Horizons Space Realism Issues

[xondk]

2. There are many realistic renderings of a black hole online that you can check. The same thing is in Space Engine. Your eyes don't paint the picture regarding to where the light is but regarding to at what angle it hits your eyes. Assuming that there is no material between you and the black hole so that the only light is the stars in the background, then the picture should be stretched towards the Einstein ring, under the Einstein ring it should be inverted if I remember correctly and lower still there should be pitch black. Theoretically, light can even be in orbit around the black hole at the altitude of the photon sphere. However, even if the light makes several circles around the hole until it eventually escapes, it always escapes at a shallow angle and so it never hits your eyes at certain angles and there is where the black disk is (except if the light didn't come from the background but from an object between you and the hole like the accretion disk).

Definitely sounds interesting, though wouldn't the light that is just beyond orbit range, be able to be sent in any direction? thus making it look more like a 100% reflective object with light bending around it? Course it could also be an effect similar to why sun spots are black? either or quite interesting. And sure they could use some tweaking ingame.

Edit: ok I just looked at a black hole in Space Engine, and they do look exactly like I describe? so maybe its a communication problem in describing it? Though yes the closer you get to it, the more the 'black' hole becomes visible, just need to be close enough so seems a mix of both ideas?

 

[njc]

Definitely sounds interesting, though wouldn't the light that is just beyond orbit range, be able to be sent in any direction? thus making it look more like a 100% reflective object with light bending around it? Course it could also be an effect similar to why sun spots are black? either or quite interesting. And sure they could use some tweaking ingame.

It's difficult to visualize what you mean. In fact it's difficult to visualize anything about black holes which is why we use simulations.

No, Sun spots have nothing to do with anything of this. There are cold spots on the Sun because some magnetic phenomena slows down heat convection from below. That is why they are black.

EDIT:

This site explains beautifully why black holes have black disks. It's just called the hole's shadow apparently.

 

[njc]

Edit: ok I just looked at a black hole in Space Engine, and they do look exactly like I describe? so maybe its a communication problem in describing it? Though yes the closer you get to it, the more the 'black' hole becomes visible, just need to be close enough so seems a mix of both ideas?

Well, I can definitely see the black disk in Space Engine from quite far away. In ED screenshots that I saw, the disk is nowhere to be seen.

 

[xondk]

Well, I can definitely see the black disk in Space Engine from quite far away. In ED screenshots that I saw, the disk is nowhere to be seen.

I think its a matter of distance, going to see if I can find a similar sized black hole in ED and space engine and park myself at same distance away. Might entirely be wrong though, but yeah still needs tweaking.

 

[njc]

I think its a matter of distance, going to see if I can find a similar sized black hole in ED and space engine and park myself at same distance away. Might entirely be wrong though, but yeah still needs tweaking.

Just found this.

How it looks in ED:

Spoiler

How it should look:

Spoiler

View attachment 88628

 

[Marasmusine]

We should be able to experience pitch darkness even without the clouds. On Earth nights are not completely dark only when it is cloudy.

I don't understand why you would expect pitch darkness? There's enough starlight wherever you go to provide ambient light. Maybe you'd like a control for changing the contrast that you can slide right down. I've also realised that the cockpit screen _must_ have automatic contrast adjustment, because otherwise your eyes would be fried when you go near a star.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

BBC 4 has been recently showing a Horizon called "The Secrets of the Solar System" and our Solar system is apparently now one of the oddballs and scientists are having to rethink how systems are created and evolve. As I write this I notice it is on tonight at 1:00 AM (20th Dec), bit I am sure it can be seen on BBC iPlayer if you are in the UK.

The point is, even the scientists are not really too sure how things are, so even if ED haven't got it right to suit your tastes, they have done an unbelievable job in creating a universe that we can play in. It might not be accurate, but from some positions, you can eyeball various constellations that are correct as far as I can see.

I would guess that all stars emit their own light according to observations made in real life; which creates a truly atmospheric and realistic simulator. Note I say simulator and not an emulator.... (there is a difference).ED is a simulator not an emulator. To make this playable and enjoyable, some subtle changes had had to be made with regards to lighting and that for me is just fine. Nobody has actually viewed a black hole from close up, we can only imagine what it is like. From what I have seen, although not as we would expect, it does have to be represented as a celestial object that conforms to an object that can be approached and viewed.

So perhaps we are expecting too much from the procedural process? I don't think so. I think they have done a remarkable job.

I wonder if those that have niggles and complaints about the accuracy, can do any better using their own hand crafted software ?

Kitty

+1 Rep - The Horizon you mention is a brilliant watch, saw it some months ago when it was first shown.

Tot he OP and all the others saying/claiming that things should look a certain way - I ask any one of you to post actual proof of what you are saying. By proof I do not want a bunch of maths developed by some quantum nut-job Sheldon type...

Post REAL images - actual imperial evidence, not just artists impressions please.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the game resembling more what we actually see but I do not want SciFi TV/Film CGI style effects all over space. I would be happier if they just set about including the objects we do know about such as the largest stars, getting the oldest stars right and some kind of project to at least get the Sol system looking right - Pluto still looks like a joke but until we have all the data back it at least looks better then it did (Despite laughable claims that it could change so much in just 1k years).

 

[Kezha]

Pitch black planets dark sides would be nice, was a big dissapointed when I tried to land on the dark side on purpose to find a dark place to explore only to find that I did not need the SRV's lights turned on, infact turning them on was a hinder to what I could see rather than allowing me to see more.

 

[BillD]

Pitch black planets dark sides would be nice, was a big dissapointed when I tried to land on the dark side on purpose to find a dark place to explore only to find that I did not need the SRV's lights turned on, infact turning them on was a hinder to what I could see rather than allowing me to see more.

This totally depends on the arrangement of the planets and suns in the system systems. I have landed on some beautifully pitch black darksides. Black as Black and the only thing you could see is the horizon contour against the sky. The skybox looks absolutely incredible. Actually wish it looked that way all the time. Hardly any black at all in the sky and so much more detail.

 

[Von Roerich]

I'm guessing that the OP is in agreement with the flight model used in ED. I watched a SC alpha vid recently. Hahahahahahaha 'arcade game' was the first 'thought' that came into my head. Back on topic...... It would be nice to see some 'Electric Universe' type effects somewhere around the Galaxy, You know, like the one that caused the scars on Mars.

 

[njc]

I don't understand why you would expect pitch darkness? There's enough starlight wherever you go to provide ambient light. Maybe you'd like a control for changing the contrast that you can slide right down. I've also realised that the cockpit screen _must_ have automatic contrast adjustment, because otherwise your eyes would be fried when you go near a star.

I would expect it because it was pitch dark before I got too close to a planet. And then it all light up. And if the reason for this is because there are stars, well then there are too bright stars. On Earth at night stars are not enough to remove total darkness. Of course when you are in a part of the galaxy where they are bright enough, then yes, nights should be bright.

Yes, I also thing that high tech glass is the reason. The same thing that dims the stars probably. But the thing is I want to be able to disable that just like I can disable orbit lines. It breaks immersion for me.

 

[njc]

Tot he OP and all the others saying/claiming that things should look a certain way - I ask any one of you to post actual proof of what you are saying. By proof I do not want a bunch of maths developed by some quantum nut-job Sheldon type...

Post REAL images - actual imperial evidence, not just artists impressions please.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the game resembling more what we actually see but I do not want SciFi TV/Film CGI style effects all over space. I would be happier if they just set about including the objects we do know about such as the largest stars, getting the oldest stars right and some kind of project to at least get the Sol system looking right - Pluto still looks like a joke but until we have all the data back it at least looks better then it did (Despite laughable claims that it could change so much in just 1k years).

By this logic FD could make black holes pink and all stars except the Sun cube-shaped. There is no proof that black holes should be black and stars spherical. No proof, but a bunch of mathematical evidence. And as I said before, I am calling for realistic space as per the current theory and not as according tho the way things really are since that would be impossible to know. Also, entire ED is CGI effects. But I'm not calling for more random CGI effects, only those that are supported by science and wouldn't sacrifice game-play. Things like elongated contact binaries etc.

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

This totally depends on the arrangement of the planets and suns in the system systems. I have landed on some beautifully pitch black darksides. Black as Black and the only thing you could see is the horizon contour against the sky. The skybox looks absolutely incredible. Actually wish it looked that way all the time. Hardly any black at all in the sky and so much more detail.

Yes of course, if it's the way it is because of light being reflected from above then it is fine. But when I was there, there was no moons, planets reflecting anything. Also in that case it should be bright from afar already, not when you descend.

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

I'm guessing that the OP is in agreement with the flight model used in ED. I watched a SC alpha vid recently. Hahahahahahaha 'arcade game' was the first 'thought' that came into my head. Back on topic...... It would be nice to see some 'Electric Universe' type effects somewhere around the Galaxy, You know, like the one that caused the scars on Mars.

No, but as I think I mentioned before, I omitted the things that are obviously wrong intentionally for the game-play purposes except if I have a better suggestion. But if ships flew like they do in Orbiter Space Sim, gaming would be completely impossible. Also electric universe effects Mars scars what?

 

[Zorronov]

Many of these scientific issues have been raised and discussed before. Probably the thing I find most disconcerting is the placement in our galaxy of some of the generated stars and planets. T Tauri stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, ring systems, the Star Wars-type asteroid belts, type O and B stars, binary planets, moons that are too close to their primary, etc. All of these objects have, in many cases, issues with their scientific probability. For example, young stars should be found in specific regions of space, not scattered about randomly. They should be near the stellar nurseries (i.e. the RL stellar forges) that spawned them, not sprinkled throughout the bubble. Off hand, I believe the closest region of star formation to Sol is the Orion Nebula, which is a bit far from human space. These things aren't covered in FD's stellar forge and I understand it's for playability. Still a great game...

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

There is no proof that black holes should be black and stars spherical. No proof, but a bunch of mathematical evidence.

Meet Sol. A little star in our very on solar system. We've been studying it for almost as long as we have been around... Now we have probes that watch it 24 hours a day and guess what - It's round, is this proof enough?

Basing everything on just theory will lead to it needing to be changed when the math is proven wrong as so much of it is... Did/can you watch the Horizon that was mentioned earlier? It has been discovered that we are not the normal system we thought we were. There are systems that defy all current models on how a solar system works - scientists are having to re-write the rules they had created with just maths as actual data proves them wrong.

So again, less of the artists impressions based on unproven/untested math and more observed scientific facts would be my preference. More actual stars we know about would be nice too.

 

[njc]

Many of these scientific issues have been raised and discussed before. Probably the thing I find most disconcerting is the placement in our galaxy of some of the generated stars and planets. T Tauri stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, ring systems, the Star Wars-type asteroid belts, type O and B stars, binary planets, moons that are too close to their primary, etc. All of these objects have, in many cases, issues with their scientific probability. For example, young stars should be found in specific regions of space, not scattered about randomly. They should be near the stellar nurseries (i.e. the RL stellar forges) that spawned them, not sprinkled throughout the bubble. Off hand, I believe the closest region of star formation to Sol is the Orion Nebula, which is a bit far from human space. These things aren't covered in FD's stellar forge and I understand it's for playability. Still a great game...

Of course but this is just too much. No one notices this unless they do extensive research. This would take unnecessary resources from FD. Things I'm talking about are the obvious mistakes that everyone with a little knowledge notices (spherical binary stars). It's immersion braking for me.

 

[Kitty]

I visited a planet earlier today and went to the dark side. It was pitch black and couldn't see a thing. Had to rely totally on radar for finding a reasonably flat area close to a POI for landing. Perhaps my gamma/colour space happens to compliment ED, but believe me. it was black..... really black, and yes there were stars in the system. Running around in the SRV was hard even when lights were on full. It was a very lumpy surface and difficult terrain.

 

[njc]

I visited a planet earlier today and went to the dark side. It was pitch black and couldn't see a thing. Had to rely totally on radar for finding a reasonably flat area close to a POI for landing. Perhaps my gamma/colour space happens to compliment ED, but believe me. it was black..... really black, and yes there were stars in the system. Running around in the SRV was hard even when lights were on full. It was a very lumpy surface and difficult terrain.

I don't know, maybe it's some planets missing this feature or something. Because I tried it again yesterday and the planet was pitch black from high up, but when I descended it light up. I didn't even need the lights to drive around.

 

[xondk]

Just found this.

How it looks in ED:

Spoiler

View attachment 88627

How it should look:

Spoiler

View attachment 88628

Yeah, it seems that space engine uses a doughnut shape rather then a sphere shape as Elite does, where the center of the doughnut is the black of the black hole? Maybe Elite could implement that instead?

 

[njc]

Yeah, it seems that space engine uses a doughnut shape rather then a sphere shape as Elite does, where the center of the doughnut is the black of the black hole? Maybe Elite could implement that instead?

Well if they did that, it would automatically produce the black disk in the center, yes. But even if they just pasted a black disk over everything, despite not as accurate, it would still be a lot better than now. And it would save time and resources.

 

[Kitty]

I present to you a few screen shots from one of favourite systems. Please note that the Sun is visible and the planet is receiving glancing rays so there will be a little light available. Looking for POIs is now very enjoyable, especially now that the bug with disappearing cargo when dismissing the ship has been fixed. Many of the bases can be seen quite easily when they have lights on. Perhaps this is too dark for you, but I find this quite atmospheric and realistic.

As I said before, perhaps my colour space/gamma is setup quite differently from others, but this works for me and appears to be quite realistic.

Thoughts ?

Kitty


PS: The gamma is setup for my PC, not from the game. I usually run in full screen, but there is a black small border around the game screen. This black is pretty much the same "blackness" as space, so the only thing I can recognise with the border is the lack of stars. There is no colour difference.