That's way above my pay gradei like a black sky too but if you want to be realistic you need to replace that shader, not simply drop it
What do nebula really look like?
Why then raising the question beforehand if you already know how space and nebulars look like? Luring astronomy interested folks to "beat them down"? Well done.
You only go blind by staring INTO the sun (like Donald Trump). Look in the opposite direction of the sun, and those photons will zip right past you into the void of space, not a one hitting your eye unless it bounces of something like the moon first.
Now if you are changing the topic to how the sun looks dim from our cockpits in ED, then I totally agree, and I wish there was mod to fix that.
I'm out of here.
I've received many good answers from people who understand astronomy and can speak authoritatively. I can read those answers and think, "Yeah, that makes a lot of sense." Thanks to their answers, NOW I know. But when other people come in and claim to have opposing answers, which sadly are based on bad science, that doesn't do anyone any good, including yourself.
Why so salty?
You only thank to those people who gave you answers that were expected from you or who shared your assumptions.
It's a nitpick, but that isn't 100% true. There's the zodiacal light, there's the Gegenschein, there's high altitude airglow. None of those effects would be present without the sun. However, you need to already be under extremely dark skies to perceive any of those with the naked eye. Of those effects, airglow is the only one you remove by going into space -- the others are caused by sunlight scattering off dust and gas in the ecliptic plane -- and it usually is at best barely naked eye visible at all. Technically there's a tiny bit of atmospheric sky brightness attributable to scattered starlight, too, although that's only about 1/10 as bright as the airglow.
The E: D skybox tinting is still ridiculous, though. I've tried to defend it in the past as suggesting the perceptual shift caused by the eye compensating for a bright colored object in the visual field, but even that argument totally fails for the case where the star is behind your ship.
The things you mentioned here are, generally, correct. The other obstacles are still counting.
Sort of. The main thrust for space-based telescopes in recent decades has been to study wavelengths (infrared, submillimeter, UV and shorter) that are blocked by the atmosphere. With optical telescopes, the advantage of space is somewhat nullified by the fact that you can build far, far larger instruments on the ground. The development of adaptive optics techniques has partially nullified the limitation of atmospheric blurring, too. For instance, JWST will put a 6.5 meter mirror in space, at a cost of many billion dollars. The ELT, estimated to into operation in 2025 for a "mere" couple billion, will have a 39 meter mirror, or almost 40 times the light collecting power. With that many more photons to work with, it's possible to power through a lot of the disadvantages of looking through the atmosphere.
Last edited:
![[PS4 Pro - PC] earthtone99](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/194/194606.jpg?1590051410){kind=avatar}
The one thing I note, and is a constant question asked to astronauts, is that when we see space footage from the IS or SpaceX etc, when on the sun side you cannot see any stars whatsoever, just black.
As soon as the camera moves into the night side you can then see some stars.
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RiGeqsGjhoY
About half way into the video, you can see dust formations probably the Milky Way. But not once do I see any nebulas... The other question is, what kind of simulation are the cameras representing, are they saturated and contrasted in false colour?
As soon as the camera moves into the night side you can then see some stars.
About half way into the video, you can see dust formations probably the Milky Way. But not once do I see any nebulas... The other question is, what kind of simulation are the cameras representing, are they saturated and contrasted in false colour?
Last edited:
I think the issue is more with the source representation, not the camera model - mainly that things painted on the skybox are far too bright, and foreground objects, especially stars, are far too dim. But if you want to think about it from the camera perspective, you're seeing an extreme high dynamic range filter - one that lets you simultaneously perceive features on the surface of a star and colors of a nearby nebula, when those two things span something like 30 magnitudes (a factor of 1012) in surface brightness. If such a filter actually existed, it's no wonder that things would turn out looking a bit strange when viewed that way.
