"like... taking a shower in light"

[foodi]

(I did a cursory search for this on the forums, but the closest i could find was this discussion on contrast issues in space. To me, this issue is somewhat more significant than a mere contrast discrepancy, and it's bugging the hell out of me. Apologies if i missed a more pertinent thread).

How in the world is it even remotely possible to stare directly at a star when it's right in the middle of your field of view, let alone when it's filling your entire horizon? Stars, as everyone here knows, are floating fusion reactors emitting staggering amounts of heat and light. The way the stars in ED currently appear, they would hardly even be visible at all when viewed from the surface of a planet through its atmosphere.

This appears to be the look that ED has adopted - a "false colour" image, as the caption describes. Bottom line is that it's a fabrication - surface detail of a star would become visible only under heavily modified circumstances. It's conceivable that there exists some unmentioned eye-protecting auto-contrast-filter business happening in the cockpits of the ships in ED, but this information shouldn't be obscured from the pilot. It would, imo, be extremely instructive (and cool) to see the protective filter actually kick in when you fly too close to a star and the brightness becomes overwhelming.

In the interest of practicality i can obviously see why Frontier would attenuate the actual brightness levels. There will be numerous complications with regard to how other less bright objects appear when flanked by an unwatchably bright object. Perhaps Frontier ran into some issues in visualizing the super-brightness of stars credibly, i don't know. At any rate, and especially given its commitment to authenticity and accuracy, this decision should be made transparent. The current state of affairs paints an entirely misleading and fantastical picture. I feel that it's subtracting from the awesomeness of the experience of real space.

Danny Boyle's Sunshine (a movie i love) comes to mind as a really great example of how this SHOULD work. Recall that early in the movie, Searle is in the viewing room watching the sun when he and the ship's computer have the following exchange:

Searle: Icarus, how close is this to full brightness?
Icarus: At this distance of 36 million miles, you are observing the sun at two percent of full brightness.
Searle: Two percent? Can you show me four percent?
Icarus: Four percent would result in irreversible damage to your retinas.

(I'm digressing now, but what the hey) Later on in the movie, Searle describes his experience thusly:

Searle: It's invigorating. It's like... taking a shower in light. You lose yourself in it.
Corazon: Like a floatation tank?
Searle: Actually, no. More like... In psych tests on deep space, I ran a number of sensory deprivation trials, tested in total darkness, on floatation tanks - and the point about darkness is, you float in it. You and the darkness are distinct from each other because darkness is an absence of something, it's a vacuum. But total light envelops you. It becomes you. It's very strange... I recommend it.
Mace: What's strange, Searle, is that you're the psych officer on this ship and I'm clearly a lot saner than you are.

Thoughts?

 

[spinkick]

(I did a cursory search for this on the forums, but the closest i could find was this discussion on contrast issues in space. To me, this issue is somewhat more significant than a mere contrast discrepancy, and it's bugging the hell out of me. Apologies if i missed a more pertinent thread).

How in the world is it even remotely possible to stare directly at a star when it's right in the middle of your field of view, let alone when it's filling your entire horizon? Stars, as everyone here knows, are floating fusion reactors emitting staggering amounts of heat and light. The way the stars in ED currently appear, they would hardly even be visible at all when viewed from the surface of a planet through its atmosphere.

This appears to be the look that ED has adopted - a "false colour" image, as the caption describes. Bottom line is that it's a fabrication - surface detail of a star would become visible only under heavily modified circumstances. It's conceivable that there exists some unmentioned eye-protecting auto-contrast-filter business happening in the cockpits of the ships in ED, but this information shouldn't be obscured from the pilot. It would, imo, be extremely instructive (and cool) to see the protective filter actually kick in when you fly too close to a star and the brightness becomes overwhelming.

In the interest of practicality i can obviously see why Frontier would attenuate the actual brightness levels. There will be numerous complications with regard to how other less bright objects appear when flanked by an unwatchably bright object. Perhaps Frontier ran into some issues in visualizing the super-brightness of stars credibly, i don't know. At any rate, and especially given its commitment to authenticity and accuracy, this decision should be made transparent. The current state of affairs paints an entirely misleading and fantastical picture. I feel that it's subtracting from the awesomeness of the experience of real space.

Danny Boyle's Sunshine (a movie i love) comes to mind as a really great example of how this SHOULD work. Recall that early in the movie, Searle is in the viewing room watching the sun when he and the ship's computer have the following exchange:



(I'm digressing now, but what the hey) Later on in the movie, Searle describes his experience thusly:







Thoughts?

I also love the movie and thought the same thing.

 

[vonvonbraun]

Tldr version?

 

[foodi]

Tldr version?

Make the bleedin' stars brighter.

 

[changtau2005]

Tldr version?

Ever tried to look directly at the sun? (Please don't) Notice how bright that is? Now imagine that brightness enveloping the entire horizon. Now move close until you are within the sun's corona. Your retinas won't survive a millisecond.

 

[Predatar]

Well, you can see the effects that the glass, or whatever it is, has on the brightness of objects when and directly after looking at the star. You don't see anything pop up on the HUD(though that would be cool), but you do see the background stars effected by the change. Only the brightest distant stars will still remain visable, once you get further away from the local sequence star, you'll see the rest of the stars slowly fade in. A nice touch really.

 

[Oheck]

I think they did simulate some type of dimming when close to the stars. If you are close, turn from the star and you will notice that you see fewer stars in the background, and its darker. As you fly farther from the star, the dimming subsides and you can see the full scope of stars, etc.

 

[Zvanya]

It's a fantasy, don't worry about it. Most popular science fiction is fantasy. In the movie Sunshine, the premise of restarting the sun with a bomb is complete hogwash, you know that right? Just enjoy the view.

 

[foodi]

Well, you can see the effects that the glass, or whatever it is, has on the brightness of objects when and directly after looking at the star. You don't see anything pop up on the HUD(though that would be cool), but you do see the background stars effected by the change. Only the brightest distant stars will still remain visable, once you get further away from the local sequence star, you'll see the rest of the stars slowly fade in. A nice touch really.

Yeah, i agree that is neat. But again, given the sheer magnitudes of the brightnesses involved, it's cartoonishly inadequate.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It's a fantasy, don't worry about it. Most popular science fiction is fantasy. In the movie Sunshine, the premise of restarting the sun with a bomb is complete hogwash, you know that right? Just enjoy the view.

Haha! That's fair enough. But my feeling is there's no reason ED couldn't be more authentic in this respect. And, if done right, for one thing it would be a glorious first, and secondly it would introduce interesting new gameplay possibilities.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

-- Deleted --

 

[CMDR Byrt Makklin]

It's a fantasy, don't worry about it. Most popular science fiction is fantasy. In the movie Sunshine, the premise of restarting the sun with a bomb is complete hogwash, you know that right? Just enjoy the view.

Pshaw! I reject your reality and substitute my own. NEXT you'll be telling me that people don't really turn to popsicles when exposed to vacuum!

 

[simon terlecki]

Our characters are wearing helmets, 34th century auto-shutter technology

 

[foodi]

But then, hovering within close Range to the tremendous Gravity of a large Sun would also need some consideration; Thrusters would be aching hard to maintain the Ship's position, until at some point of no return you'd need Main Thrusters or even Afterburner to still get away.

That occurred to me as well! But in my ignorance i was willing to concede that this was something Frontier already considered and perhaps the gravitational effects are depicted accurately..... ? It just seems like too big a blunder. If not, i am sad

 

[Wurmfist]

Our characters are wearing helmets, 34th century auto-shutter technology

+rep to you sir.

OP needs to keep in mind, this is a game. And it is the year 3301, smart glass, and auto-dimming heads up display. Just like how the cockpit simulates the sounds through a speaker system in the cockpit using its sensors. It's science fiction, and it is a game, and it is called "suspension of disbelief", if it was exactly like space, it wouldn't be nearly as pretty (false color isn't true color) and would be more boring. Sit back and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

[foodi]

+rep to you sir.

OP needs to keep in mind, this is a game. And it is the year 3301, smart glass, and auto-dimming heads up display. Just like how the cockpit simulates the sounds through a speaker system in the cockpit using its sensors. It's science fiction, and it is a game, and it is called "suspension of disbelief", if it was exactly like space, it wouldn't be nearly as pretty (false color isn't true color) and would be more boring. Sit back and enjoy the game for what it is.

Rest assured, i have that firmly in mind. I only want to see the experience improved. Either way it's not going to stop me from enjoying the game.

 

[Lethargus]

I did find it odd that when I was jumping between systems with a giant gaping hole in my canopy I

1) wasn't blinded by stars since no glass to shield my sight (though a helmet would possibly resolve this, even though I can still see my control displays perfectly fine somehow)
and
2) wasn't cooked immediately from the heat streaming off the star into my unshielded cockpit (temp at 140+%)

But eh, it's just a game and not being able to jump with a broken canopy would suck.

 

[shrinkshooter]

How in the world is it even remotely possible to stare directly at a star when it's right in the middle of your field of view, let alone when it's filling your entire horizon? Stars, as everyone here knows, are floating fusion reactors emitting staggering amounts of heat and light. The way the stars in ED currently appear, they would hardly even be visible at all when viewed from the surface of a planet through its atmosphere.

Thoughts?

A self-adjusting polarized glass tint. Who cares? I can understand being curious about this, but the tone of the OP makes it sound like this is some huge deal. I would fully expect any game to do this, for the game's sake. Critiquing something obviously altered for the sake of gameplay? Is OP bothered by FTL travel as well, I wonder?

 

[Erasmus Dynamo]

I think this thread should be less about trying to explain away the lack of relative brightness stars have, and focus more on suggestions on how a significantly brighter star could add/subtract from the game aesthetic, and what kind of interesting gameplay it could create.

I would have to agree that the current stars, while pretty, are not quite as awe-inspiring as the game engine could make them be, methinks. Making them noticably brighter, drastically increasing the existing dimming effect, could be interesting. This would also give dogfighting at the nav points a potential "high ground" in regard to attacking with the sun at your back.

Also, I would absolutely LOVE to see the various violent emissions from the sun be actually dangerous to your ship while scooping. Imagine, if you will, scooping fuel for your ship and suddenly a coronal mass ejection rockets out of the surface of the star, and you slam into it at half the speed of light. While all it would be gameplay-wise is a sudden spike in heat, turbulence and an escape vector, it would still be AWESOME.

 

[foodi]

A self-adjusting polarized glass tint. Who cares? I can understand being curious about this, but the tone of the OP makes it sound like this is some huge deal. I would fully expect any game to do this, for the game's sake. Critiquing something obviously altered for the sake of gameplay? Is OP bothered by FTL travel as well, I wonder?

Who cares? I'm willing to bet David Braben cares. I would be genuinely surprised if he shrugs it off as readily. As with any other legitimate scientific criticism. It seems I hold the peeps at Frontier in higher esteem than you do.

Never meant to suggest it was a huge deal. Just an inconsistency given their realistic approach to space simulation. I am, as i'm willing to bet they are, excited by scientific accuracy.

 

[foodi]

I think this thread should be less about trying to explain away the lack of relative brightness stars have, and focus more on suggestions on how a significantly brighter star could add/subtract from the game aesthetic, and what kind of interesting gameplay it could create.

Here's a thread that gets into some of the possibilities a little bit:

I suppose if your the 'bandit' coming out of the sun.... that's a different matter,,
there fore,, just like in those old doc war films about B52s flying over Germany... the gunners had/have a 'drop down dark filter' to see into the sun... much like wearing a welders mask.. this was to prevent 'bandits' coming out of the sun..a lesson learnt by pilots from the battle of Britain.

modern day fighter pilots have a reactive glass/plastic face on their masks today...as well as sun glasses...so ...surely the future world of space fighters would have "some"option to have reactive window screens???