|
Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
|
|
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Friday, 23.10.2015, 21:32 | Message # 661 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote Moonkey (  ) From my testing in 0.9.7.4 build 7, ReShade cannot access the depth buffer (And hence can't use depth-based effects)
Because now SE uses reversed z-buffer, which reshade probably don't support.
Quote Fireinthehole ( ) When will these strings come up for us to translate?
I think with the next patch. You may simply run it and open log to see the missing strings.
Quote Oatmeal_Spigeon ( ) The reason I thought that was because before I upgraded to Windows 10 on my Core i3, the aurora were working just fine.
Sis you triied to switch off "high quality aurora" in graphics settings?
Quote Vilfate ( ) I was just happy welcoming back the underwater fogs in patch 7...
and then found cut orbits once again
Are orbits rendered in front of water?
This is not bug, but limitation. Did you knew what accurate rendering of transparent objects required sorting, so rendering is done in back to front order? This is one of the hard and unsolved problem in computer graphics. Numerous algorithms was proposed during tens of years, from simple sorting of the primitives, to most modern per-pixel shader-based algorithms, what requiring extreme computing power. SE uses objects sorting for some cases (atmosphere, clouds, water, rings, aurora and planet particles), but no sorting for very large object such as comet tail sprites and orbital lines. You simply cannot choose right rendering order, because the same orbit could be rendered behind the planet and in front of it simultaneously (orbit of its moon). Single depth buffer for entire scene allows to render transparent orbital lines in right order with opaque objects, but to render them with right blending, some complex algorithm is required. I can make them opaque, so blending will not be issue anymore, but this will disable anti-aliasing. So for now orbits will be rendered in front of transparent part of planets, sorry. I think having right intersection with planet bodies is better than old method of rendering orbits in the background.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Friday, 23.10.2015, 21:35 | Message # 662 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote Billia ( ) Not sure if this has been stated before or if it's already known; in the latest Beta patch 7, It seems that some galaxies are rendering blue stars from super long distances. I thought that it was limited to irregulars but then I found these two S0 galaxies doing the same thing. If it's a hardware issue, just let me know how and I'll fix. But I wanted to bring it up here in the event that it's a bug.
This is not a bug. What is the diameter of that galaxies? If galaxy is small (dwarf galaxy), bright stars will be visible from greater relative distance.
The bug in this patch is extreme star density in some galaxies. You can't do anything with is. This is a beta version anyway.
|
| |
| |
| Oatmeal_Spigeon | Date: Friday, 23.10.2015, 21:56 | Message # 663 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
New Zealand
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
| Yes, SpaceEngineer, I turned of high-quality aurora, again, on Windows 8 it was working fine on high-quality aurora. I just think that this needs to be better-optimised for Windows 10.
"I am neither Oatmeal Spigeon Nor Oatmeal Spigeon Nor."
|
| |
| |
| Billia | Date: Friday, 23.10.2015, 22:11 | Message # 664 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 9
Status: Offline
| Quote SpaceEngineer ( ) This is not a bug. What is the diameter of that galaxies? If galaxy is small (dwarf galaxy), bright stars will be visible from greater relative distance.The bug in this patch is extreme star density in some galaxies. You can't do anything with is. This is a beta version anyway.
The galaxy on the left is 2391 LY Diameter. Galaxy on right is 1062 LY Diameter. So issue is not that stars are loading from too far, but too many?
|
| |
| |
| Donatelo200 | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 02:50 | Message # 665 |
|
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
| That is tiny. For reference the milky way is average and is around 100,000 LY across. The galaxies you show are only 2.4% and 1% the size of the milky way respectively. They are dwarf galaxies.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
|
| |
| |
| Oatmeal_Spigeon | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 07:34 | Message # 666 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
New Zealand
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
| Nevermind, I reinstalled my NVIDIA drivers and everything's working well again, apparently it was conflicting when I installed Windows 10.
"I am neither Oatmeal Spigeon Nor Oatmeal Spigeon Nor."
|
| |
| |
| Charlie | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 14:16 | Message # 667 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 3
Status: Offline
| Good Morning. Just a quick question. Have been using the .974 beta for a couple of weeks now and was wondering if anyone was experiencing crashes after landing on a planet and increasing the LOD to 2? I have searched for anyone having a similar problem but haven't had luck. Included is my SE log. .974 is a fresh install and have tried everything but to no avail, otherwise the program runs beautifully.
In advance, Thanks Space Engine and all the individuals who are helping with this program version. It is truly a great program, really, a work of art 
Dell XPS-8700 (modified)
Intel Core i7-4790 3.6 GHz
32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-1600 Memory
PNY GeForce GTX-980 Ti 6GB DDR5
|
| |
| |
| Aerospacefag | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 14:31 | Message # 668 |
 Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
| Charlie, it is not recommended to increase LOD over 0 value because it will overload the system with little to no quality increase, it is only recommended to do this in stationary position and stopped time to get screenshots with unprecedencted level of details.
|
| |
| |
| Inarius | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 16:43 | Message # 669 |
 Explorer
Group: Local Moderators
France
Messages: 237
Status: Offline
| Quote Charlie, it is not recommended to increase LOD over 0 value because it will overload the system with little to no quality increase
Are you sure ? LOD 2 seems much better than LOD 0, for me
|
| |
| |
| RedRuin | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 17:11 | Message # 670 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 34
Status: Offline
| Charlie, this happens to me as well. I'm pretty sure the game crashes when you run out of VRAM.
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 18:51 | Message # 671 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| Quote SpaceEngineer ( ) This is not bug, but limitation.
Yeah, stupid computer graphics.
I hate transparent things. 
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
|
| |
| |
| Charlie | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 21:31 | Message # 672 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 3
Status: Offline
| Thanks All for your help and advice, much appreciated!! Was pullin' my hair out trying to figure out what was up, thought it was my system. I will set the LOD accordingly. Thanks Again
Dell XPS-8700 (modified)
Intel Core i7-4790 3.6 GHz
32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-1600 Memory
PNY GeForce GTX-980 Ti 6GB DDR5
|
| |
| |
| Vilfate | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 22:07 | Message # 673 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
China
Messages: 49
Status: Offline
| SpaceEngineer, I see... My bad. Thank you so much for your time explaining. 
|
| |
| |
| ZatSolo | Date: Saturday, 24.10.2015, 22:40 | Message # 674 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
| Quote ZatSolo Apparently in the patch 03 has changed the algorithm for terrain generation. My saved places with mountains now have become almost flat ...
Well, after exploring many deserts and terras, I can safely say that mountains, in deserts, are more frequent and higher than those on terras. Terras, in other words, are flatter than the deserts.
In version 0.9.7.3 up to version 0.9.7.4 p02 this was not the case. It's a deliberate feature or a mistake?
|
| |
| |
| 11ryanc | Date: Sunday, 25.10.2015, 08:24 | Message # 675 |
 Observer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 19
Status: Offline
| Probably mentioned elsewhere, but will Mars and Venus ever have procedural detailed surfaces?
Intel Core i7 4790k, MSI Z97 PC Mate, EVGA GTX 950, 16GB 1600 MHz, SanDisk SSD Plus 120GB, 2 TB WD Green, 2 TB Seagate Barracuda, Cooler Master Elite 350 Mid Tower
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Russian Federation 
New Zealand 
United States 
France 
Italy 
China