Ultimate space simulation software

 
Macronicus
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 25 Jan 2018

Work progress 0.9.9.0

23 Aug 2018 18:58

Im not sure if im posting this in the right place but Hey SpaceEngineer, what's a non-desertic and what do they look like? If so, can you post a picture of a non-desertic planet?
To a Galaxy billion light-years away from a Dark World.
 
User avatar
donatelo200
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Dec 2016

Work progress 0.9.9.0

23 Aug 2018 21:13

A non-desertic planet is just any planet that has some liquid on its surface.  So the appearance varies depending on the other properties of the planet like whether it has a global ocean, small lakes, Earth-sized oceans or even if its surface is made of ice rather than rock.
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)
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 196
Joined: 02 May 2018

Work progress 0.9.9.0

23 Aug 2018 22:41

I think he is just asking for visual comparison from 0.9.9.0 to the current version.

Desert planets don't have as much visual diversity from what I have seen compared to terra and alike so it's hard to tell what changes there are. The obvious one I notice is the close range textures and lighting look much better.
 
User avatar
N0B0DY
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 164
Joined: 09 Dec 2016

Work progress 0.9.9.0

24 Aug 2018 09:51

Stellarator wrote:
N0B0DY wrote:
Amazing work Space Engineer! You are the titan lifter of the universe:
► Show Spoiler

and we are all standing on your shoulders!

Hey, cool pic. Did you do that yourself, or is it from online?

just google "holding the universe". There are many similar.

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Version 0.990 will not need so much video memory thanks to texture compression. At Full HD (1080p) screen resolution, you need no more that 6 GB graphics card.

At LOD 0, fully loaded view from the surface consumes just 600-700 Mb of VRAM (look at the LandNode reading on the left). Detail textures are enabled, texture compression is enabled. This is just terrain system consumption, and this scene is loaded at startup, so 600 Mb is only room taken by terrain nodes visible on the screen (4003 nodes were generated, LandNode-Allocated reading). Engine reserves some extra nodes to let you rotate camera and fly around, typically 3x times more than this (12900 nodes, LandNode-Max). So I may say that terrain engine requires 2 GB of video memory at LOD 0.

But this is only terrain engine. Add another 1 GB of static textures and buffers, some room for stars/galaxies/ships. Total 3 GB for stable work at LOD 0. SE works even with lower amount of VRAM, it dymanically reallocates it as needed (for example, removing long ago used terrain nodes to free memory for ship textures then you spawn a ship). But if you have just 1.6 GB of video memory, you can load such scene with no problem. But if you start moving, nodes which out of view will be deleted almost immediately and replaced with new nodes. So then you decide to retucn back to initial point, you will see loading process again. So 3 GB is better.

LOD 0.0.jpg


At LOD 1.5, memory requirements rises up. Now this scene generated 1.5 Gb of terrain textures, 7314 nodes were created, 20000 nodes reserved. Fully used reserve is 4.2 GB of VRAM. Add 1 GB of static resources, so you need 5.5 GB graphics card for smooth playing.

LOD 1.5.jpg


At LOD 2, engine generates 2.2 GB of textures, 10000 nodes, but reserved limit is still 20000 (so again, 6 GB graphics card will be enough). Reserved limit can be raised in the config, but I don't see purpose for this. Nobody playing at LOD 2, it can be used just for taking extreme screenshots from a stationary point. Because loading time is huge, about 5 minutes. Note that framerate is much lower than at LOD 1.5 and LOD 1 - because graphics card needs to render 10000 meshes with a set of unique textures each.

LOD 2.0.jpg


You can sel LOD 3 and even more through the console command, but I don't believe any GPU can handle that. Also, with the new terrain engine, extreme LODs improves nothing. You may notice some improvement of texture and mesh detail between LOD 0 and 1, but LOD 2 is almost the same as LOD 1. Yes, terrain is splitted on more nodes, but their texture detail is excessive, so they get downscaled by GPU resterization anyway. LOD 1 is already pixel-to-pixel resolution.

So I may say that if you playing at Full HD resolution, you need 6 GB at most extreme. If you have 4k display, then LOD 0 will take nearly the same VRAM as LOD 1 on 2k, because of doubled resolution, so 6 GB will work again. You need more VRAM only to play at excessive LOD 2 in 4k resolution. To take screenshots at LOD 2 in 4k, 6 GB will be enough I think.

Very concise and thorough explanation Space Engineer!
I always suspected 2GB of VRAM is the minimum amount per 2k resolution on a single monitor @ LOD 0
I am using 3x2k monitors (i.e 5760x1080p resolution as one single surround display)  so I am using 3/4 (three quarters) of a 4K resolution so 6GB is the minimum amount for me. So with a GTX-1080ti I have some memory buffer to spare ;) . I think LOD 0 is the equivalent of high setting in other games and LOD 1 is the Ultra. LOD 2 I agree is insane.
I've got a question: How do you actually "simulate" lower spec hardware when you develop and test Space Engine? Because it is impossible to have all ranges of hardware.. Is there a utility / tool that can limit the amount of VRAM / RAM / CPU cores/threads that the program can "see"? So in effect "mimicking" lower/different spec hardware?
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 779
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Work progress 0.9.9.0

24 Aug 2018 10:19

N0B0DY wrote:
Source of the post How do you actually "simulate" lower spec hardware when you develop and test Space Engine? Because it is impossible to have all ranges of hardware.. Is there a utility / tool that can limit the amount of VRAM / RAM / CPU cores/threads that the program can "see"? So in effect "mimicking" lower/different spec hardware?

SE has a config parameter VideoMemorySize to limit used amount of VRAM. I can simulate 2 and 1 GB of VRAM using it. But this is not the same as having 1 GB physically, SE and driver do not crash if SE runs out of bounds.
So I have my old PC as a "low-end spec" test machine. It had Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM and 9800 GTX+ with 1 GB. SE can start on it, and run without crash, if detail textures are disabled in config (so engine does not load them, saving 300 MB of video memory). But it crash in some other cases, because latest driver for 9800 GTX+ is from 2013 and not updating anymore.
So recently I upgraded this PC, replaced CPU with 4-core Xeon, add another 4 GB of RAM, and put one of my (repaired) GTX 780 3 GB. Now SE runs at 60 fps with no problem. It even handle VR, with somewhat uncomfortable framerate though. So this PC is "upper-med-spec" now.
I also have an old "low-spec" laptop with 4-core i5, 8 GB RAM and 1GB AMD graphics card. I was unable to debug SE there, because it stuck on 2014 AMD driver, which hangs up and crashes every time I trying to run SE. I can't use more recent drivers because they are causing black screen after boot (bug with screen backlight, still not fixed by AMD!). Maybe now, when I fixed most AMD bugs on with new RX 580, SE can run on this laptop again, I should test.
In my current PC, I have 6-core i7, 32 GB RAM and two GPUs: GTX 1060 6 GB and RX 580 8 GB. This is a "high-spec" config, while developing SE I trying to have 60 fps in most complex scenes on this machine (at 1080p).
 
User avatar
Stellarator
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 324
Joined: 10 Jul 2018
Location: Sagittarius A*

Work progress 0.9.9.0

24 Aug 2018 10:38

I need a new computer then...
Futurum Fusionem
 
User avatar
Solaris_
Observer
Observer
Posts: 19
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Location: China

Work progress 0.9.9.0

26 Aug 2018 02:08

Perhaps many people need new computers now. :geek:
I'm always ready to see news,regardless what is it.
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 196
Joined: 02 May 2018

Work progress 0.9.9.0

26 Aug 2018 02:38

Agreed.  Mine would fall into the med spec and somewhat higher on the GPU but my biggest limitation is VRAM at the moment for higher quality settings, it works but it's not very happy. 

I have always built PCs on the higher end and push all software and game to max settings except resolution.

My last PC had 8Gb ram, phenom 9850BE and 9800GTX in SLI and then later 3 way SLI. That was in 2008.  My current is 8 thread AMD FX and GTX 980, all water cooled and overclocked, this is my interim PC while I waited for better hardware to become available and cheaper which we all know cheaper did not happen so I am still waiting.  Will be so happy once I upgrade to something high end so I can enjoy SE in all it's glory.
 
User avatar
Stellarator
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 324
Joined: 10 Jul 2018
Location: Sagittarius A*

Work progress 0.9.9.0

26 Aug 2018 15:57

vlad01 wrote:
Will be so happy once I upgrade to something high end so I can enjoy SE in all it's glory.

My dream too.
Futurum Fusionem
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 196
Joined: 02 May 2018

Work progress 0.9.9.0

26 Aug 2018 19:49

Stellarator wrote:
vlad01 wrote:
Will be so happy once I upgrade to something high end so I can enjoy SE in all it's glory.

My dream too.

Even more so for myself after I started playing around with LOD 2 setting. I can tell you now that on many mountainous terrain is it a substantial difference in visuals but it is very VRAM intensive and generally a large load on the GPU itself.   0.9.9.0 with it's memory compression on the same settings is going to be something else!
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 779
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Work progress 0.9.9.0

27 Aug 2018 03:37

vlad01 wrote:

980 is about the same performance as 1060, so it is "high end" for SE.
vlad01 wrote:
Source of the post LOD 2 setting. I can tell you now that on many mountainous terrain is it a substantial difference in visuals

It is not the case for 0.990. LOD 1 here is like LOD 2 in previous versions.
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 196
Joined: 02 May 2018

Work progress 0.9.9.0

27 Aug 2018 04:49

I mean the current version knowing well 0.9.9.0 will be much better.

Performance is subjective and relative really.  Technically 980 was a mid range GPU (GM204) when new, it's how nvidia market their SKUs now to get more profit. It's decent for SE at default to high settings, but on the highest possible even at low res it does struggle a lot, at least how I perceive PC performance it does.  Most people would say it's good enough though.

I would say the 1060 would actually performance much better at this same setting simply because it should not be held back by the smaller buffer the 980 has which is the source of the issue. At LOD1 it should be more or less the same.

I might actually test this out on another PC in the house with has a 1080. I have been meaning to try it out.
 
stongduke
Observer
Observer
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Location: Texas

Work progress 0.9.9.0

06 Sep 2018 07:54

The RX 580 is good enough for the higher graphics qualities for the 0.9.9.0 update yes?
Can I have an order of uhhh randomly generated city lights?
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 196
Joined: 02 May 2018

Work progress 0.9.9.0

07 Sep 2018 06:53

Should be more than enough for high settings once the update comes out.
 
User avatar
donatelo200
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 93
Joined: 08 Dec 2016

Work progress 0.9.9.0

07 Sep 2018 09:03

Yeah, even my laptop which has a 960m can handle the beta pretty ok.  So you should be fine.
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)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest