Yep, I'll take helmet-induced ENB-series filter explanation.
100% Proof Planets have lost their colour. [UPDATED with official Dev reason and plan to improve]
- Thread starter Obsidian Ant
- Start date
Yep, I'll take helmet-induced ENB-series filter explanation.
Great. More '1st World' problems fomenting outrage on the Forums. Just what we were lacking.
What makes anyone think the colors of the planets are more important, to us or FD, than the release of 2.3? Once the Beta and Release happens I betting FD will have an answer. FD always responds, when they are ready and able.
What makes anyone think the colors of the planets are more important, to us or FD, than the release of 2.3? Once the Beta and Release happens I betting FD will have an answer. FD always responds, when they are ready and able.
Problem is that the game doesn't simulate a lot of the processes that would lead to color variations. Bombardments, surface volcanism, tidal locking and angular intensity of ultraviolet radiation, etc. all apply.
It makes zero sense for a planet to be completely green, or completely yellow, or completely brown (except in the most extreme cases).
It makes zero sense for a planet to be completely green, or completely yellow, or completely brown (except in the most extreme cases).
I would like to see this acted on, i think the engine is capable of much more than we currently see. All the SME's are not wrong when they say "Houston we have a problem". So please do the needful.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
I left the Bubble just before the beigeification started... I still love exploring but boy, none of these rocky planets attract me anymore.
Wish I started exploration long before this.
The issue is blown out of proportions - before 2.2, 95% of all wordls were uninteresting too. Somebody made a big story about it and now there are romantic tales about an exciting and colorful galaxy pre 2.2.
Most of these affected HMC and MRs were green with more haze - there were a bit more color variations, but not ny much. Even before 2.3, there weren't more than 2-3 colors per planet.
On the other hand, details on the surface are much-much better. Do land on rocky and ice worlds, those look nicer than before 2.2. And finding volcanic stuff is difficult, but rewarding - at least there is something extra out there.
So yes, in terms of sights you are better of, than pre 2.2.
That said it is true, that there should be more variations out there and the planets should be improved - but again, this is an issue since Horizons launch.
Last edited:
The whole "color change for realism" doesnt hold up
or just Google
https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...bih=877#tbm=isch&q=metals+minerals+rock+color
or just Google
https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...bih=877#tbm=isch&q=metals+minerals+rock+color
Well you do live in symbiosis, don't you? You bring fame to the game, they've provided you a game you could build your channel on. Though it is a bit unfair that you get way more credit for what you are doing than FDev for creating this awesome game.
On the other hand I'm a bit disappointed the some of the recent videos you are making reflect the hyperbolic, in many way toxic criticisms of the dangerous threads. You won't get the message though that "the whole galaxy is gone beige", and won't serve the cause either. Yes, in some cases the fine print said that only HMC and MRs are affected, but for the average observer your message was misleading - and again too toxic to have meaningful discussion about it.
Probably. Except the game needs to be able to run on a $400 machine
Just gonna point out that from thousands of km away most of the things in this pic will look brown or grey or black and when you look at the % of composition found in planet surfaces mostly brown...
Shouldn't change when you get closer either, airless planets are eroded, granular and dusty they tend not to be made of solid blocks of material to have masses of colour variety. Tend to be sand of one colour and rocks of another, sound familiar? Have you looked at surface shots of Mars?
There are planets that exibit colour variance in game at that kind of level but they are rare, just like in real life.
Last edited:
It's just another double standard, I'm not even surprised anymore.
"We changed the planets for realism, because in space all hmc worlds are beige!", still brown dwarves look like grape juice and m type surfaces look like faster than light orange soda visible to naked eye even without canopy. That's so realistic, right?
"We changed the planets for realism, because in space all hmc worlds are beige!", still brown dwarves look like grape juice and m type surfaces look like faster than light orange soda visible to naked eye even without canopy. That's so realistic, right?
Last edited:
We've heard that FD have updated the lighting model. That's fine. However, the lighting model is far from all that impacts the actual color rendered in a given pixel.
What I personally suspect has happened is that the diffuse texture generation for a planetary body was optimized to look good in the old, less-realistic lighting model. Quite possibly with a few parameters dialed back to stop the colors looking stupidly oversaturated. The lighting model has now been made more realistic, but somehow re-optimizing the texture generation didn't happen so now they are all way desaturated, the actual color of every planet without an atmosphere becoming basically "white" and reflecting the entire spectrum of the primary illuminating star without any "surface colors" making much, if any, contribution.
Now I can see FD looking at this and (at least internally) going "ouch!" but since they changed the lighting model in favor of supposed "realism" to fix it they may have their work cut out - They may need to make fundamental changes to the way they generate planetary textures or to the render pipeline to ensure that you don't end up seeing planetary colors that simply "can't" exist because that color of light is absent from the spectrum of the illuminating star etc. This is not a trivial matter in any of the color-space representations that are built into or supported by graphics hardware. Using three color channels to fool the eye works really well when you're displaying an image that you already have but trying to generate the source image from scratch isn't that neat.
What I personally suspect has happened is that the diffuse texture generation for a planetary body was optimized to look good in the old, less-realistic lighting model. Quite possibly with a few parameters dialed back to stop the colors looking stupidly oversaturated. The lighting model has now been made more realistic, but somehow re-optimizing the texture generation didn't happen so now they are all way desaturated, the actual color of every planet without an atmosphere becoming basically "white" and reflecting the entire spectrum of the primary illuminating star without any "surface colors" making much, if any, contribution.
Now I can see FD looking at this and (at least internally) going "ouch!" but since they changed the lighting model in favor of supposed "realism" to fix it they may have their work cut out - They may need to make fundamental changes to the way they generate planetary textures or to the render pipeline to ensure that you don't end up seeing planetary colors that simply "can't" exist because that color of light is absent from the spectrum of the illuminating star etc. This is not a trivial matter in any of the color-space representations that are built into or supported by graphics hardware. Using three color channels to fool the eye works really well when you're displaying an image that you already have but trying to generate the source image from scratch isn't that neat.
For the case of a Brown Dwarf, certainly yes.
I'm not (just) talking about color, I'm talking about their representation in general. They're like that because it looks cool and it serves the purpose of gameplay (They don't have gravity wells, but planets do, another double standard for free) not because they look realistic.
In the case of stars is all good and dandy, but for planets absolutely not! Frontier needs realism! Everything has to be beige!
Last edited:
Good find.
Mengy also commented seeing variations in MRs.
Except this isn't something that was only just discovered. First thread about this was 3 months ago.
And you realise that the frustration you voiced is also a first world problem, which is easy to solve by yourself.
Last edited: