That being the case, we shouldn't need a game to do that for us as well as our brains doing it, should we?
Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues
- Thread starter Valorin
- Start date
That being the case, we shouldn't need a game to do that for us as well as our brains doing it, should we?
Sterling MH
Banned
Nope, because your monitor won't show the full color gamut. It's why professional print is so very very hard and pantone spot colours so very very expensive.
Plus go look at the pics of the "is this dress blue or golden" to show how unrealistic reality is.
"Realism" is a fake argument. It pretends your personal preferences are objectively true rather than subjectively true. It's no different from using a claim of god's "objective morality" to push your morality onto others. It's just a lie, and using it means you have no argument.
Sterling MH
Banned
Just because some unspecified use of unspecified facts does not necessarily rebut other unspecified claims does not mean that this is the case here. You were either clueless, underinformed or running a D-K problem, but no matter what your claim regarding astronomical images is and was and always will be incorrect.
And proclaiming some irrelevant homily does not mean it applies, the implication fails on the facts as substantiated, and lacking such instantiation, fails.
The current system is LESS unrealistic than the original.
Just like an ancient comment from me on another thread about how the ships look toylike is based on PERCEPTUAL UNREAL EXPECTATIONS. A vacuum won't have the fuzzing clues we see in atmosphere. Noise in space would not happen. Lens flares don't happen in human eyes. But we come to expect them in our entertainment because fitting expextation is what FEELS real. Even if it's entirely unreal.
Your post contained nothing I see as rebuttal, only you digging further into your assertion that your expectations are what reality must conform to.
It remains utterly incorrect.
Last edited:
Hey angry atheist, shouldn't you be burning some Bibles instead of crapping on people using common words in a common-sense way in a simple forum thread?
BTW, the "ignore user" function might just mean you have no argument either, if you keep this nonsense up
Sterling MH
Banned
Incorrect. A white wall with light that is not white will look white to human perception, changing it to an actual white source will then make the human perception see the complementary colour.
This trick is ancient and used in physics classes, at least when you get to university.
Yes. How else do you think you get a colour spectrum of theoretically 16 million colours from just red, green and blue phosphor/doping on a monitor screen if the colour is not the agregate perception of all photons received from that angle? And since that is the case, the red light photons will make every colour from the monitor redder.
You made this claim based on what you want to be true, not what is.
Try it yourself. But remember, the light has to be in the field of view.
Yes, the sky is changed.
Heck, go outside and look right now. Daylight sky is blue because of the star light. Night skies are orange because of the sodium lights.
Again, you're making a claim that FEELS correct, but you have fallen for the perception vs reality.
Go look up some work either on psychology or cognitive science or perceptual neurology. They're not easy to get books, but you have an entire internet to learn from.
Nope. It isn't a difference shade. You can take a spectrometer and look at the photons reflected to see the real colour.
No, it is arguing that the colouring is unrealistic. Light emitting sources, as with monitors, are agregates of other light sources in the field of view, nearby sources of light, perceptual processing, chemical reinforcement and inhibition in both optical sensors and neurolgical wiring, and none of this is pure from one source in anything other than a fake CGI picture.
Nope, that's your bare assertion. The galaxy doesn't change colour, but our perception of it does. Look up the word "Qualia".
And your claim there is clutching at straws by pretending reality and projection of personal desire or actual problem to another so that you can proclaim the argument unsound by reason of the person saying it, rather than the argument presented.
Here's a tip for you. Go look at the very red star Betelgeuse. Now look at your incandescent bulb. Which looks redder? Betelgeuse is hotter, therefore whiter, than the tungsten element of a normal household lightbulb at operating temperature.
The wavelength of h-alpha is set. Our colour perception is not based on the wavelength of the photon given but the aggregate. So we call Sol yellow and Betelgeuse red, despite H-alpha being 100% identical.
In your world, how do you explain that if H-alpha wavelengths don't change, yet both appear in both stars, yet each star is a different colour?
Last edited:
Guest193293
G
Well whatever.
A background and stars being tinted by a star is false and not accurate, it does not exist.
Anyone can like it and how it looks sure but it will remain subjective.
Fact is, it is not accurate.
A background and stars being tinted by a star is false and not accurate, it does not exist.
Anyone can like it and how it looks sure but it will remain subjective.
Fact is, it is not accurate.
To be honest, I think that we’re straying from the core of the issue here. Clearly, the extreme tinting of the skybox and HUD in certain places is a consequence of the limitations of the technique, pure and simple. You simply can’t emulate or even maintain realistic 3D lighting conditions with 2D post-processing effects. At best, it’s a creative tool for manipulating mood and ambience. There are times when the degradation of the HUD (a self emitting source) is so pronounced that the filters simply look like a cheap hack – which is essentially what they are. Now, FD and those who champion the filters clearly think that these sacrifices are worth it – but that doesn’t alter the fact that they are sacrifices, and that post-processing effects will always be a rather blunt instrument. That’s the essence of the debate in my view. They could ameliorate the worse cases by reducing it in certain systems, but as Stigbob says, the easiest way to keep everyone happy is to provide user access to the settings. The ability to disable or reduce the filter is probably already built into the system, so I doubt that it would represent the mammoth development task that some are suggesting.
Last edited:
Sterling MH
Banned
Nope, Your memes posting doesn't change reality, dear.
Oh snap son
Last edited:
Sterling MH
Banned
Actually, I'm trying to get TO the core of the issue here. Some people don't like the lighting and feel it is unrealistic, others don't. Others like the unrealism. THAT is the core of the issue.
What refutes the core is the claim that the current system is "not realistic". THAT is the side issue. And it ain't me who keeps claiming that REAL realism is being destroyed here. Only those who don't like the feel of the current system.
The old system was less realistic than this one. Fact.
Graphical settings to put more or less realism is a standard in this game's option screen. Fact.
Most games allow some colour correction in their graphics settings. Fact.
Ask to put them in this game, then. Sorted.
But if it's the colour shift you think is all that needs changing (therefore a trivial change to put in and make under the users' control), you can do that via the control panel for the display.
So before crying on a forum thread, try finding the right colour balance for your preferences and pass that on to others, especially FD, so that they know what region of change people want, so that if they put such controls in, they don't leave people out of getting their preferecnces in the game.
When it comes right down to it, as far as colour correction is concerned, it's the lack of customisation of HUD for the colour blind, not the aesthetics of those who preferred what they got used to as "real" that needs more urgent work.
Oh, and if fiddling with the RGB curves of your monitor's output is insufficient, then you know it's more than just a colour shift problem, and so any solution that isn't informed by knowing that fact is going to fail to solve the problem.
None of which makes the current scheme unrealistic if you weren't already calling the old one unrealistic too.
Oh, and no, "extreme tinting" is your opinion, not an objective reality. Stop treating your feelings as reality. ESPECIALLY when you already complained about getting off the core.
Last edited:
Sterling MH
Banned
Nope. Go outside on a sunny day and seeing that is 100% contrary to reality.
Meanwhile ducky, finding facts aren't as malleable as they had hoped, tries the passive aggressive ad hom trick to counter. No, even if I were as you describe, either my facts are correct and align with the conclusion or not, but to pretend that my "triggering" by someone claiming fact is just emotional is pure and utter ad hom, purely to kill the argument because it is me doing it, not because the arguments presented are wrong.
So much simpler to just assert what you cannot know but cannot be disproved than to actually manage a coherent logical chain of fact and support a conclusion you wanted to be right in the first place.
If you HAD a case, you would not have to run that gambit.
Last edited:
Going to draw attention to Uliando's excellent Dust Buster. Not only is this a great tool for removing dust streaks, or the yellow motion bars if you don't like those, now it has the option to remove some of these daft colouring effects.
EDIT: actually it does not look like that got into it. Still a great mod tho.
EDIT: actually it does not look like that got into it. Still a great mod tho.
Last edited:
Yeah, let me just create hundreds of profiles for the different tints, brb.
That's not a solution. That just shows that you don't understand the problem.
Because the sky is in the background and the sun is in the foreground. Jeebus frick, do you even comprehend what and why people are complaining about the local tinting the galactic background? The rest of the galaxy isn't in front of the local star. Even if it would somehow work that way, light from the sun doesn't take hundreds of years to reach earth.
In regards to the tint being unrealistic even by game standards, refer to my professional montage™ above.
Last edited:
I'm seriously beginning to doubt that. You've hijacked this thread in a gratuitous display of self-importance while belittling everyone else. You conveniently get to define your feelings as reality, and dismissed the actual reality being discussed in this thread as "feelings". In short, you are nothing more than troll dressed in a college professor's smock, and I'm personally not going to "feed" you any longer.
Last edited:
I think that this is pretty insightful. I play as an explorer in VR and my game is flying around finding interesting beauty spots with some hauling on the side, so my enjoyment is essentially aesthetic. I can understand why visual changes would be less important to some players, but people need to take into account how different people experience the game.
I'd just like to shyly raise my hand and say, "But I play ED on a console..."
You could try disabling the tint temporarily by the method outlined in my bug report i linked to earlier. Would be nice if people could actually tell me if they can reproduce the bug.
Last edited:
Sterling MH
Banned
If that is what you think the solution needs, then it's not the simple fix you claim it to be. Therefore FD might easily be right to ignore your complaints, given what they can do to the game with the same effort.
Still doesn't make the new system less realistic than the prior one. Just makes it one you don't like.