Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 17 of 61«1215161718196061»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress 0.97
Work progress 0.97
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 20:25 | Message # 241
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
Quote (Baleur)
Can anyone provide some input as to wether this setting is actually more realistic or not?

It is meant to be used to compare the relative brightnesses of two or more stars. For lone stars it makes to sense to use it except sometimes for aesthetic effect if you want. It is similar to the purpose of Real Planet Brightness.

Quote (Baleur)
Is there anyway in any file somewhere that i can change the minimum and maximum values for RPB?

No

Quote (Baleur)
some stars are just so incredibly powerful that it'd make no difference how small our pupil was contracted)

But in SE we simulate a camera, not an eye, and there are cameras that can expose properly even under stupefyingly extreme light conditions.





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
 
Antza2Date: Friday, 02.11.2012, 23:04 | Message # 242
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
These water shaders in SE would cause a serious awesome overload. Think of the huge waves on an oceania!





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
Joey_PenguinDate: Saturday, 03.11.2012, 01:15 | Message # 243
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 311
Status: Offline
Concerning the issue of procedural sound generation, perhaps we could have a premade track play depending on the general environment you're in (be it intergalactic, near a nebula or galactic core, etc.)

And then, when you approach a star system (within a few hundred AU's), the engine could then generate the sound of the central body.
When you approach a planet, ambient music could play. One could imagine serene, beautiful music for warm terras with life, and an eerie, silent beat for frozen selenas.

Finally, when you enter the atmosphere (if it has one, of course smile ), the engine plays various ambiences like wind, water, and your engines.

The whole system could work like this site:
http://www.ambient-mixer.com/





Careful. The PLATT Collective has spurs.

Edited by Joey_Penguin - Saturday, 03.11.2012, 01:16
 
SalvoDate: Saturday, 03.11.2012, 10:17 | Message # 244
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote (Antza2)
These water shaders in SE would cause a serious awesome overload.

I think too, I couldn't wait so I tried to make it by myself, using animated textures, bump mapping and reflection mapping, but, yes, I failed miserably biggrin





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...)
 
GlorymajorDate: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 02:17 | Message # 245
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Brazil
Messages: 30
Status: Offline
Quote (Joey_Penguin)
Concerning the issue of procedural sound generation, perhaps we could have a premade track play depending on the general environment you're in (be it intergalactic, near a nebula or galactic core, etc.)

And then, when you approach a star system (within a few hundred AU's), the engine could then generate the sound of the central body.
When you approach a planet, ambient music could play. One could imagine serene, beautiful music for warm terras with life, and an eerie, silent beat for frozen selenas.

Finally, when you enter the atmosphere (if it has one, of course smile ), the engine plays various ambiences like wind, water, and your engines.

The whole system could work like this site:
http://www.ambient-mixer.com/


Hey Joey, nice web site! Thanks for sharing!





PC: Intel i7 3.2 GHz, 8 Gb RAM, GeForce GTX 680 with 2048 Mb VRAM
Laptop: Intel i7 2.3 GHz, 8 Gb RAM, GeForce GTX 675M with 2048 Mb VRAM
 
BaleurDate: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 05:42 | Message # 246
Observer
Group: Users
Sweden
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
Yeah the next big thing for planets should definetly be the water. And the already planned improved clouds.
 
SalvoDate: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 11:08 | Message # 247
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote (Joey_Penguin)
http://www.ambient-mixer.com/

Added to favourite!!! biggrin

Quote (Baleur)
Yeah the next big thing for planets should definetly be the water. And the already planned improved clouds.

I totally agree smile





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...)
 
AaronDate: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 23:22 | Message # 248
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
I'm not sure if I believe that. Close or cover one eye, and stare straight ahead at a target. Swing your arms out in front of you, and try to keep them just at the edge of your vision. It's approximately 90 degrees or so.

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Actually each eye has the 160-170° FOV; the FOVs are not added. This is because both eyes face the
same direction. So the total FOV is the same as the FOV of each eye. It's just that your nose might get in the way of each eye in one direction
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Monday, 05.11.2012, 00:10 | Message # 249
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
Quote (Aaron)
I'm not sure if I believe that

Your belief is not required. It is fact.

I just did your test, just as I had done it for eye exams in the past, and I can see my hand on one side until it is almost directly beside me, and I can see it on the other side until it disappears behind my nose. All while looking straight ahead. Which means that the FOV is at a MINIMUM 150°.

Besides, if both eyes had a 90 degree FOV, and they both look in the same direction, then it is a mathematical impossibility for them to have a combined FOV of 180°. Each eye's FOV is comparable to the total FOV.





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
 
BaleurDate: Monday, 05.11.2012, 02:38 | Message # 250
Observer
Group: Users
Sweden
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
The very fact that the FoV of the eyes overlap is the reason why we have any depth perception what so ever, and why our eyes are facing forward like a predator. Grade school knowledge really. Herbivores on the other hand have eyes that don't overlap, many even have a blind spot directly in front of them.
 
AaronDate: Monday, 05.11.2012, 05:19 | Message # 251
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
Take a look at section 17-12. For a single eye (monocular vision) it's relatively close to 140 degree field of view. I totally understand 180 degree field of view if you've got two good eyes.

http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/64vision/17.htm


Edited by Aaron - Monday, 05.11.2012, 05:22
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Monday, 05.11.2012, 05:44 | Message # 252
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
Quote (Aaron)
For a single eye (monocular vision) it's relatively close to 140 degree field of view

The only reason it is not the full FOV is because of obstructions from the face. That has nothing do to with the actual capability of the eye. Just because you can't see beyond your nose, you shouldn't ignore the fact that you can still see your nose, so it must be included in the FOV. Again, each eye has approximately the same FOV as both eyes combined.





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
 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 09.11.2012, 07:07 | Message # 253
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
I'm not sure where to ask this, but I'm just wondering if SE takes into account the planets temperature and atmospheric pressure when determining the snowline on mountains? It does take latitude into account in general, but I've seen warm and hot planets with snowcapped mountains.

The reason I'm asking is because I had found a terran world with tons of mountains (it's like the mountains and canyons got set on max or something, the continents looked, spongy, to use the word I described it in my head) and lots of snowcapped moiuntains over all latitudes. However, the planets average temp was 384 or so. So, unless the mountains were all extremely high mountains, I'm just not sure if a planet that hot would have snowcapped mountains in that amount. This planet also had an atmospheric pressure of 1. something, I forget the exact number.





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 09.11.2012, 10:01 | Message # 254
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (smjjames)
I'm not sure where to ask this, but I'm just wondering if SE takes into account the planets temperature and atmospheric pressure when determining the snowline on mountains?

Yes, it seems to be a bug. Did you save the coordinates?





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 09.11.2012, 10:05 | Message # 255
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Fixed color banding artefact on landscape and especially on the water. Normal-and-height textures now store more precise height and less precise normals, but changes in lighting is not noticeable.

Before and after:












 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress 0.97
Page 17 of 61«1215161718196061»
Search: