100% Proof Planets have lost their colour. [UPDATED with official Dev reason and plan to improve]

[Privata]

Beta 2.3 has done........something, maybe increased LOD over distance? it helps, but it has a few bugs. Good news though?

I feel like I noticed one or two extra bits of colour...
But I dont know , for know I am going to say that there are no colour changes to be on the safe side.

The lods do look better as do the textures (the new ice shader is nice , but I still miss the 2.1 version)

 

[malenfant]

Light from other ambient sources would fill in the gaps of any remaining umbral shadow.

I'm saying that the light from other sources (other stars in the sky) is insufficient to 'fill in the gaps of any remaining umbral shadow". You don't seem to think that the milky way core/disc or a nebula is a localised light source. It is. It is not "light coming from the whole sky".

The reason there are no shadows from the skybox is because of the way the lighting is programmed - they're using shortcuts to simulate the light from the skybox rather than raytracing (which would show the shadows).

 

[dape]

how come that landable planets look so different in the non horizon game? I just noticed today.

same system different colours...

 

[Flavourless]

What people dont get is this is a damn game...

What some people don't get is that a game doesn't have to be built on nonsensical fluff.

I am glad that FD have stated that they are looking at changing the algorithms to bring more variety, whether that be tonal or colour remains to be seen.
Until then.......

 

[Ziljan]

I'm saying that the light from other sources (other stars in the sky) is insufficient to 'fill in the gaps of any remaining umbral shadow". You don't seem to think that the milky way core/disc or a nebula is a localised light source. It is. It is not "light coming from the whole sky".

The reason there are no shadows from the skybox is because of the way the lighting is programmed - they're using shortcuts to simulate the light from the skybox rather than raytracing (which would show the shadows).

"Localized light source" isn't a term in astronomy. The term you're looking for is an "extended object". That is a non-point source of light, like a Nebula, a galaxy, a nearby moon or star, etc. Anything with a surface area with defined arc of the sky. As I showed above, the smaller the object is the more chance it has to cast a shadow. But in almost every case the milky way is a thick bar of light/darkness that casts light in wide 180 arc that doesn't leave any room for umbral shadow even if were flattened to a 2D line source that was slightly brighter towards the center. Once you add in the combined photons from the whole sky + surface reflections, then any darkness would be completely washed out at pretty much any location not at the very edges of the galaxy. Hope that clears things up.

 

[Mengy]

how come that landable planets look so different in the non horizon game? I just noticed today.

same system different colours...

http://i.imgur.com/XUAT2T2.png

http://i.imgur.com/HyUST6t.png

That’s very interesting. So in the version of Elite where you can land on planets, they have all been homogenized and beige-ified, but in the non-Horizon version of Elite where you can’t land on them, they seem to retain their pre-2.2 coloring and variety?

I wonder if there are two different stellar forge algorithms in place, or if the same stellar forge routine is simply using different data sets to generate the planets between Horizons and non-Horizons?

Would be very interesting to fly as low as you can in non-Horizons, noting surface terrain features, and then compare the same planet terrain with Horizons active, just to see HOW different the exact same planet can be?

 

[Lightspeed]

how come that landable planets look so different in the non horizon game? I just noticed today.

same system different colours...

http://i.imgur.com/XUAT2T2.png

http://i.imgur.com/HyUST6t.png

+rep for pointing that out

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

The way that umbral/penumbral shadows work is that the wider the angle of the object the smaller the umbral area is.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/pictures/2068/20020123163918__umbra.jpg

Light from other ambient sources would fill in the gaps of any remaining umbral shadow.

As for the color of the planet on the night side it's entirely due to the color of the sky. In some places (above the galactic plane) it's white light and most other places is reddened because of the Interstellar medium reddening the light behind it.

well the planets we currently can land on are without atmosphere, so their color would be defne dby the light the star emits and the material of the planets ground and it's light absorbtion.



about Blanet colors before and after Horizons?

well one was based o the idea how planetary landing shall looks like. The other is the result of what the devs could implement. Thats why Horizons is such a disapoitment. and for some reason even with athmospheric planets I doubt they will get mre diversity wihtin those athmospheres than we have now on non athmosphere.

That’s very interesting. So in the version of Elite where you can land on planets, they have all been homogenized and beige-ified, but in the non-Horizon version of Elite where you can’t land on them, they seem to retain their pre-2.2 coloring and variety?

I wonder if there are two different stellar forge algorithms in place, or if the same stellar forge routine is simply using different data sets to generate the planets between Horizons and non-Horizons?

Would be very interesting to fly as low as you can in non-Horizons, noting surface terrain features, and then compare the same planet terrain with Horizons active, just to see HOW different the exact same planet can be?

I think non horizons doesn't start to render the true planets visuals. What we see there is just a "piture" or spheric generated object with a skin but wthout surface features.

 

[PyrateLV]

That’s very interesting. So in the version of Elite where you can land on planets, they have all been homogenized and beige-ified, but in the non-Horizon version of Elite where you can’t land on them, they seem to retain their pre-2.2 coloring and variety?

I wonder if there are two different stellar forge algorithms in place, or if the same stellar forge routine is simply using different data sets to generate the planets between Horizons and non-Horizons?

Would be very interesting to fly as low as you can in non-Horizons, noting surface terrain features, and then compare the same planet terrain with Horizons active, just to see HOW different the exact same planet can be?

Horizons update granted the ability to land on Planets, but lost/removed the variety and colour in the process.
That doesnt seem like a good trade.

Thats got to be a MAJOR bug. Im surprised FDev havent caught it.
Seriously? How could they miss that?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Horizons update granted the ability to land on Planets, but lost/removed the variety and colour in the process.
That doesnt seem like a good trade.

Thats got to be a MAJOR bug. Im surprised FDev havent caught it.
Seriously? How could they miss that?

Because the problem only started occurring after 2.2, so for a good year planets had variety.

The latest tweak broke something, which FD will look into.

 

[Mengy]

I think non horizons doesn't start to render the true planets visuals. What we see there is just a "piture" or spheric generated object with a skin but wthout surface features.

That’s why I said that someone should fly close to an HMC or MR in non-Horizons and take note of surface colors and features (from orbit because you can’t land), and THEN switch to Horizons mode and compare the two. Not in the system map, from the physical cockpit or debug camera.

Is this simply a system map display disparity, or do the planets physically generate with varying terrains between the two modes?

I’m at work right now or I’d do it myself. I will later tonight if no one else does.

 

[Alec Turner]

Thats got to be a MAJOR bug. Im surprised FDev havent caught it.
Seriously? How could they miss that?

See post #521 from Michael Brookes ...

My apologies for not responding sooner, this issue has been on my list to chase up for a while. The reason for the difference being observed on the rocky worlds is the change to the new material system - in theory this is more accurate as it uses the chemical properties to determine the colour (obviously I'm simplifying a bit here!), however the problem is that those colours were based on Earth standard colouration for those materials, and most of those are beige/brown rather than the colours you might observe in the myriad of other possible conditions. We're currently working on a more flexible material system, and this will necessitate a fresh balance pass on these. That's not going to be in 2.3 though.

Michael

 

[Obsidian Ant]

I'm just bringing this back to the top due to the number of threads and posts about "beige planets" over the past few weeks. It seems a lot of people still are unaware that beige worlds are an unintended change, and that soon worlds will be getting a greater variety of colour.

It's also possible that we will see a return to more varied planetary geometry.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Title change as requested by OP.

 

[Stealthie]

Just thought I'd post something that caught my attention.

Fluffy was landing on a moon in a G-class system to rearm when I took the right-hand picture.
I was quite surprised to see how beige he looked so I took the left-hand picture on a station with apparently "neutral" light.

I'm no expert but it seems like part of the problem, at least, is the intensity of the light hue.
I'm not sure if it's caused by the star giving off light that's "too yellow" or whether the light from the star is "white" but then it's being tinted "yellow" as it reflects off the planet's surface.

With hindsight, I suppose I should have tried taking a picture of Fluffy in open space in the same system to see how yellow he looked.
Alas, I didn't look at the picture until afterwards.
I think Fluffy is still parked-up in the same system so I might take him out and grab pictures on a station, in space and on a surface to see how they compare.

 

[Mengy]

It seems a lot of people still are unaware that beige worlds are an unintended change, and that soon worlds will be getting a greater variety of colour.

I'd love for Frontier to define "soon". Patch 2.4? Beginning of Season 3? End of Season 3?

I'm really hoping it's much sooner than later.

I've pretty much put my Search for Beige mission on hold for now, as it's clear that like 97% of all HMC & MR worlds right now are a homongenized beige-ish with next to no color variety at all. I literally found one HMC with color on it out of 94 planets. Terrain generation has gotten just as bland on those worlds too for the most part. I hope that Frontier continues to improve on planet generation overall, it desperately needs more variety both in colors and terrain features.

 

[Lightspeed]

Maybe that is what's coming for 2.4 ....

2.2 The Guardians ....

2.3 The Commanders ....

2.4 The Artists ..... use the new discovery module to paint the planets you visit any color of your choosing (except beige).

 

[Psychotoddler]

Left picture is on the moon in Quince. The other in a hangar.

 

[Panticus]

You (remaining players) are all complicit with FD in being obsessed with graphics and appearance.

No one seems the least bit interested in meaningful and rewarding gameplay. Lame.

 

[Drumatiko]

You (remaining players) are all complicit with FD in being obsessed with graphics and appearance.

No one seems the least bit interested in meaningful and rewarding gameplay. Lame.

Being able to find (even more) unique and beautiful locations is for a lot of people rewarding gameplay. When the quality on some front gets reduced by accident, then it is only logical to report it and hope it gets fixed.