Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[nanite2000]

The galaxy map is not inside the system. The image inside the ship is.

Take a white piece of paper from your front room outside under an orange sodium streetlight.

See the colour is no longer white.

HOW CAN THAT BE!?!??!

Because the lighting in that area is not the same.

Same goes for the galmap and the ship interior.

The paper is not a light source. It is a light reflecting surface, which exhibits different properties.

Hold a green light (which is a light source) up under an orange sodium light - has the green light changed colour?

For comparison purposes, the galaxy is also a light source.

 

[krautbernd]

The galaxy map is not inside the system. The image inside the ship is.

Take a white piece of paper from your front room outside under an orange sodium streetlight.

See the colour is no longer white.

HOW CAN THAT BE!?!??!

Because the lighting in that area is not the same.

Same goes for the galmap and the ship interior.

Way to fail at basic physics. The galactic background is a) emissive b) to far away to reflect light of the local star. This is what people are complaing about. Because it's not a realistic depiction (neither in-universe, nor RL). Let me repeat that for you: a sheet of paper does not emit light. It reflects light. The only way it could emit light by itself would be if it was on fire. But hey, you're the one who thinks he knows how quantum mechanics work (but they don't make any sense, huh?).

Also, i guess you haven't yet had time to check out how the game generates backgrounds.

If that was the original argument, I wouldn't have had to riposte anything.

Which conviniently ignores the fact that the game itself labels the galaxy map (and by extension the old background) 'realistic'. But hey, what do i know. BTW, nobody is requesting the lighting to be removed. All everyones asking for is a toggle. For the disco lighting.

 

[ElectricZ]

The galaxy map is not inside the system. The image inside the ship is.

Take a white piece of paper from your front room outside under an orange sodium streetlight.

See the colour is no longer white.

HOW CAN THAT BE!?!??!

Because the lighting in that area is not the same.

Same goes for the galmap and the ship interior.

Taking your piece of paper out under the orange sodium streetlight, does it stay white for a few seconds, and then fade to orange? Then if you look at your cell phone, and then back at the paper, is it white again for a second before fading back to orange under the streetlight?

 

[da_wae]

Way to fail at basic physics. The galactic background is a) emissive b) to far away to reflect light of the local star. This is why peopel are complaing. Because it's not a realistic depiction (neither in-universe, nor RL). Let me repeat that for you: a sheet of paper does not emit light. It reflects light. The only way it could emit light by itself would be if it was on fire. But hey, you're the one who thinks he knows how quantum mechanics work (but they don't make any sense, huh?).

Also, i guess you haven't yet had time to check out how the game generates backgrounds.

Just because you have emissive objects in the scene, doesn't mean they wouldn't be affected by local lighting - without needing to reflect local light.
The objects you mention are too far away from the scene to affect it much lighting-wise, but even without needing to reflect local light, your PERCEPTION of them would still be affected due to the unbalanced number of photon wavelengths hitting your rods (ie, close proximity to local red star, WAAAAY MORE red-wl photons hit your rods, affecting your perception of the entire surrounding scene without those photons needing to reflect on any object in the scene).

Edit: Nice ninja edit...

Which conviniently ignores the fact that the game itself labels the galaxy map (and by extension the old background) 'realistic'. But hey, what do i know. BTW, nobody is requesting the lighting to be removed. All everyones asking for is a toggle. For the disco lighting.

Just because the game "claims" something, does not make it so.

Edit 2: Keep using "disco lighting" to refer to the new colors which a lot of people like - it certainly helps convince people to support adding a toggle when you ridicule their preferred option.

 

[rhiz]

Its an aesthetic thing certainly, the realism doesn't bother me at all I've always found it an odd demand. I like the new look but that's entirely a subjective thing.

No harm in a toggle.

At last, the voice of sanity.

 

[rhiz]

Wrong. See ducky.



Wrong again. REALITY is not an opinion. It is objective, not subjective like opinions are. So every single one who claimed "REALISM!!!" refutes your assertion. Given oyu are not reading any of this thread but instead finding inside your head what you want to see, there's little point in taking the rest of your post as valid. If you'd tried to show what was going on or instead ignored this fictional thread, your post would have been read.

But you could not, because you want to prop up your case by appealing to a fake majority opinion behind you, so you HAD to misrepresent the thread or you had no complaint to kick me with.

Read my posts. All of it, not the bits you like. Show you CAN engage, and I will reciprocate. But if I have to deal with someone who cherry picks reality, I'll cherry pick them out of it.

With respect mate, you’re not the intended audience for my comments – FD are. As I said: rabbit-hole.

 

[krautbernd]

Just because you have emissive objects in the scene, doesn't mean they wouldn't be affected by local lighting - without needing to reflect local light.
The objects you mention are too far away from the scene to affect it much lighting-wise, but even without needing to reflect local light, your PERCEPTION of them would still be affected due to the unbalanced number of photon wavelengths hitting your rods (ie, close proximity to local red star, WAAAAY MORE red-wl photons hit your rods, affecting your perception of the entire surrounding scene without those photons needing to reflect on any object in the scene).

Do you need me to disprove this to you with LEDs in front of black cardboard? And by a lesson in anatomy and geometry?

Just because the game "claims" something, does not make it so.

It's literally what the game calls 'realistic'. It's what the game defines - in-universe - as a realistic depiction. Tinting the background is not realistic by definition, since they are different. I get that you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[da_wae]

Do you need me to disprove this to you with LEDs in front of black cardboard?


It's literally what the game calls 'realistic'. It's what the game defines - in-universe - as a realistic depiction. Tinting the background is not realistic by definition, since they are different. I get that you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

The sheer amount of photons being emitted by a star would probably literally blind you (given close enough proximity) before you could notice any changes in light, that is true. But a LED in front of a black cardboard box doesn't really prove anything, as the amount of photons being emitted is minuscule compared to a star (ie: not enough photons to saturate your rods).

Edit: "Realistic" is an objective metric. You can claim the game's universe has different laws of physics from our reality, making the previous representation the "realistic" one. But the game claiming "realism" does not make it really realistic.

 

[Old Duck]

At last, the voice of sanity.

I take proposed toggle and raise you a menu. Then I can have a galaxy that looks closer to this:

Mind you that's a rushed job that basically just hue-shifts and desaturates the current color system. Give me a little more time and I'll whip up a better model. Call it "Old Duck's Subjective Unrealistic View Of The Galaxy" if you want (though that may strain the UI), I don't care. Just give me the option to see something closer to my reality.

 

[krautbernd]

The sheer amount of photons being emitted by a star would probably literally blind you (given close enough proximity) before you could notice any changes in light, that is true. But a LED in front of a black cardboard box doesn't really prove anything, as the amount of photons being emitted is minuscule compared to a star.

Since it doesn't 'blind us' in game we can assume that the effect from the photons of the local star is confined to the cones it actually hits, and the light from the background is also limited to the cones it hits. How, exactely are these different light sources going to interact with one another on the way into our hypothetical eyes? The light outside of our ship isn't being diffracted by an atmosphere, it's not reflected on dust and we have established that the light form the foregorund star isn't reflected by the galactic background.

Also, how do account for the tint when you're between the star and the background?

Edit: "Realistic" is an objective metric. You can claim the game's universe has different laws of physics from our reality, making the previous representation the "realistic" one. But the game claiming "realism" does not make it really realistic.

That still means the representation in the game - right now - is not realistic, while it was before. I think we all agree that the game is not a realistic depiction of our shared reality, but parts of it are.

 

[rhiz]

This really does make it seem like the engine isn't rendering the colors out of some kind of physical model of gas reflectivity... It looks like an added filter.

Guys, as I said earlier, as someone who works with this stuff I’d say that this is pretty much settled. They’re post-rasterization pixel shaders. As such, it’s not a bug but a deliberate design decision – one that implies all of the unavoidable compromises that we’re discussing (HUD, skybox etc). The only debate is whether it’s a good or a bad design decision. For some the answer will be yes, for others no, so easiest fix would be to allow users to adjust the settings or disable them altogether. This ability is probably already built into the code as part of the tool set created for the art/development team, so it shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Stigbob]

At last, the voice of sanity.

I've been saying it repeatedly.

 

[krautbernd]

This ability is probably already built into the code as part of the tool set created for the art/development team, so it shouldn't be difficult.

As i've demonstrated - and i have to assume at this point this works for others as well - you can already disable the shaders temporarily. It works, and it doesn't impact the game.

 

[da_wae]

Since it doesn't 'blind us' in game we can assume that the effect from the photons of the local star is confined to the cones it actually hits, and the light from the background is also limited to the cones it hits. How, exactely are these different light sources going to interact with one another on the way into our hypothetical eyes? The light outside of our ship isn't being diffracted by an atmosphere, it's not reflected on dust and we have established that the light form the foregorund star isn't reflected by the galactic background.

Also, how do account for the tint when you're between the star and the background?

That still means the representation in the game - right now - is not realistic, while it was before. I think we all agree that the game is not a realistic depiction of our shared reality, but parts of it are.

What? The fact that it doesn't blind the character means our ship's canopy probably has some kind of filtering.
Edit: "how" that filtering would work is hard to predict, as would the side effects to the overall perception of the scene. We currently do not have working filters that work for being able to "stare outside your window while parked right next to a main-sequence star".


The rest of your diatribe has been addressed in previous replies, not going to repeat myself or what other people have contributed. You keep repeating the same
refuted points. What is this, arguing by attrition?

 

[Sterling MH]

With respect mate, you’re not the intended audience for my comments

With all due respect, your intentions are not my concern, and if you wanted this to FD alone, then posting in a public forum is not the place to do so.

Remember: this forum is not a private line to FDev.

 

[Old Duck]

As i've demonstrated - and i have to assume at this point this works for others as well - you can already disable the shaders temporarily. It works, and it doesn't impact the game.

It would be handy if you linked to said demonstration each time you mention it, because the search tools in this forum are rubbish.

 

[rhiz]

I take proposed toggle and raise you a menu. Then I can have a galaxy that looks closer to this:



Mind you that's a rushed job that basically just hue-shifts and desaturates the current color system. Give me a little more time and I'll whip up a better model. Call it "Old Duck's Subjective Unrealistic View Of The Galaxy" if you want (though that may strain the UI), I don't care. Just give me the option to see something closer to my reality.

Hi Old Duck, I'm not seeing your picture here.

Personally, I’d just like a global % slider to knock it back a few notches, and a toggle to disable it completely if it still doesn't work for me.

They’ve put quite a lot of work into creating the colour schemes for each star type and making the filters dynamic as the players move through the space, so I’m not sure how easy it would be to give us control over the nuances. Having a global variable that increases or decreases the overall magnitude by some percentage shouldn’t be difficult. As I said, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t already present under the hood.

I’m interested to hear your thinking though.

 

[Sterling MH]

so easiest fix would be to allow users to adjust the settings or disable them altogether. This ability is probably already built into the code as part of the tool set created for the art/development team, so it shouldn't be difficult.

We and you have no idea whether it's easy. It presumes your guess is correct. May be. May not. I suspect it is a postprocessing, cf Nvidia's FSAA. It's *straightforward* to do. Doesn't necessarily mean simple.

After all, colouring the hud is simple, but they've not done it under user control. I have no idea why. Maybe the same reason here. May be something entirely different.

But how should it be changed? What bits will change it in ways that "work". If it's a colour gamma, that's normal for many games. If it's saturation, again, like colour. Maybe it's contrast. But if we need to have 12 sliders to set the features of this postprocessing, we'll have 12 slider with only the cognoscenti knowing what they're doing. And even then only maybe.

And that is where I think the "not simple" lies. If they fiddled with 12 curves to get the current colouration scheme, then handing that to the users is just asking for trouble, making that not simple.

But if the system is not "solvable" with the colour correction everyone has for their monitor, then it's not as simple as you profess it to be.

But if the "solution" for those who don't like it is to have the entire postprocessing turned off (and you would need to see what that looks like to make the call), THAT may be simple. What may not be simple is that it could re-beige every planet or make the shadows look like the Grue is invading your cockpit.

 

[rhiz]

I've been saying it repeatedly.

I know Stigbob - just a clumsy figure of speech.

 

[galahad2069]

Just because you have emissive objects in the scene, doesn't mean they wouldn't be affected by local lighting - without needing to reflect local light.
The objects you mention are too far away from the scene to affect it much lighting-wise, but even without needing to reflect local light, your PERCEPTION of them would still be affected due to the unbalanced number of photon wavelengths hitting your rods (ie, close proximity to local red star, WAAAAY MORE red-wl photons hit your rods, affecting your perception of the entire surrounding scene without those photons needing to reflect on any object in the scene).

That "local lighting" is pretty much nonexistent in the vacuum of space if you are not looking directly at the local star. Why would our brain "recalibrate its white balance" producing fake colours for the distant emissive sources if you are looking away from the local star?

Also, why is it necessary to simulate optical illusions like that in a game?
If some of the cockpit textures were something like a Hermann grid (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/HermannGrid.gif), should they paint dark blobs at the intersections or just leave it to the human brain to do its job?