It might look like it, but that's not necessarily true. Certainly the RAM requirements won't change.
It might look like it, but that's not necessarily true. Certainly the RAM requirements won't change.
is the out of vram crashes fixed? current version the game crashes quite frequently when travelling large distances, going up close or landing on multiple bodies, things that require loading. vram usage keeps rising & rising till its full then game crashes.
i have a gtx 1070 8gb, windows 10, latest drivers
Same here when i play and go in certai zone the vram crash and you see black screen and when you zoom at large distance (like u are one telescope) the screen is black.
But is so strange why my PC no have any problem for other game with the same requirments i try elite dangerous and the game run perfectly
What? SNRs currently contain no other objects, not even a stellar remnant, and if they did they would only contain neutron stars and black holes. There would be no planets to be destroyed. Saying that you need to implement every stage of stellar evolution to show dynamic nebulae is like saying that you need to implement complex weather patterns to have moving clouds, or simulate the internal geology of a planet to have volcanoes. One does not logically follow from the other.SpaceEngineer, I've posted this before on the old forum, but please DON'T implement expanding supernova remnants in 0.9.8.1. There would be no point in doing this unless you can model planets being destroyed when they're hit by the shockwave, and then you'd also need to depict every stage of stellar and planetary evolution.
By following Your logic, there would not be any point releasing unfinished engine unless it is capable of simulating every aspect of real universe, including Yourself, who seems to be denying its right for gradual evolution.SpaceEngineer, I've posted this before on the old forum, but please DON'T implement expanding supernova remnants in 0.9.8.1. There would be no point in doing this unless you can model planets being destroyed when they're hit by the shockwave, and then you'd also need to depict every stage of stellar and planetary evolution.
It's OK to release an unfinished engine if it depicted a steady-state universe where the only things that move are planets and moons in their orbits. But if supernova remnants include the year in which they became supernovas, then if you wind time back before that year, you would expect to see a star in that location, and then you'd start wondering why the only stars that go supernova are the ones that don't have planets.By following Your logic, there would not be any point releasing unfinished engine unless it is capable of simulating every aspect of real universe, including Yourself, who seems to be denying its right for gradual evolution.SpaceEngineer, I've posted this before on the old forum, but please DON'T implement expanding supernova remnants in 0.9.8.1. There would be no point in doing this unless you can model planets being destroyed when they're hit by the shockwave, and then you'd also need to depict every stage of stellar and planetary evolution.
Right now SNRs don't even generate from stars, they're simply animated nebulae looping eternally. If you rewind, it would just roll back to the maximum extension before shrinking back again.
It doesn't necessarily require theses changes at all, stars could just go supernova without any consequence on planets.I know, but having stars go supernova is going to require fundamental changes to the way Space Engine works. Objects will need to be able to change their types at specific times: stars becoming neutron stars, planets becoming scorched planets and so forth. I think these kinds of changes should probably be left for 0.9.8.2.
Temperature and irradiation still are factors to consider, along with the mass loss from the explosion itself. The orbital velocities of the planets would mean that some planets are thrown out while others get much more eccentric orbits than before.
Of course I was referring to the next version, these features will probably be implemented in a distant future but for the next version stars just going supernova is enough and doesn't need all the other stuff.Temperature and irradiation still are factors to consider, along with the mass loss from the explosion itself. The orbital velocities of the planets would mean that some planets are thrown out while others get much more eccentric orbits than before.
I think that simulating physics on that level is something that shouldn't be seen for a while, if ever personally. Especially seeing how the timescale system was built w/ watching orbits in mind.
In regards to what I hope to see by 9.8.2, more diversity in the architecture of star systems would be nice.