DoctorOfSpace wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post Doc are there any long term risks with the gpu running over 80C?

Shorter lifespan, but this applies to any piece of hardware.

whats the threshold for lifespan?  lifespan doesn't shorten if the temps remain below 80 or does it have to be under 70 or something else, Doc?
I think for cpu it's under 70?

A-L-E-X wrote:

DoctorOfSpace wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post Doc are there any long term risks with the gpu running over 80C?

Shorter lifespan, but this applies to any piece of hardware.

whats the threshold for lifespan?  lifespan doesn't shorten if the temps remain below 80 or does it have to be under 70 or something else, Doc?
I think for cpu it's under 70?

This is off topic for this thread. Talk about it in another thread or in PMs.

These look like extremely thick rings - aren't they supposed to be more like 10m in vertical height? (if that's a typical Federation ship then the rings should be more like the thickness of the edge of the saucer section?) Maybe that's why it's over-taxing your system

evildrganymede wrote:

Source of the post These look like extremely thick rings - aren't they supposed to be more like 10m in vertical height? (if that's a typical Federation ship then the rings should be more like the thickness of the edge of the saucer section?) Maybe that's why it's over-taxing your system

Read Vladimir's response on particle size, it is being worked on still

HarbingerDawn wrote:

Khorrah wrote:

Ok I think my pc wouldn't support the next update since my integrated graphics card are of 128 mb LOL

Technically that doesn't meet the minimum requirements of any version of SE ever released, even ones from 10 years ago.

The thing is that I don't know why I can run it, I guess because my processor and ram (Pentium gold 5400 3.7 ghz and 8gb ddr4 and 2400 mhz) the solar system runs slightly slow, but when I go to a procedural planet, it moves very slow, I think that is killing my integrated GPU, I need to buy a new graphic card

HarbingerDawn wrote:

longname wrote:

DoctorOfSpace wrote:

Being worked on still, more will be posted about it when it's ready.

My top wish for SpaceEngine is for the devs to be more transparent about WIP features.

Today's your lucky day then, because I've got a massive dose of transparency coming your way!

Ready?

► Show Spoiler

Nothing has been shared because there's nothing to share. There's nothing to see because all the work that's been done recently, aside from a tweaked comet shader, has been program optimizations. And all of this has been shared and written about already anyway.

If there's anything to share, we'll share it. Stop assuming that we're just sitting on a bunch of awesome stuff and choosing not to show it to you. If we were, we'd be really excited to show it off. If we don't show something, it's because there's nothing to show.

I loved this one LOL 

I'm curious of something, we'll be able to see volcanic gases and 3d hurricanes or tornadoes? (Hurricanes that touches the floor) rains, sandstorms, thunders? 

I think this is a obvious question tbh

Khorrah wrote:

I'm curious of something, we'll be able to see volcanic gases and 3d hurricanes or tornadoes? (Hurricanes that touches the floor) rains, sandstorms, thunders? 

I think this is a obvious question tbh

Read the second paragraph here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=72

Also, please do not make 3 posts in a row. Edit your previous post if you want to add something.

evildrganymede wrote:

These look like extremely thick rings - aren't they supposed to be more like 10m in vertical height? (if that's a typical Federation ship then the rings should be more like the thickness of the edge of the saucer section?) Maybe that's why it's over-taxing your system

I've seen a few sources state that the thickness fluctuates between a few dozen meters and a kilometre.

https://www.space.com/48-saturn-the-sol ... earer.html
that says they're usually about 10m thick, in some places where they're disrupted they get thicker.

I think most current estimates tend towards the 10-20m thick range rather than the 100m-km range anyway. And certainly for the purpose of SE (and practical processing speed) I doubt anyone would complain if they were generally set to the order of 10m thick. 

My laptop is already deepfrying itself when scrolling 3D rings screenshots xD

Bunch of a new screenshots. Rock size and ring thickness varies across planets, but is at order of 10 meters in diameter and 100 meters thick. Smaller rocks still have some precision issues. Performance is in 40-60 fps at 1440p and rings rendering resolution 70% on RTX 2080 (and no, RTX is OFF, SE doesn't support it). Performance is dropped because of smaller rock size, which equals to larger ring scale, which implies switch to (emulated) double-precision floating point numbers.

3D dust to rocks transition


Uranus


Neptune


Haumea


Chariklo, a giant ringed asteroid (centaur)


0.990 starting planet






Geonosis

How will performance of the rings compare between the latest AMD cards and nvidia ones given the AMD ones have much higher double precision, 1:16 verse 1:64 of the nvidia ones?   Example. 6800XT 1.3 TFLOPs FP64 vs 0.46 TFLOPs FP64 of the 3080.  

Wanna see J1407b

vlad01 wrote:

How will performance of the rings compare between the latest AMD cards and nvidia ones given the AMD ones have much higher double precision, 1:16 verse 1:64 of the nvidia ones?   Example. 6800XT 1.3 TFLOPs FP64 vs 0.46 TFLOPs FP64 of the 3080.  

As he said in the post, the double precision numbers are emulated, so it makes no difference.