Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 80 of 221«127879808182220221»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
ZatSoloDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 10:25 | Message # 1186
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
Quote ZatSolo ()
... It runs perfect on "Seven Pro 64" but trying with XP I get this message everytime I try to start the .EXE
Hope this may help you to find a solution for the XP users (China ? )

This looks like broken installation. SE even didn't find texture for that loading window. Check your installation.

I've tested it 3 times, even with a clean "972 + 973_patch + 974_p08", but nothing. Same problem.

So, I've watched inside SE.log and I've found this lines:

Code

...
INITIALIZING ENGINE
[MT] Loading script "config/user.cfg"
[MT] Loading shader "system/shaders/hdr_down.glsl"
[MT] ERROR: Can't open the file "system/shaders/hdr_down.glsl"
[MT] Loading shader "system/shaders/hdr_gauss_blur.glsl"
[MT] ERROR: Can't open the file "system/shaders/hdr_gauss_blur.glsl"
[MT] Loading shader "system/shaders/hdr_tone.glsl"
[MT] ERROR: Can't open the file "system/shaders/hdr_tone.glsl"
[MT] Loading shader "system/shaders/hdr_tone_alpha.glsl"
[MT] ERROR: Can't open the file "system/shaders/hdr_tone_alpha.glsl"
...


But this did not make sense! wacko
Then I unzipped, inside the "System" folder, the "shaders" folder contained into shader.pak, then I deleted "shader.pak".
This time SE starts
, but only a black window appears.

I watched inside se.log and it seems that the files contained in the .pak files are not read. This happens only using XP.

"SE.log" is attached.

Attachments: se_978p08-no_sh.log(40Kb)


Edited by ZatSolo - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 10:30
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:14 | Message # 1187
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
Also, I've noticed that 'StaticPosPolar' or 'FixedPosPolar' 'radians' expected, not 'degrees', unlike suggested in this sample.

Oh right, fixed. Now they used degrees. Also, short form does not exist, I mistaken in that post.

Quote Retsof ()
The FTL effect is red in front and blue in back. isn't that backwards?

No. It shows redshift/blueshift caused by gravity, not by the Doppler effect. Doppler effect have no sense in FTL movement, formulas simply break down. Rendering true visual effect of Alcubierre drive is too complex task for now. By the way, with realistic rendering, camera cannot be outside the warp field, because in that case it will move with faster than light physical speed.





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:39 | Message # 1188
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Quote Fireinthehole ()
One thing SpaceEngine, in my opinion, has simulated unrealisticly since, I believe, ever is the fact that some atmospheres, up to thousands of Earth atmosphere in pressure, are fully transparent. Thousands of atmospheres would be more than the pressure at the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Pacific Ocean. I hardly doubt that an atmosphere of that thickness, no matter what its content, would be transparent. One wouldn't see the ground from space on such a planet.

SE atmosphere rendering method don't allow to show opaque atmopsheres. It was designed for Earth. This is why SE don't have "gas dwarfs" or "puffy ice giant" planet classes. Ie planets with small core and very thick atmosphere. They simply will look glitchy.

Quote Donatelo200 ()
I found an interesting bug to say the least. Some moons will generate in hyperbolic orbits causing them to pass through the host planet and eject from the star system. Highly amusing.

LOL, thanks, fixed))

Quote JackDole ()
Something is wrong with the orbit of Neptune.

Oops. To fix that, add this line to Orbit tag of Neptune:
RefPlane "Ecliptic"

Quote quarior14 ()
it would be nice to put default to the next patch as well as other mod cloud of the gas giants, if I remember well, it is Voekoevaka who made it.

This mod has some serious issues, so I don't include it. I don't remember details now.





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:41 | Message # 1189
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Quote ZatSolo ()
Then I unzipped, inside the "System" folder, the "shaders" folder contained into shader.pak, then I deleted "shader.pak".
This time SE starts, but only a black window appears.


shader.pak must be in system folder, not in system/shaders. If you unzip shaders from the pak, they (files with extension .glsl) must be in system/shaders folders.

Try to unzip all paks in SE. Use "extract here" command, then remove pak files.





 
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:52 | Message # 1190
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1735
Status: Offline
ZatSolo

I noticed in the log file that 'SpaceEngine' some files not found, which are not in .pak files, but directly into the appropriate folders.

[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/splash18.*"

[MT] ERROR: Script::Load(): Can't open the file "models/atmospheres/atmospheres.cfg"

MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "config/exitscreen.*"

So maybe something is wrong with your installation.

Where have you installed SE?
When in 'C:\Program Files (x86)' or 'C:\Program Files', uninstall 'SpaceEngine' and install it somewhere else. If it is possible, not at all on C:





Don't forget to look here.

 
ZatSoloDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:52 | Message # 1191
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
shaders.pak must be in system folder, not in system/shaders. If you unzip shaders from the pak, they (files with extension .glsl) must be in system/shaders folders.

Try to unzip all paks in SE. Use "extract here" command, then remove pak files.


Yes, shaders.pak is in system folder. All the *.pak are in the right place. I checked carefully.
Anyway, reading the "se.log" file seems that the files inside the *.pak files are not read. This happens only using XP.

I also copied a fully functional (under Win7) 974p08 from a PC to another (XP), then I've deleted the cache but nothing.


Edited by ZatSolo - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:56
 
ZatSoloDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 11:54 | Message # 1192
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
Where have you installed SE?
When in 'C:\Program Files (x86)' or 'C:\Program Files', uninstall 'SpaceEngine' and install it somewhere else. If it is possible, not at all on C:

I've tested SE p08 in several folders (even in C:\SE). Nothing. Only using XP there is this problem. Using Seven all is OK.
 
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 12:11 | Message # 1193
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1735
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
LOL, thanks, fixed

Does that mean that it is no longer possible in the next version of SE to send a planet on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit? For example, the earth?



That I would find very sad. sad tongue

(This image was the reason that I realized that something is wrong with the orbit of Neptune.)

Attachments: 6857634.jpg(112Kb)





Don't forget to look here.



Edited by JackDole - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 12:15
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 12:37 | Message # 1194
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
Does that mean that it is no longer possible in the next version of SE to send a planet on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit? For example, the earth?

Why? Of course no. Why should I remove hyperbolic orbits at all from SE code? I just fixed a bug what made some procedural moons hyperbolic.





 
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 13:12 | Message # 1195
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1735
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
Why should I remove hyperbolic orbits

My mistake. I forgot that they existed. I've never used hyperbolic orbits. wacko





Don't forget to look here.

 
ZatSoloDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 13:54 | Message # 1196
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
... Try to unzip all paks in SE. Use "extract here" command, then remove pak files.


I've used "extract here" for all the *.pak, then i've deleted them. SE now crashes (no black window) ad se.log shows this

...
[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/splash09.*"
....
[MT] ERROR: seScript::Load(): Can't open the file "textures/common/Modern Blue skin.cfg"
....
[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/planet_atlas.*"
...
[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/sprites_gal.*"

and so on (see the "se.log" attached)

Anyway "./textures/common/splash09.gif" does exist and also exsist, in the right folder, "./textures/common/Modern Blue skin.cfg", "./textures/common/planet_atlas.png" and "./textures/common/sprites_gal.png" and so on.

sad

Attachments: se_978p8_no_pak.log(36Kb)


Edited by ZatSolo - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 13:59
 
Giordie85Date: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 17:28 | Message # 1197
Observer
Group: Newbies
Italy
Messages: 8
Status: Offline
I sincerely don't like the accretion disks of black holes and neutron stars in the last patch. They look too big, too "solid", too dark, and the spin is too slow. At least, the spin velocity would increase as matter approaches the event horizon. And you wouldn't see the rotation as it's rendered now, but just the light emitted by the accretion disk.

The first images posted before this last patch were way more realistic than what I see on this version. I mean the ones in which the black hole resembled Interstellar's Gargantua. Also, the redshift/blueshift effect in those photos was great.


Edited by Giordie85 - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 17:28
 
FaceDeerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 18:27 | Message # 1198
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 117
Status: Offline
Quote Giordie85 ()
The first images posted before this last patch were way more realistic than what I see on this version. I mean the ones in which the black hole resembled Interstellar's Gargantua.


The accretion disk in that instance was carefully hand-crafted to match the appearance of Interstellar, and the appearance of the disk in Interstellar was adjusted by the filmmakers to be less "realistic" and more "what average moviegoers would find cinematic-looking." So I wouldn't expect real accretion disks to look exactly like Interstellar's, even though Interstellar did a better job than most movies when it comes to getting close.

I'm curious, what are you comparing Space Engine's accretion disks to when you say they aren't realistic? I'm not saying whether they are or aren't realistic, it's just that things like this are completely outside of routine human experience so we need to be careful about judging whether they look right based on what we think they should look like.
 
SalvoDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 19:40 | Message # 1199
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote Giordie85 ()
...were way more realistic


How can you know if they're realistic or not? Did you see that with you own eyes? tongue

Jokes apart, SE aims to be more realistic as possible, and if you see something on a movie is not necessarily realistic. It is... a movie... after all. A movie aims to be spectacular, not realistic, even if there are some exceptions.

Of course SE does not represent the universe as it is perfectly, it has it own limitations, but Vladimir knows exactly what he's doing and he would never implement a feature that is not "realistic". smile (for what concerns celestial bodies or rendering)





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...)
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 21:35 | Message # 1200
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
ZatSolo, something very wrong is happen with your SE. If exe didn't see files in it's folder, this mean either it was not in the right place, or it's working folder is incorrect, or system doesn't allow it access to it's own folder. Make clean installation again, somewhere on disk D: where you have 100% read/write access.




 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
Page 80 of 221«127879808182220221»
Search: