RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 1 of 212»
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Settings (I was wondering what some settings should be)
Settings
Atheist101Date: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 19:00 | Message # 1
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 47
Status: Offline
So i want the most realistic experience possible with SE. So I'm wondering what some settings should be turned to so i can get closer to whats really out there. Settings like lighting, graphics, and all that. I know a little about editing files, just enough to read what some one has done understand it and be able to do it my self. As for editing things on my own I'm a bit lost. That's why i would like some good ideas on what some things need to be set at to make it more realistic when flying around looking at nebula and planets. Also i have been wondering for a long time, are there any black holes that are in the process of eating stars or planets in SE? I don't think so but if there are i would love to know where. Also are there any super nova to check out? I know the explosions happen over vast amounts of time but maybe there are some in the middle of the process with clouds of gas and all that being pushed out? It would be awesome to add in later versions if it could be possible. Completely forgot to add, is there a way to make approaching nebula easier on my comp? I have a 3.4ghz processor, 8gb ram, and a 1gb geforce video card. No the best but enough to run. Every time i get close to the nebula it drops FPS to almost negative lol. Also does it when i go to galaxies with colorful gas clouds. Mainly the ones with the bright blue and black clouds.

Edited by Atheist101 - Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 19:04
 
apenpaapDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 19:28 | Message # 2
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Well, one way to make SE look as realistic as possible is to turn down the Star Scale and Star overbright in the Ctrl+F4 menu and use a point star style. If you use SE at day that tends to make the stars very difficult to see though. Turning down the galaxy model lighting in the F7 menu a little and deselecting the auto increase of galaxy brightness also makes it more realistic.

There are no black holes that actually suck up stars and planets, and no supernovae. Possibly in future versions. At the moment, things that change with time like those are more or less impossible in SE.

By the way, your post would be a lot more legible if you broke up the paragraph ocassionally. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, but because the current wall of text makes it actually difficult to read and discern where each question begins and ends.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
DeathStarDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 19:30 | Message # 3
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
Quote Atheist101 ()
So i want the most realistic experience possible with SE. So I'm wondering what some settings should be turned to so i can get closer to whats really out there. Settings like lighting, graphics, and all that.


I recommend turning auto-exposure, real planet brightness and real sun brightness on.

Quote Atheist101 ()
Also i have been wondering for a long time, are there any black holes that are in the process of eating stars or planets in SE? I don't think so but if there are i would love to know where. Also are there any super nova to check out? I know the explosions happen over vast amounts of time but maybe there are some in the middle of the process with clouds of gas and all that being pushed out?


Neither is implemented. You can use SpaceEngineer's to-do list in the development subforum to see what is and what isn't implemented.

Quote Atheist101 ()
Completely forgot to add, is there a way to make approaching nebula easier on my comp? I have a 3.4ghz processor, 8gb ram, and a 1gb geforce video card.


There may be a way, but none that I am aware of. I personally don't have too many problems approaching default nebulae. Are you using nebulae or galaxies from addons, since these are the ones that may cause problems?

EDIT: Also, as apenpaap said, it would be nice if you could divide the text in your posts into paragraphs, since it is hard to read text without paragraphs without getting lost.


Edited by DeathStar - Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 19:31
 
apenpaapDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 19:37 | Message # 4
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Quote DeathStar ()
I recommend turning auto-exposure, real planet brightness and real sun brightness on.


Good point, auto-exposure and real sun brightness are defnitely necessary for realism. Real planet brightness is arguable, though: it is indeed more realistic, but only if you assume you're always giving the exact same exposure to every planet, no matter how bright or dim. Since neither our eyes nor cameras actually do that, it's not actually extremely realistic in most cases.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 20:15 | Message # 5
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Most realistic possible settings in my opinion, including the lens flare settings



Also, there's already a thread for posting and talking about settings. Please use the search function before creating a new thread in the future.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 20:17
 
Atheist101Date: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 20:25 | Message # 6
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 47
Status: Offline
Sorry about the paragraph thing, sometimes im using my phone and its very difficult to do that. It is very choppy when writing replies for some reason. But when possible i will for sure do that. I have auto exposure on, real planet brightness, and real sun brightness on. It does help a lot, but there is one thing that i dont like about landing on some planets. When i land on some there seems to be way to much mist, in not sure if thats what it actually is or if its low clouds.

It looks like mist and makes it almost impossible to see the ground color and detail from up above. In systems with yellow and white stars where you get a beautiful green looking ground this "mist" seems to obscure the ground textures. It also makes your line of sight almost 0. Cant see very far off in the distance. It looks cool sometimes but here recently its been getting overwhelming.

I tried turning off atmospheres from sea level but that didnt work. I turned of atmospheres all together and that works but for the pictures i want the atmosphere lol. Just not this mist on certain planets where it gets overwhelming. Its not that big of a deal but it is rather frustrating when you find a beautiful planet and cant get the screens you want. Maybe if i turn up the time and let the time of day change it will help. Ill try that and see what happens.

Thanks for the info so far, but i have seen post where people edit files to make planets more green and rich with life. Can you guys help me with this? Also what is the closest magnitude to reality? I mean star magnitude. Im just trying to get the most real experience because i have always wanted to explore space my entire life. Since it will most likely not be possible in our life time this is the next best thing. It has pretty much made my dream come true, and I'm very thankful for the creation of this program. Its simply amazing in every way!

My post was finished right after your last one harbinger. Thanks so much for the screen i will set mine up to see if that makes it look good. Im also having problems with my TV color settings. I cant seem to get them to what feels right.


Edited by Atheist101 - Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 20:30
 
Blu3smanDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 20:47 | Message # 7
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Ukraine
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
What I find most realistic: Auto-exposure, real planet and sun brightness on; set star scale all the way down to 0.25, galaxies lighting closer to 1.
And then adjust exposure manually on the fly in the interval of ~ 0.5 - 5.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 21:05 | Message # 8
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Real planet brightness is not realistic; it is only useful if you want to compare the relative illuminations of two planets at different parts of the system. Since you will almost never be looking at two far-apart planets at the same time, it is useless. In reality your camera or eyes will automatically adjust to make each world it looks at the correct brightness, so RPB is actually unrealistic.




All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
apenpaapDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 21:07 | Message # 9
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
The 'mist' is likely just the air of planets with a thick atmopshere. It's probably fairly realistic, though in some cases not dense enough. The best solution for it is just to find a planet with a thinner atmosphere.

As for limiting magnitude, 7 as the game has in default is more or less realistic considering there's no light pollution or atmospheric troubles in space. On Earth, 7 is the human eye's limiting magnitude in very good conditions.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
Blu3smanDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 22:03 | Message # 10
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Ukraine
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
Real planet brightness is not realistic; it is only useful if you want to compare the relative illuminations of two planets at different parts of the system. Since you will almost never be looking at two far-apart planets at the same time, it is useless.

But if you look at very distant planet, you'll also be able to see backround stars/nebula/galaxy even with auto-exposure. Isn't it more realistic?
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
In reality your camera or eyes will automatically adjust to make each world it looks at the correct brightness, so RPB is actually unrealistic.

Since SE doesn't have adequate HDR/exposure, I manually increase exposure to simulate eye sensitivity.

So you can have a dim body appear equally bright with or without RPB. But in one case, there's a chance to see background, and in the other case this body is "blinding", while in reality it is not.
 
InariusDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 22:51 | Message # 11
Explorer
Group: Local Moderators
France
Messages: 237
Status: Offline
I generaly use only 0.7 or even 0.5 in star size.

Go to the surface of the earth, and use this, you will see that it's the most realistic.

@Harbringer, with this computer
"Athlon II X4 640 o/c 3.3 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GeForce GTX 480 w/ 1536 MB VRAM "

You ONLY use 0 as LOD ?

What computer should we have to have everything maxed ??? I really wonder, after seeing yours...
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 23:38 | Message # 12
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote Inarius ()
You ONLY use 0 as LOD ?

It depends on the circumstances. I use LOD -2, LOD 0, and LOD 2 at different times. Usually I use LOD 0. LOD 2 requires a very long time to load and takes up a huge amount of memory. It is only good when looking at planets from space (where the whole planet is visible) or when taking a screenshot. I doubt any hardware exists that could use LOD 2 effectively all the time.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
apenpaapDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 00:09 | Message # 13
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
I often switch to LOD 2 inside our Solar System. It tends to work well for me and make everything look gorgeous. Outside, I go down to 0, or -1 if my computer is having a bad day.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
DisasterpieceDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 02:25 | Message # 14
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 640
Status: Offline
I always use LOD 2, regardless of my location. Loading times are ~1 minute. I doubt my computer is that great (Nvidia GTX 550 ti and some crappy dual-core) compared to others, but I have used LOD 2 on all versions of SE without issue.




I play teh spase engien
 
anonymousgamerDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 02:52 | Message # 15
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
Quote Inarius ()
You ONLY use 0 as LOD ?

What computer should we have to have everything maxed ???


I can use LOD 2 with no performance loss, I just choose to use LOD -1 because it loads landscapes instantly rather than having to wait 5 - 10 seconds.





Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Settings (I was wondering what some settings should be)
Page 1 of 212»
Search: