Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 1087
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

Image Dump

31 Aug 2018 23:24

tRetro-Visor wrote:
Source of the post Does it work on the E patch? That's the one Im using and I can use it without problems

This is SE 0.980_e:
LandLod.jpg

You can set what you want, it stays 2 !
But with SE 0.990:
LandLod2.jpg


Also, you should read this here regarding the video memory needed at various 'LandLod'!

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post 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.
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 188
Joined: 02 May 2018

Image Dump

01 Sep 2018 01:12

Actually it does work, the issue is the very command get landlod causes it to default back to 2.  If you watch the terrain after setting 3 or 4 as an example and then run "get landlod" you will see the details jump back to 2.

toggle between these two, one is at LOD 4 while the other is LOD 2.   Btw above level 4 parts of the scene start to disappear and reappear in an infinite loop as the parts generated get deleted elsewhere and it cycles until it get a runtime error. This would be most likely because of a hard VRAM limit, it should fair better on 8GB+. This is for a stationary scenes btw, moving requires much more VRAM.
Attachments
scr00124.jpg
scr00125.jpg
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 188
Joined: 02 May 2018

Image Dump

01 Sep 2018 01:37

LOD 4.6 is the absolute max I could fit in 4GB on this scene without it eating up parts of the model.

GPU sounds horrible at these levels, like a mole cricket singing.  GPU power and CPU power usage is rapidly oscillating but at a low utilization level.  Seems some odd bottle neck is in effect when you set LODs this high.

None the less, pretty insane detail levels here.

scr00126.jpg
 
User avatar
xingqiu1
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 33
Joined: 30 Jun 2018

Image Dump

04 Sep 2018 23:24

Three earth
Attachments
Three earth.jpg
 
Mr. Abner
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 239
Joined: 08 Jun 2017
Location: Mississauga

Image Dump

05 Sep 2018 11:07

scr01433.jpg


scr01453.jpg


scr01536.jpg


scr01348.jpg


(Darn it! Posted wrong "ring-shadow" pic. Oh well... I'll leave both here now.)
 
User avatar
Aborygen
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 251
Joined: 07 Jan 2017
Location: Poland

Image Dump

08 Sep 2018 04:32

Image
 
User avatar
xingqiu1
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 33
Joined: 30 Jun 2018

Image Dump

09 Sep 2018 02:53

peculiar
Attachments
scr00033.jpg
 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 1087
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

Image Dump

09 Sep 2018 06:28

xingqiu1 wrote:

Good. I estimate 'Oblateness' -4 to -5?
 
Macronicus
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 25 Jan 2018

Image Dump

09 Sep 2018 07:10

Aborygen wrote:
Image


A wormhole?
To a Galaxy billion light-years away from a Dark World.
 
User avatar
xingqiu1
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 33
Joined: 30 Jun 2018

Image Dump

09 Sep 2018 09:02

JackDole wrote:
xingqiu1 wrote:

Good. I estimate 'Oblateness' -4 to -5?

The parameter I set is smaller
 
User avatar
Aborygen
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 251
Joined: 07 Jan 2017
Location: Poland

Image Dump

09 Sep 2018 15:02

Macronicus wrote:
A wormhole?

Actually its a really massive neutron star.
 
User avatar
xingqiu1
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 33
Joined: 30 Jun 2018

Image Dump

10 Sep 2018 05:22

Another point of view is black holes
Attachments
scr00119.jpg
 
User avatar
Aborygen
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 251
Joined: 07 Jan 2017
Location: Poland

Image Dump

10 Sep 2018 13:31

ImageImageImageImageImage
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1374
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Image Dump

10 Sep 2018 15:44

Aborygen, wow, all of those are excellent and very unique.
 
User avatar
Stellarator
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 317
Joined: 10 Jul 2018
Location: Sagittarius A*

Image Dump

10 Sep 2018 16:30

All of these are now saved on my hard drive. Thank you Aborygen!

You deserve your own website :).
Futurum Fusionem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest