Unpopular opinion.

[Old Duck]

But I love it. One of the main reasins I play Elite is looking at pretty things. And this is pretty.

Do you think this (below) is pretty? It's vibrant and color-accurate. Many of us opposed to the new system don't hate vibrant colors (which is different than oversaturated, which this new system does suffer from in different areas). We just want realistic vibrant colors. Speaking of, I'm at a nebula right now, a place I actually want to look like "fantasy space", and it's pretty dull and pastel, at least on PS4. Give me realistic (but vibrant) space and fantastical nebula, and I'll join the rest of you singing Amazing Grace.

 

[Trollymctrollerson]

I like it a lot.

Seems much more lifelike to my eyes. Don't forget, there is no such thing as colour anyway, it's just a trick our brains play on us when it interprets the photons our eyes receive. The entire thing is subjective.

Aps.

My ocular sensory organs find the current tricks to be cruel and unusual punishment. The photons my monitor is emitting are more detached from reality than what my retinas received previously. In addition to being more "fantastical" they are also offensively bright and incoherent. Why are the blue and purple lights emitted by the star still glaring off my cockpit when I'm inside a coriolis station? My brain is on to these tricks and it's not thrilled. The tricks went from Houdini to bright sugary breakfast cereal.

 

[krautbernd]

Yep, loving the new lighting and the atmosphere it can create.
I can imagine it may be a bit too "cartoonish" for some at some locations, particularly when the system star has some really distinctive colour (like purple or green).

it is cartoonish in all locations as far as the background image (i.e. skybox) is concerned:

It's also jarring how the effect cimply cuts off once you get a certain distance from the star. There is practically no transition as long as you're not creeping along. ABove screenshots are from entering and exiting the galaxy map. The same effect is applied on all star classes, only the color differs.

 

[znôrt]

Do you think this (below) is pretty? It's vibrant and color-accurate. Many of us opposed to the new system don't hate vibrant colors (which is different than oversaturated, which this new system does suffer from in different areas). We just want realistic vibrant colors. Speaking of, I'm at a nebula right now, a place I actually want to look like "fantasy space", and it's pretty dull and pastel, at least on PS4. Give me realistic (but vibrant) space and fantastical nebula, and I'll join the rest of you singing Amazing Grace.

as has been pointed out, the image you post is not at all realistic, but taken with a high sensitivity camera and probably in several shots. that's not what reality looks like to the human eye.

so what is it what you want, actually?

 

[Apsley]

So switch the galaxy to greyscale, which I actually tried via a setting on my monitor, and it was an improvement over the current system



On a serious note, Frontier could make everyone happy by just giving us some settings so we can each pick our own preferred color filters. I greatly prefer this (below), but I totally agree that this is subjective.

Well, even when greyscale its still an image our brains make out of something that is neither black, white nor anything in between.

There does seem to be something going on here though, if others are having a major problem with it maybe FD should add some kind of toggle.

Aps.

 

[lokvette]

From what Ive seen of it thus far, can I have the old one back.

 

[Old Duck]

so what is it what you want, actually?

For you to go away. Oh, you mean regarding color? I'm tired of repeating myself, so just head over to this thread and maybe you'll learn something new.

 

[Dutchman141]

In general I think the new lighting system is very nice, except for the skybox tinting and the excessive bloom in stations, I loved the orange atmosphere in extraction stations but now it's all a blinding white, a bit over the top imho.

 

[krautbernd]

as has been pointed out, the image you post is not at all realistic, but taken with a high sensitivity camera and probably in several shots. that's not what reality looks like to the human eye.

so what is it what you want, actually?

Let me guess, you've never actually been away from civilization and have looked into the sky on a clear night? It's funny how people are so quick to dismiss the human eye in favor of technology. Sure, the image in question employs HDR, but the Milky Way is realistic, since it's not tinted green.

 

[Wyaston Hypatia]

I like it on planets, and how it affects the interior of my ship.

I don't like it in space the way it affects the sky-box.

 

[DaveB]

It's also worth pointing out that the human eye is actually way more sensitive and adaptive than most cameras. The rods on the retina may not be color sensitive but they can produce a detectable signal from a single photon. Fully dark-adapted you can see by starlight. HDR techniques within the visual spectrum are an attempt to approach the dynamics and perception of the eye viewing something "live" - and that's part of WHY tinting the skybox is so visibly wrong. Even before it rises to the level of conscious perception we are processing all that detail. It's why that favorite ED bugbear "immersion" is such a big deal. That skybox tint just shoves a big fat thumb down on the button in the brain labelled "unreal" because we know no sky looks like that or changes with the local lighting. So if it looks like that it aint a sky, it's something closer painted to look something like a sky.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

I'm twofold :

+ Planets and Stellar Objects? Looking good, especially Planet Surfaces

- Cockpit lighting
-- HUD elements, including Orbit lines (sometimes appear grossly discolored, even Scanner Color Coding for Contacts looks off)
--- Galaxy backdrop? Shouldn't be affected the slightest unless pointing the Ship or looking at the Primary Light source

So the new Color System to me changes quite a bit and quality varies greatly. In some places it looks great while in others it looks like some cheap/poorly configured PostFX Filter bugs out and affects Screen Elements it really shouldn't.

 

[Burke]

That skybox tint just shoves a big fat thumb down on the button in the brain labelled "unreal" because we know no sky looks like that

Worse than that, even tho its only a game, we know those skys arnt that colour cause we flown under those stars for so long. Its like the sky from a different game.

 

[Barking_Mad]

There's some edge cases where it doesn't work so well, but overall it's sweet.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Needs more lens flare

 

[JesusRocks1988]

NMS has cartoon stars. ED had realistic ones. Seems like a hella lot of trouble to go thru star catalogues to get astronomically correct stars just to come along later and make them look like that.

If you want strictly correctly coloured stars, FD should make them all white with a slight (almost unnoticeable) tint towards orange or blue.

 

[znôrt]

Let me guess, you've never actually been away from civilization and have looked into the sky on a clear night?

yes, and i've never seen anything like that. maybe i could probably enjoy travelling more, but that picture is clearly engineered.

It's funny how people are so quick to dismiss the human eye in favor of technology. Sure, the image in question employs HDR, but the Milky Way is realistic, since it's not tinted green.

i'm just pointing out that the 'realism' argument carries no weight. nothing more, but you are free to continue flying that false argument if you so wish, this is still just about personal preference.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Do you think this (below) is pretty? It's vibrant and color-accurate. Many of us opposed to the new system don't hate vibrant colors (which is different than oversaturated, which this new system does suffer from in different areas). We just want realistic vibrant colors. Speaking of, I'm at a nebula right now, a place I actually want to look like "fantasy space", and it's pretty dull and pastel, at least on PS4. Give me realistic (but vibrant) space and fantastical nebula, and I'll join the rest of you singing Amazing Grace.

That's definitely split toned. I do a lot of long exposure night photography, and I tend to like to add in some purple in post processing.

Although, contrary to what someone else said, this would not have been taken with a particularly high sensitivity camera. To get this shot, you're probably looking at a shot with the lens at its widest aperture, sensitivity to ISO 400 or above, and about a 19-25 second exposure. Then maybe another shot exposured for the foreground and then blended in.

Post processing almost certainly involved an increase to exposure, whites, contrast and clarity, with maybe a bit of dehaze added. Then split toned and colour graded to add purple to the highlights and blue to the shadows. Plus some sharpening.

So it's not the best image to show you what the milky way *actually* looks like.

 

[krautbernd]

i'm just pointing out that the 'realism' argument carries no weight. nothing more, but you are free to continue flying that false argument if you so wish, this is still just about personal preference.

We have a galactic background image that tries to emulate reality (-> stellar forge) which is then tinted green, red, or blue. As far as i can tell there's no basis for this in reality. The galactic backgound isn't tinted by foreground or local stars. So yeah, it's less realistic then it was before. Your call.

 

[Burke]

If you want strictly correctly coloured stars, FD should make them all white with a slight (almost unnoticeable) tint towards orange or blue.

Go out on a clear night and stare up, there is a general blueness but you can pick out reds and more blues and even yellowish ones.

i'm just pointing out that the 'realism' argument carries no weight. nothing more, but you are free to continue flying that false argument if you so wish, this is still just about personal preference.

This is not the case. They went and sorted thru star catalogues to get the sky at least partially correct. They put alot of effort into making it look as real as was feasable. I mean... its sold as a 1:1 milky way. Not only are the colours and names correct the positions are aswell. To try and dismiss realism is madness.