I'm all for fill-your-screen visuals. If I jump to a huge ass star, it should fill half the screen. The sense of vastness is awesome in this game, but the visuals don't quite represent the scale of things. If you load up docking training, the earth-like planet is huge, but it's not like that anywhere else in game. In fact, the moons of Jupiter are in the wrong place. Things could definitely be better in the realism department.
"like... taking a shower in light"
- Thread starter foodi
- Start date
Surely others have noticed that what you can see in the game changes depending on light level? If you look at a star closeup and then turn away, you can only see the brightest stars in the sky. Over time the fainter ones slowly fade into view and you end up seeing as many stars as you can possibly see with dark-adjusted eyes. I think it's a very cool effect.
Let me understand. You holding them in higher regard and having more respect for them than me is a conclusion you've drawn based on the assumption that DB and the dev team have overlooked some scientific accuracy in the game and would like to know about it. Did I get that? I'm willing to bet DB does care, as well, but I give them more credit than you do, apparently, because I don't assume they overlooked this.
You think they wouldn't be "so ready to shrug off" something about perception and display of lumen intensity in a game almost entirely lacking semblence of newtonian physics and containing FTL travel. This is not a realistic space simulation, and if you knew half of what you should about space, by this explication that you're all about realism, you'd know that.
My point here is that this was likely intentionally done, as the previous, more egregious examples were likewise implemented, for the sake of gameplay. Nobody wants to jump into a system and be completely blinded every time, much less need to deal with a white screen while flying close for fuel scooping. And nobody actually thinks this is a near-life realistic universe simulator in anything other than scale, orbit speeds, and perhaps ring and asteroid field densities. It's not any more inconsistent than the other unrealistic things already implemented a certain way because a fun game trumps realism that might get in the way.
So yeah. Auto-tinting glass. The end.
Um THERE IS TOXIC FUMES FROM AN UNKNOWN POLYMER BEING EJECTED INTO MY VISOR FROM THE DASHBOARD and people are complaining about how bright the sun is!?!
Seeing as we're having a discussion about accuracy, I thought it pertinent to point out that B52s never flew over Germany! (I would link to the post but as I'm new it won't let me!) Getting back to the game it is a game! It's not being held as an accurate simulation of space life. There are some areas more accurate than others but unless you happen to work for NASSA who's to say! I'm sure the developers will add different elements as the game gets older and progresses. For now let's just enjoy it for what it is.
On the contrary, I'm sure they considered it. I just wish it was addressed in the game universe. And i, for one, would like to learn more about their reasoning behind the decision.
I disagree that simply because the game features FTL travel it's unrealistic. ED goes quite a ways to make FTL travel look and feel credible given the current state of scientific advancement - this is how we imagine FTL travel might someday plausibly function. Sure, ED is wielding all kinds of artistic license, but there's no question that at every step it's taking the concept seriously and scientifically. Why would mass-lock be an issue to someone who isn't approaching the game with a mindset given to realism?
Yes, it's quite likely it was done for gameplay - that's not a difficult point to see - but there's no reason to make any further discussion on the topic moot. My guess is that it was instead probably just lower on the feature priority list.
Agreed no one wants to jump into a system and be blinded. There's myriad ways to avoid having that break the game - some of them have been mentioned already. I'm not insisting all stars be blindingly bright. I'm merely suggesting the game explain why and how they aren't.
I never said ED is a "near-life realistic universe simulator", and what's more, i don't want it to be. Interestingly, though, you suggest it's only true to life in scale and orbit speeds. Well, believe it or not, just those two aspects make ED an order of magnitude more realistic than most other space sims out there.
I'm not so eager to suspend disbelief. In an earlier post you asked "Who cares?". I would've thought i've made it clear by now that I care - and i'm sure there are others who do as well.
Last edited:
Really, it's not. And if you'd like to know why, look up anything having to do with what theoretically happens when someone approaches the speed of light. What occurs in this game doesn't remotely reflect anything currently hypothesized by modern science about going as fast or faster than light. In fact, it reflects a NON-scientific approach to FTL travel: it's treated just as if you were going really quickly on the highway, just multiplied a million times with no other differences. I'm not trying to take a jab at you here, but this quote alone showcases that you really are lacking in some scientific knowledge. You'd be hard pressed to find any physicist who would agree with your above statement. Going into a full explanation here is out of the question, but FTL travel isn't being shown "realistically" in this game, even putting its utter impossibility aside, and I could list a hundred reasons why, but that's getting too in depth.
I know it's being taken seriously, and they're attempting to be "scientific/realistic" enough in anything that doesn't negatively affect gameplay. I'm willing to bet there are finer details that aren't a big deal to most people, for example how some proc gen planets would have geologically impossible formations, or...this subject.
If you want to talk about it, by all means, but my point here is that from where I stand you're just nitpicking details. This isn't just "not a priority" like you say, it's not even on the list. You really wonder why you searched the forums and came up empty handed?
Perhaps in that aspect. Space Engine is more a simulation than this game is. ED is basically part space engine, part arcadey spaceship shooter. It has simulation facets to it, but calling the game a simulation itself is a misrepresentation. Kerbal Space Program, while be no means an authoritative example, is a better simulation about space than ED is, albeit on a much smaller scale.
"Who cares" is a rhetorical question used to communicate the idea that the current subject doesn't matter to the vast majority of people. It's not a request to hold up several individuals who meet the criteria of the question. Disagree with it all you like, and respond to this accordingly if you feel the need, but this is my last post in the thread as I've spent too much time thinking and talking about something that seriously is, outside of the concept that "stars are bright," not important. I wish I could articulate that better, but as it stands you sound like one of the guys at the movies who shout "oh COME ON!" when something improbable happens.
Their portrayal of FTL is scientifically correct for their FTL travel technology, as the ship doesn't travel faster than light, not even close.
There are many theoretically possibly solutions for FTL travel, common for pretty much all of them is that the ship itself doesn't travel FTL. It merely goes from one point in space to another many times faster than the light would, but it in one way or another moves outsides of space/time.
There are many theoretically possibly solutions for FTL travel, common for pretty much all of them is that the ship itself doesn't travel FTL. It merely goes from one point in space to another many times faster than the light would, but it in one way or another moves outsides of space/time.
Turn around - you're in a building on planet earth in 2015 holding on to some plastic bought from a contemporary shop that controls a drawing on a screen .. you're not a real spaceman.
If you can suspend your disbelief long enough to double click the "elite:dangerous" icon on the p.c. desktop then you can suspend it long enough to not have a physics realistic jump drive or a drawing of a star on a monitor that burns your retina (and just how powerful is the backlight in your monitor?)
It's a game designed to be a compromise between realism and enjoyment so if you want full realism then build a real spaceship - try that one on kickstarter... I'll give you a quid
If you can suspend your disbelief long enough to double click the "elite:dangerous" icon on the p.c. desktop then you can suspend it long enough to not have a physics realistic jump drive or a drawing of a star on a monitor that burns your retina (and just how powerful is the backlight in your monitor?)
It's a game designed to be a compromise between realism and enjoyment so if you want full realism then build a real spaceship - try that one on kickstarter... I'll give you a quid
well, it's about time.
I always just assumed the helmet had a filter much like a welding mask that was adaptable to different light...
And I agree that movie is fantastic. I watched Europa report again recently and forgot what an underestimated film that is.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yes, it's subtle but very well done. I like this feature too.
And I agree that movie is fantastic. I watched Europa report again recently and forgot what an underestimated film that is.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yes, it's subtle but very well done. I like this feature too.
