Baby it's dark outside! OKAY - not always!

[znôrt]

Not at all - using reductio ad absurdum is not "flawless logic". Dark is dark is nonsense. Pitch black, no illumination whatsoever is dark, but shaded areas are also dark - so saying, in effect, "oh gosh aren't you stupid for saying that dark is dark" is just insulting. There are grades / degrees of "dark" - it is not a binary situation.

Oh and I don't think that my considered criticism of the change to illumination levels is in any way a rant - there were no low-flying toys, no "OMG the game is broken" no "who wants my stuff I'm off" nonsense.

Your habit of deriding and impugning anyone with a contrary view precedes you, shame you couldn't just learn to put across your opinion without having to attempt character assassination.

dark is supposed to be dark. pre 3.0 you approached the dark side of a planet, and it was pitch dark until you got into the actual shadow when everything suddenly lighted up. you might want to imagine that's your 'light intensifier' at work, but it was just frontier artificially tweaking the light to make it easier to navigate. they did state so, and many players (who i guess don't merit your respect or consideration) found that daft. it had by no means the resemblance of some image enhancement device or tech, it was just daft illumination.

i'm sorry you don't like it, but i see no 'considered criticism' whatsoever in your rant, beyond making the assessment that 'dark is stupid', in other words: you just don't like it. well, guess what, you don't have to since the galaxy is big and stars bathing planets with light plenty. a considerate person would be happy that everyone can be now happy, which wasn't the case before.

however first thing you do is deride the 'mah immershun peeps', saying 'dark is stupid' and be quick calling out that 'dark is dark' is nonsense and rude and people should stick their tongue back in. and you feel insulted. talk about thin skins ...

the only thing being insulted here is intelligence.

but, hey, that could be just me attempting character assassination!! [haha] i should consider changing my avatar to something more appropriate for the fame preceding me!

 

[Captain N]

Image enhancement device or tech would look different from daft illumination, how?

Do you want some green, grainy filter on it before you can believe it's real, since this tech possibly could not have been perfected in a thousand years?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

dark is supposed to be dark. pre 3.0 you approached the dark side of a planet, and it was pitch dark until you got into the actual shadow when everything suddenly lighted up. you might want to imagine that's your 'light intensifier' at work, but it was just frontier artificially tweaking the light to make it easier to navigate. they did state so, and many players (who i guess don't merit your respect or consideration) found that daft. it had by no means the resemblance of some image enhancement device or tech, it was just daft illumination.

i'm sorry you don't like it, but i see no 'considered criticism' whatsoever in your rant, beyond making the assessment that 'dark is stupid', in other words: you just don't like it. well, guess what, you don't have to since the galaxy is big and stars bathing planets with light plenty. a considerate person would be happy that everyone can be now happy, which wasn't the case before.

however first thing you do is deride the 'mah immershun peeps', saying 'dark is stupid' and be quick calling out that 'dark is dark' is nonsense and rude and people should stick their tongue back in. and you feel insulted. talk about thin skins ...

the only thing being insulted here is intelligence.

but, hey, that could be just me attempting character assassination!! [haha] i should consider changing my avatar to something more appropriate for the fame preceding me!

I honestly find the current system perfect. Even if we were blind we still have our instruments.

 

[Valorin]

Baby it's dark outside!

I suppose all the "mah immershun" peeps are happy that the SRV no longer has "light-intensifier" canopies. Personally I think it is jobbie:


https://i.imgur.com/qzFyLkg.jpg


Gimme back my light planets.

Hello, I'm a "mah immershun" guy. I love the dark planets. Dark sides finally feel like it's night which makes you watch your altitude and drive more carefully while keeping an eye on the scanner. It's actually pretty awesome!

 

[Crank Larson]

Darkness is good. Driving the SRV around in the dark is great fun in VR. The lights on both the ship and the SRV are actually very powerful - you just need to slow down enough for them to be effective.

Though I wouldn't object to the option for a light-enhancing canopy. So long as I am not forced to use it.

 

[Para Handy]

....... beyond making the assessment that 'dark is stupid', in other words: you just don't like it. .............

I don't believe I said "dark is stupid" - I said I think this implementation is stupid - i.e. to me it is "too dark" and unnecessarily so. (... and it was from 3.02 update, not before, for the SRV.) I know many people wanted a more "realistic" light level on the dark side of planets but do we see a more realistic light level on the bright side or are you just happy to have dimming but not lightening?

Yes it is just my opinion and of course others can have opposite opinions, carry on - just don't call me out for having a contrary view.

I may have been flippant with the "mah immersion" epithet but I did put a winking smiley at the end of the OP - so, again, not a rant. Once more I point out that there are degrees of "darkness" and it was the insult that I must be stupid to complain that dark is dark that I objected to.

... in essence:

The adaptiveness of the canopies in the game is well accepted as far as stars go - you wouldn't want to be blinded when visiting a nav beacon for example would you. (Mind you the fact that a broken canopy doesn't give a brightness change is a bit of a tell-tale, however for gameplay, OK.) I don't see why it is so unreasonable to think that in the 34th century our smart-canopies can't incorporate light-intensifiers - even if it is merely justified in terms of gameplay, as above.

Oh yes, nearly forgot - you say, "the only thing being insulted here is intelligence. but, hey, that could be just me attempting character assassination!!

" yes indeed, once again reviling the person with a contrary view.

 

[Crank Larson]

and it was from 3.02 update, not before, for the SRV.

While this isn't important to the topic at all, the dark side of planets came back with 3.0. I was driving on them to collect materials - and suddenly noticed that I could literally see nothing. I haven't played the latest update. I've just checked some footage I took from the last time I played (1st March) - definitely dark!

Maybe you could put a feature request in to bring back optional light canopy (maybe it should take a class 1 slot [big grin]).

 

[Captain N]

The adaptiveness of the canopies in the game is well accepted as far as stars go - you wouldn't want to be blinded when visiting a nav beacon for example would you. (Mind you the fact that a broken canopy doesn't give a brightness change is a bit of a tell-tale, however for gameplay, OK.)

I've just rationalised it as your helmet visor having the same tech.

I'm amused by how people can be seriously citing immersion and realism as an argument to remove an understandable feature of convenience when this is a game where we also have:

-sounds in space
-smoke trails and volumetric searchlight cones in vacuum
-radar with a 20 km range, in space
-which, somehow, is ignored in supercruise
-detection and target acquisition relying on IR sensors at ranges where enemy ships can be clearly seen by naked eye and your onboard VIC-20 getting confused and losing track of where the enemy went when they shut down their radiators
-gimballed and turreted weapons not having any stability whatsoever, visibly jittering by multiple degrees even when your ship is flying straight
-gameplay revolving around scrounging up dirt and background radiation which you use to pay some nerd to upgrade your energy shield generators

And the list goes on and on...

It doesn't seem to me realism was very high on the list of priorities when most of this game's systems were designed. Automatic enhancement of light levels seems one of the more plausible ideas presented in this game.

 

[znôrt]

Image enhancement device or tech would look different from daft illumination, how?

Do you want some green, grainy filter on it before you can believe it's real, since this tech possibly could not have been perfected in a thousand years?

no, i definitely don't want a green filter, but there's other options. some examples further up the thread. not to forget the actual vehicle lights, which may be less powerful as desired but still pretty functional on the srv. granted, not so much in ships, but that's what the 'radar' is for.

I don't see why it is so unreasonable to think that in the 34th century our smart-canopies can't incorporate light-intensifiers - even if it is merely justified in terms of gameplay, as above.

i think what you fail to realize is that some players actually like it dark, having to drive/fly with limited visibility is part of the experience they want to enjoy. other's do not. now in 3.0 everyone can have their cake. what's so unreasonable about that?

(i hope you don't mind i put and end to the other, circular part of our conversation. yours sincerely, your character assassin )

 

[GG7]

The lights on both the ship and the SRV are actually very powerful.

No they're not! Not on the darkest planets, where their usual output has been reduced exponentially in line with the surface lighting.

They have the potential to be very powerful, but for now, you will only see their highest output on planets where the dark sides are already highly illuminated by a bright skybox.

I feel like I am banging my head against the wall attempting to make a point about something so blatantly obvious to anyone who bothers to compare their ship or SRV's headlight throw on super dark planets to that same throw on a brighter dark side planet.

The difference in illumination distance is HUGE! The light only casts out about 1 meter on super dark planets, but up to 10 meters on brighter dark planets.

 

[Captain N]

no, i definitely don't want a green filter, but there's other options. some examples further up the thread. not to forget the actual vehicle lights, which may be less powerful as desired but still pretty functional on the srv. granted, not so much in ships, but that's what the 'radar' is for.

The only example I remember was the idea of some kind of a wireframe simulation being overlaid on your HUD, which I thought I already rightly dismissed as absurd. At least the green filter would be approximately how this stuff looks like in current day reality. Why would they replace something that works perfectly well with a technology that is both more complex to build, and gives less information?

 

[znôrt]

I feel like I am banging my head against the wall attempting to make a point about something so blatantly obvious to anyone who bothers to compare their ship or SRV's headlight throw on super dark planets to that same throw on a brighter dark side planet.

The difference in illumination distance is HUGE! The light only casts out about 1 meter on super dark planets, but up to 10 meters on brighter dark planets.

(i guess a side by side image could work wonders ...)

 

[Raino]

maybe they use dark matter?

 

[mojonaut]

Image enhancement device or tech would look different from daft illumination, how?

Do you want some green, grainy filter on it before you can believe it's real, since this tech possibly could not have been perfected in a thousand years?

But they couldn't perfect a HUD without TV scan lines

 

[Jukelo]

The only example I remember was the idea of some kind of a wireframe simulation being overlaid on your HUD, which I thought I already rightly dismissed as absurd. At least the green filter would be approximately how this stuff looks like in current day reality. Why would they replace something that works perfectly well with a technology that is both more complex to build, and gives less information?

Because wireframe is much higher on the rule of cool ladder than boring old night vision.

 

[Para Handy]

OKAY - It is time for me to wind my neck in.....


The galaxy came up:

Spoiler

... and with no lights on the SRV:

Spoiler

So the galaxy being under the horizon (well the galaxy centre anyway) was what reduced the light to the extremely dark situation I found after 3.02 updated (sorry - you were right Crank Larson).

Today when I loaded up, suddenly the terrain brightened after loading and it seemed like before so I had a look around (it was parked up since last night) and the local star was still below the horizon but the brighter centre of the galaxy was now above the horizon. I recalled ship, orbited round again to pitch black, landed and sure enough no galaxy centre in the sky meant really dark terrain. So obviously the ambient light model is still there, there are degrees of dark and I am feeling a bit daft for sticking my head over the parapet yesterday.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

OKAY - It is time for me to wind my neck in.....


The galaxy came up:

Spoiler

https://i.imgur.com/4mPjXW6.jpg

... and with no lights on the SRV:

Spoiler

https://i.imgur.com/83m8kXm.jpg

So the galaxy being under the horizon (well the centre anyway) was what reduced the light to the extremely dark situation I found after 3.02 updated (sorry - you were right Crank LArson).

Today when I loaded up, suddenly the terrain brightened after loading and it seemed like before so I had a look around (it was parked up since last night) and the local star was still below the horizon but the brighter centre of the galaxy was now above the horizon. I recalled ship, orbited round again to pitch black, landed and sure enough no galaxy centre in the sky meant really dark terrain. So obviously the ambient light model is still there, there are degrees of dark and I am feeling a bit daft for sticking my head over the parapet yesterday.

So the galaxy has an own horizon? so its flaoting around a supersun somewhere? We need a science team on this.

 

[Para Handy]

........
i think what you fail to realize is that some players actually like it dark, having to drive/fly with limited visibility is part of the experience they want to enjoy. other's do not. now in 3.0 everyone can have their cake. what's so unreasonable about that?

(i hope you don't mind i put and end to the other, circular part of our conversation. yours sincerely, your character assassin )

No, of course I recognise that and I don't begrudge people wanting it, I can see the argument for it, I just prefer it not to be so pitch-black - but as I say above, it looks like the pitch-black situation is more rare than appeared so I have amended my position.

 

[Para Handy]

So the galaxy has an own horizon? so its flaoting around a supersun somewhere? We need a science team on this.

HUH???? - below the horizon of the planet I was on. :S

i.e.

Ah canny zoom out any further than that.

 

[Captain N]

Because wireframe is much higher on the rule of cool ladder than boring old night vision.

B-but muh immershun...