Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

I'm seriously beginning to doubt that.

Why? I suspect because you don't want to be wrong and cannot find a way to at least make me pay for not letting you be right.

And, no, not hijacked. Knowing more about astrophotography, astronomy, physics and perceptual processing in humans does not mean a hijack, just that I have more to say from a basis of knowledge of currently supported ACTUAL reality.

But, again, if you HAD an argument for your conclusion, you'd be able to manage that and would not have to try to make my argument wrong by reason of me making the statement, as opposed to the much harder work of proving me wrong by reality's facts.
 
Last edited:
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.
Excuse me, but what? That's your proposed solution, not mine.

Still doesn't make the new system less realistic than the prior one. Just makes it one you don't like.
The galaxy map is a realistic display (in-game) by FDevs own admission. Calling the tinted display "unrealistic" is appropriate, since it's not realistic. Whether or not you like it doesn't factor into this. It's objectively unrealistic, since it's different from how it is portrayed in the galaxy map.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me, but what? That's your proposed solution, not mine.


The galaxy map is a realistic display (in-game) by FDevs own admission. Calling the tinted display "unrealistic" is appropriate, since it's not realistic. Whether or not you like it doesn't factor into this. It's objectively unrealistic, since it's different from how it is portrayed in the galaxy map.

You continue to miss the point Sterling_MH and I are trying to make.

None of the representations ED makes of the Galaxy were ever "realistic" in any way. They were always visual approximations of what we think the Galaxy MIGHT look like, but no one really knows how it would actually look like in person because our biological eyes are not physically there. Pretty much all the scientific pictures taken from space are originally monochromatic to capture the most amount of information, and then manually transformed into color by an artist aided by science.

You can very much argue that you preferred the old non-realistic lighting because it was closer to what you expected reality could look like, but there's no possible factual claim you can make that the prior system is more or less realistic than the new one.
 
Last edited:
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.

I think you have that backwards.

The "blue/gold dress" thing ably demonstrates that we DON'T need exaggerated colour-corrections applied to an image in order to falsely create an apparent ambiguity.
 
No worries, When you been hanging around on the 'net since it was called ARPANET you get used to a lot of folks claiming credentials and they get taken with a huge pinch of salt. Which also means that if one claims any oneself, one has to be prepared to demonstrate that they aint fantasy at the drop of an electron.

I can relate. Sorry, didn't mean to put you on the defensive.
 
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.

Because the wall is not a light source. It is only reflecting light, and is therefore subject to interference.

This trick is ancient and used in physics classes, at least when you get to university.

I assume this means you've been to University, or are still there? If so, check in with your nearest physics/astrophysics professor about this.

Try this experiment - turn on a red bulb in your room. Does the colour output of your monitor change as a result of the red light? Is it now also tinted red because of the red light bulb?
Yes.

Really? Are you sure?

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.

Through interference of light waves. But if you look closely enough at the pixels, you will see that they stay individual Red, Green, and Blue.

Most importantly, the LED's themselves do not change colour in the presence of other colours.

You made this claim based on what you want to be true, not what is.

The good thing is that this is really easy to test. Can you post some picture of your monitor changing colour in the presence of external coloured light sources?

Try it yourself. But remember, the light has to be in the field of view.

I play this game under coloured lights nearly all the time. They do not affect the colour output of my monitor, nor the stars outside.

It gets dark here in about 9 hours from now, so I'll be sure to post some pictures to prove it.

Yes, the sky is changed.

Again,speak to your local Astrophysicist. Or go to an observatory, where they'll typically use red lights so as not to affect the brightness of the stars. The red lights do no affect the perceived colour of the galaxy.

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.

But the star colours remain unchanged under all circumstances.

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.

Alternatively, as I mentioned earlier, employ some empirical experimentation and try it for yourself. You've misunderstood the differing behaviour of lightsources vs light reflecting surfaces.

Nope. It isn't a difference shade. You can take a spectrometer and look at the photons reflected to see the real colour.

Your brain perceives a different shade because of the change in contrast, but yes - the actual colour remains unchanged. Also, remember, these are not light sources - they are light reflecting surfaces, which are subject to interference.

The case we are arguing here is that the galaxy background is changing colour, despite being a light-emitting source.
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.

Again, light sources do not change colour in the presence of other light sources.

A sufficiently powerful light source may overpower another one, but your local M-Type dwarf star does not have sufficient luminance to tint the entire galaxy.

I think you are really clutching at straws here. The galaxy does not change colour, neither objectively nor subjectively, when you are near a red light source.


That’s an objective fact.
Nope, that's your bare assertion. The galaxy doesn't change colour, but our perception of it does. Look up the word "Qualia".

Qualia: the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.

Subjectivity doesn't change physics.

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.

But, crucially (and this is the point of this whole thread), Betelgeuse's colour is not altered by the presence of my incandescent bulb. Neither subjectively, nor objectively.

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?

Physics. Individual light sources do not change colour. Light reflected from those sources will change colour due to interference, but if you look directly at the light source itself, it's original colour remains unchanged.

If the light source is too far to be perceived individually, it will blend with other distant light sources due to interference by the time it reaches your eyes. But if the individual light source is close enough to be perceived individually, it will not change colour in the presence of a local light source.

Put a red light bulb and green light bulb net to each other. The light reflected from those sources will change colour due to interference. The light sources, however, remain unchanged.

But don't take my word for it - it can be proven empirically. Prove your theory to us with pictures, and I will do the same for comparison purposes as soon as it gets dark here.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me, but what? That's your proposed solution, not mine.
Sorry, that wasnt what you were answering. Never claimed you proposed that solution. Read what is in front of your eyes, not behind them. I said that you claim that it's a simple fix. By demanding that you must do thousands of colour shifts you show the fix is NOT simple. Or your solution is wrong (for example, have you tried to see if you don't need thousands of profiles? No. So how do you know one won't fix the problem?)

The galaxy map is a realistic display

OK, but the only one saying this is you. Nobody else said a word about the galaxy map. Even you prior to this only claimed the SKY BACKROUND was "unrealistic". That's not the galaxy map.

Calling the tinted display "unrealistic" is appropriate,

NOPE. It's irrelevant. The skybox is not the galaxy map. So you're running a conflation. Either that distplay is the galaxy map, not the skybox, or it's not the galaxy map, in which case claims about the galaxy map is irrelevant.

It's objectively unrealistic, since it's different from how it is portrayed in the galaxy map.

WRONG. It is not unrealistic because the galaxy map potrays it in god mode, thousands of light years from anything, including all those nebulae and stars that you claim are tinted by other stars and nebuale.

Take a green card into a darkroom and turn on the red light. The card is not green. Despite a picture of that green card realistically showing it being green.

The galaxy map is not a view from inside the galaxy.
 
I think you have that backwards.

The "blue/gold dress" thing ably demonstrates that we DON'T need exaggerated colour-corrections applied to an image in order to falsely create an apparent ambiguity.

Uh, that was my point. The claim that the current system IS an exaggerated colour correction applied to an image is an assertion not in evidence in reality. It is based on people saying "THAT DRESS REALLY IS GOLD!!!" then asserting that the one showing it blue has "exaggerated colour correction" applied.
 
You continue to miss the point Sterling_MH and I are trying to make.
Funny, because i have to tell you the same thing. The galaxy map is what FDev considers realistic for in-game purposes. The background image you see in-game is based on the galaxy map (i.e. stellar forge, centered on your current position). You can see that by how it renders certain parts of teh galaxy in a faulty way when you're near the core (see https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/308512-Stellar-Forge-anomoly]here). These are unrealistic as well, but based on how stellar forge generates star formations. People aren't generally complaining about this since it's how the game works.

The current color filters are unrealistic even in game terms, since they modify the realistic galaxy map view. The new 'lighting' is not only unrealistic when compared to how pyhsics works, but also an unrealistic portrayal 'in-game'. It's literally the devs telling you that the galaxy map is realistic. The tint isn't. That's wearing sunglasses at night. I don't usually do that.

Whether or not you like to acknowledge this isn't really any of my concern, but your argument is doubly flawed in that calling this an unrealistic display is true not only in comparison to real life, but also in game, in addition to the old display being based on what's acknowldge to be 'realistic' in-universe.
 
Last edited:
Funny, because i have to tell you the same thing. The galaxy map is what FDev considers realistic for in-game purposes. The background image you see in-game is based on the galaxy map (i.e. stellar forge, centered on your current position). You can see that by how it renders certain parts of teh galaxy in a faulty way when you're near the core (see https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/308512-Stellar-Forge-anomoly]here). These are unrealistic as well, but based on how stellar forge generates star formations. People aren't generally complaining about this since it's how the game works.

The current color filters are unrealistic even in game terms, since they modify the realistic galaxy map view. The new 'lighting' is not only unrealistic when compared to how pyhsics works, but also an unrealistic portrayal 'in-game'. It's literally the devs telling you that the galaxy map is realistic. The tint isn't. That's wearing sunglasses at night. I don't usually do that.

Whether or not you like to acknowledge this isn't really any of my concern, but your argument is doubly flawed in that calling this an unrealistic display is true not only in comparison to real life, but also in game, in addition to the old display being based on what's acknowldge to be 'realistic' in-universe.

There's no such thing as "unrealistic by game terms". Things either are realistic or not. There's no such thing as "relative realism" LMAO.

Edit: I think the word you're looking for is "inconsistent".
 
Last edited:
Physics. Individual light sources do not change colour. Light reflected from those sources will change colour due to interference, but if you look directly at the light source itself, it's original colour remains unchanged.

Mr Dunning and Kruger, I assume?

Physics. When that photon hits a receptor in your eyeball, the frequency of that photon no longer exists. There is nothing in the response of the photoreceptor, whether biological or artifical substrate, that retains the frequency of the photon. All it has is a positive signal (a negative ion or electron) that is undifferentiated by any other positive signal no matter its frequency before it was absorbed. It is now just a charge, same as any other.

That you errantly proclaim the photon doesn't change colour is really why you 100% fail to get any of this and the DK effect means your incorrect assumptions about what you know far too little abot, is why you cannot see your error.

Your colour in your brian is nothing to do with the photons. Close your eyes, poke them. See the pretty colours? Not a single photon of colour caused them. Smack your head against a wall. See the sparkles? No signal from the eyeball caused them, no photon neither. Ask a synesthete what frequency they smell purple as.

The colour of the star doesn't change. But then there's no change if it's a single star system with no other lights, including emission nebulae and cold nebulae obstructing light.

But the photons you get when there's more than one light source DOES change.

And the only way you can percieve anything other than red, blue or green in this game you claim is unrealistically coloured is if red, blue, and green, can change based on how much of each there is, despite none of those pixels changing colour in themselves.

You've come unarmed into a knowledge fight but DK means you think you have a battleship.

You have nothing.
 
You've got nothing other than your own incredulity at what you yourself think you know.

What I'm incredulous about is your denial that there are exaggerated colour corrections being applied to the game.

By all means, argue that you prefer it that way, but to argue that it isn't happening is ridiculous and insulting to anybody who makes the effort to discuss the issue.
 
You've come unarmed into a knowledge fight but DK means you think you have a battleship.

You have nothing.

Like I said - it’s easy enough to prove, regardless of how much knowledge you think I may or may not have.

I’ll share my proof in about 9 hours.

When will we see your proof?
 
What I'm incredulous about is your denial that there are exaggerated colour corrections being applied to the game.

By all means, argue that you prefer it that way, but to argue that it isn't happening is ridiculous and insulting to anybody who makes the effort to discuss the issue.

What I'm incredulous about is the general implication that this game ever had "Realistic Lighting" [haha]
 
Sorry, that wasnt what you were answering. Never claimed you proposed that solution. Read what is in front of your eyes, not behind them. I said that you claim that it's a simple fix. By demanding that you must do thousands of colour shifts you show the fix is NOT simple. Or your solution is wrong (for example, have you tried to see if you don't need thousands of profiles? No. So how do you know one won't fix the problem?)
Because the game tints the background according to the local star. A color profile that 'fixes' the issue for a neutron star won't work on a red dwarf, because the filter is different. The only universal way to fix this would be tot totally desaturate the image. This is like looking for a way counteract a red overlay, a blue overlay and a yellow overlay with one color profile.

The 'simple' solution i would propose is to not apply the filter to the background image. I don't need any color profiles for that. I simply define PP to not modify the galactic background.



OK, but the only one saying this is you. Nobody else said a word about the galaxy map. Even you prior to this only claimed the SKY BACKROUND was "unrealistic". That's not the galaxy map.
I have just shown you what the game (i.e. FDev) considers realistic for in-game purposes. Prior to this the background was based on an unmodified view of what stellar forge has generated. That's realistic. Tinting that isn't. As far as i can tell that's a legitimate argument that you can't simply dismiss by claming that the old view 'wasn't realistic either'. It was, in-game, by definition.




NOPE. It's irrelevant. The skybox is not the galaxy map. So you're running a conflation. Either that distplay is the galaxy map, not the skybox, or it's not the galaxy map, in which case claims about the galaxy map is irrelevant.
I hate to disappoint you, but it is - it's how the game generates the background. Compare screenshots from before the patch. The galaxy map and in-game view are identical from the positon you're at. You're using semantics to defend your point to avoid having to surrender the argument.



WRONG. It is not unrealistic because the galaxy map potrays it in god mode, thousands of light years from anything, including all those nebulae and stars that you claim are tinted by other stars and nebuale.
I'd appreaciate if you'd actually refer to what's portrayed in-game. Enter the galaxy map. Zoom in on your position. Look around - that's the background you're seeing from inside your cockpit. Again, this is how the game dynamically generates the background for your current system.

Take a green card into a darkroom and turn on the red light. The card is not green. Despite a picture of that green card realistically showing it being green.
The card isn't an emissive light - the galactic background is. Those are all light sources you're looking at. They don't absorb or reflect the light of the local star. Take a red and a green lightsource into a dark room stand between both light sources. One is green, one is red.
 
Nope, that's your bare assertion. The galaxy doesn't change colour, but our perception of it does.

Your preception won't do anything if the light of the nearby star cannot get into your eyes. Like, when the star is behind you. And when it's in front of you and you're close enough to the star, it will be so bright that probably you won't see anything of the much dimmer galaxy. On the other hand, if you are far enough, the nearby star is only one of the countless stars of the galaxy, so it won't affect your perception of the colour of the background stars any more than how, for instance, Rigel affects the apparent colour of Beta Eridani.

And ofc there is some middle case when the nearby star is in your FOV but not so overwhelmingly bright to make the Milky Way invisible, then maybe it's your brain's turn to play with its optical illusions. But there's absolutely no need to simulate that. Just put the goddamn star there in front of the skybox and let the player's brain decide what fake colour it wants to see. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom