Had a good watch of the 'Reach for the Void' video which was fantastic, but something occurred to me straight away - the stars seemed to be inanimate which detracted from the beauty of the scenes for me. Stars clearly glow and twinkle, is this something that may be added later on? I think it is a small change that would really help bring the universe to life, and would have thought should not be a massively difficult task to achieve. Any thoughts?
Proposal Discussion Do Stars Not Twinkle?
- Thread starter G.T
- Start date
More specifically, it is heat rising in the atmosphere that causes stars to twinkle. You can see the same effect when the sun hits a hot road, the heat visibly rising. Without a lot of warm particles (space is cold and empty) you won't get any twinkles.
This is why the Hubble Space Telescope can take some really great long exposure ("deep field") images, by the way. It doesn't need to worry about any atmospheric distortion. Telescopes on earth are usually built high up to avoid this.
This is why the Hubble Space Telescope can take some really great long exposure ("deep field") images, by the way. It doesn't need to worry about any atmospheric distortion. Telescopes on earth are usually built high up to avoid this.
You're quite right. It takes an atmospere to make stars twinkle.
Having never been in space I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if they look a little unnatural. There would be no twinkling, no depth perception to them, no effect at all.
However, in reality I'm not sure if you can even see stars from a space ship. But it's a game and we all expect to see stars.
Think the concerns of the OP reach to a more dynamic game world, making it feel alive, familiar, and reachable, rather than dead and like a background picture.
ED, like many other space games, still? uses unrealistic space dust streaking to emphasise direction and speed. This is an illusionary technique designed to make you feel like you are moving. If they bent reality to do this, I can't see why having stars randomly twinkle is such a no-no.
Perhaps another one for the options menu, as part of a future mod, or just wait till SPL is released.
ED, like many other space games, still? uses unrealistic space dust streaking to emphasise direction and speed. This is an illusionary technique designed to make you feel like you are moving. If they bent reality to do this, I can't see why having stars randomly twinkle is such a no-no.
Perhaps another one for the options menu, as part of a future mod, or just wait till SPL is released.
out of interest what makes you say that? seems kind of counterintuitive to me as once out of the atmosphere there wouldn't be anything getting in the way, as long as you were looking away from the sun that is, i would expect that would washout space around it to a degree.
just did a quick google and found THIS video taken on the ISS at night, looking at the star feild i'd say ED is bang on
Hmm, one interesting thing is you'll never see shooting stars in space. They're caused by the burn-up of things in the atmosphere, and out in the black that won't be happening. In some ways space is more boring looking when you're actually there!
On the flip side, I heard a rumour that if you were living in New York or Vegas, you would be lucky to even see a star due to the night light pollution.
Hong King is apparently the worst place for this 'skyglow' effect.
Last edited:
I thought the same thing! I know stars shouldn't twinkle in space but I'd miss it too. Couldn't the cockpit glass provide some twinkling, at least when moving? Micro fractures?
I hope the immensity of stars (you'd see far more stars in space I think) and a "exposure control" for HDR rendering could make the sky more interesting and dynamic. E.g. you look at something bright / dark and the exposure makes the star field denser or black.
This one is a better timelapse of earth. Most beautiful video I have ever seen. Longer and slower, but less stars
http://vimeo.com/32001208
Just as there's no sound in space, but ED is including it.
Agreed.
The excess dust and sounds already look and sound dumb, really. There's no need to pile on even more silly stuff.
I daresay there are probably a few forum members here that are at least amateur if not professional astronomers. One of the key requirements looked for in any 'star gazing' session is a clear sky, and a 'steady atmosphere' is preferable. The more the stars appear to twinkle, the worse the star's or moon/planet's image will be through the telescopes eyepiece. My best views through a scope have been usually on a clear cold night in winter, usually with a hard frost or even snow on the ground!...
...(very) Just a thought though....what if you're standing by your ship which is at or on a planet surface star port, and one that is open to the elements?
So...looking up into the clear night sky you think..."The stars are twinkling like diamonds, and the moon has a radiant glow around it....gee, I wish I could go there!"....but wait!....hang on!
....I can! It might still be possible G.T.
(with a procedurally generated 'twinkle'? ).edit...viewed from the planets surface of course.
Jack
Last edited:
Then we'll see the stars to twinkle, when there will planetary landings on some planets
you would see comets if you were close enough to a star, other things like nebula may show up more with less ambient light or atmospheric disturbance.
You would, unless you are close enough to a bright object like a star, dust/gas cloud or one that reflects starlight back into your eyes.
with no atmosphere to diffuse the light it can only travel in staright lines, so if you look away from the main light source you should be able to see the dimmer stars that are further away.
The ships uses data from its sensors to communicate to the pilots implants the sounds you hear are artificial, the system can be damamged and fail and leave you stuck with just the back up system that sounds like a transistor radio picking up radiation as static.
This, +1
The space dust, other perhaps within the asteroid fields which are being mined, is one of my pet hates.
Even with the space dust you should only see it if you on the starward side so as to allow light to reflect off it. Still, if it were that thick to be visible it would become a fog.
As for those who say "but it makes the game more fun", well, it stops it feeling like space and more like being underwater. There are other ways to give directional hints which would look far less silly.
P.S. I understand where the "dust" came from originally. In Star Trek, the original series, where I believe it first appeared as a cinematic device, it was to give the audience a sense of motion. Similarly, in the first Elite it copied it for the same reason, as there was no star field to give context and an idea of rotation. Now, with the starfield backdrop there is no need
for this device.
