset the image any. This is making it so that I can't get two images at the same altitude to line up the way I want.

[Agathorn]

Is there any way to get CityLights to display the detail texture only at certain altitudes?

I want to have more detailed lights at low altitudes, and another at higher altitudes/orbit level.

EDIT: Ug I just realized my city lights overall city lights isn't orientated correctly anyway and there seems to be no way to adjust it. I really liked the old system. Is it possible the old EVE still works?

Edited January 6, 2015 by Agathorn

[pingopete]

Is there any way to get CityLights to display the detail texture only at certain altitudes?

I want to have more detailed lights at low altitudes, and another at higher altitudes/orbit level.

EDIT: Ug I just realized my city lights overall city lights isn't orientated correctly anyway and there seems to be no way to adjust it. I really liked the old system. Is it possible the old EVE still works?

I'd too like varying levels of detail for city lights as well as for terrain detail. But no there isn't anything like that yet.

[Chezburgar7300]

I believe these were the development pictures.

http://i.imgur.com/x3g7f.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/YzWzZYY.jpg

That looks stunning from the ground though... In my opinion anyway.

[_Augustus_]

My clouds dissapear when they aren't in 3d. Help?

[tygoo7]

My clouds dissapear when they aren't in 3d. Help?

Can you post the config?

[Chezburgar7300]

For some reason, I can't get a cloud layer working on a star. I don't know if this is from the use of StarSystems, which I don't think it is because it still registers names properly, but I can't for the life of me get it to work. I know it worked on 7-4 because Astronomer's pack had this feature, so it must be the overhaul or starsystems.

Also, rbray, is there any specific reason why negative minLight values don't work? I was trying to create some lightning yesterday and nothing was happening. Any help is appreciated!

Edit: It's normal that cloud layers don't show up if they don't have shadows enabled, right?

Edited January 7, 2015 by Chezburgar7300