The hydrogen actually isn't counted as part of the atmosphere, just like free hydrogen doesn't feature in the actual Martian atmosphere lists (95% carbon dioxide, 2,6% nitrogen, 1,9% argon, 0,17% oxygen etc.) as it is present in hydrogen envelope surrounding the planet. Do you actually have a source that states that an atmosphere that has a heavy presence of a single gas couldn't produce auroras? E: Also to add, the thickest atmo shown has a more varied composition.the difference between them and Mars is that they only have one gas, and none have hydrogen, which means no auroras.
I presume any planet with an atmosphere that's labelled "Thin" in-game, but yeah, it would be nice to get more info regarding what atmospheric pressure, gravity and temperature ranges landable (and walkable) worlds will have.I, and I know many with me, still would like a definition of exactly what a "tenuous atmosphere" is. Is it 0.1, 0.01 atmospheres, less, more?
You're missing the point. You are using Mars as an example of a planet with a thin atmosphere where auroras can occur.
I'm saying that while we are getting planets with thin atmospheres, the difference between them and Mars is that they only have one gas, and none have hydrogen, which means no auroras.
Seems like another unnecessarily complicated explanation for simply not having auroras because they haven't had the dev time to do auroras and probably don't see them as priority (hard to see planetary cores and magnetic fields featuring very high on that list either).BUT I think you could say that come Odyssey, tenuous atmospheres will be added to updated surface generation tech but planet cores and magnetic fields are not included yet.
Has no multiple light sources been confirmed? I haven't read the OP in its entirety yet, but according to OA, the verdict is still out on that one.No aurora or multiple light sources.
Has no multiple light sources been confirmed? I haven't read the OP in its entirety yet, but according to OA, the verdict is still out on that one.
Hmm... Performance I get, but art? I'll have to remember this one. "I'm sorry dad, but I didn't paint the house like you wanted because I just couldn't bring myself to ruin the art of peeling paint."Q: Will the changes include a multi-source lighting system to reflect the presence of multiple stars in systems that have them?
As we're aiming for similar specs to base game for Odyssey, we won't be including a multi-source lighting system, for performance and art reasons.
Will users on PC who don't upgrade to Odyssey, see the changes at the same time as those who do?
But if the engine is now going to be split based on who upgrades and who doesn't. Where does that leave us?
Seems like another unnecessarily complicated explanation for simply not having auroras because they haven't had the dev time to do auroras and probably don't see them as priority (hard to see planetary cores and magnetic fields featuring very high on that list either).
If no shadow is cast, why would you want it to work? I mean in what way would it be visible that it was working other than shadow?Has no multiple light sources been confirmed? I haven't read the OP in its entirety yet, but according to OA, the verdict is still out on that one.
I could live without multiple light sources if Frontier did some "magic" to at least simulator this to some extent. Multiple lights are easy peasy if they don't cast shadows, so perhaps Frontier could make the closest star the "shadow caster" but make the other stars non-shadow casting light sources (forgive my lack of scientific terms). Here's an example showing a point light source that casts shadows as the primary light (it's a spotlight, so it has a very narrow cone compared to a spherical light source), with two additional non-shadow-casting lights added to the mix. It's not as nice as if all three light sources casted shadows, but it's better than nothing IMO.
So the reason people want it is because they are on a dark side and can see a secondary star? We've come a long way from the days when we complained that the dark side wasn't dark everHmm... Performance I get, but art? I'll have to remember this one. "I'm sorry dad, but I didn't paint the house like you wanted because I just couldn't bring myself to ruin the art of peeling paint."
Well I guess I'll keep my sightseeing to single-star and tight binary star systems. The most immersion breaking aspect of single light sources is when you are on the "night side" of a planet based on a primary star, but there is a secondary star in the sky and it's still pitch black. By the way, does anyone know how Space Engine handles multiple stars and planetshine?
(Now I'm wondering what Elephant Butt Leather looks like when lit by multiple sources... Maybe that's the art she's talking about!)
If you can't see why or what the benefit would be, then I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.If no shadow is cast, why would you want it to work? I mean in what way would it be visible that it was working other than shadow?
This goes to the real question: why do people want it? Beyond accuracy?
So you actually think it's okay to have a planet surface completely black with a freaking SUN in the midday sky? Wow... I don't even like it pitch black when there is a full moon in the sky, let alone a full sun, but at least I can compensate for this somewhat with my mod. AFAIK I won't be able to fix broken suns, however.So the reason people want it is because they are on a dark side and can see a secondary star? We've come a long way from the days when we complained that the dark side wasn't dark ever
A bit disappointing. Hope this is addressed at some point as I thought this would be part of lighting improvements. I don't understand what you mean by "art reasons" but a planet being lit by two or more differently colored stars is very positive for the artistic look of the game.As we're aiming for similar specs to base game for Odyssey, we won't be including a multi-source lighting system, for performance and art reasons.
Kinda makes me wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 older gen console performance fiasco had anything to do with this decision.A bit disappointing. Hope this is addressed at some point as I thought this would be part of lighting improvements. I don't understand what you mean by "art reasons" but a planet being lit by two or more differently colored stars is very positive for the artistic look of the game.
That's an interesting point. In a vacuum I'd disagree, but after the release being pushed back just for consoles, they do seem to be watching that release and not wanting to repeat it themselves. If anything, I would hope that multiple stellar light sources on a body could be a graphics option for PC, if they're worried about performance. Maybe it could also be part of the "Performance vs Graphics" mode toggles on new consoles.Kinda makes me wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 older gen console performance fiasco had anything to do with this decision.
I guess my lack of interest in multiple light sources is down to not noticing or caring about it before. It's never made any difference to me playing the game, lots of other graphical issues annoy me more. I know it's been talked about before but just never bothered me personally.If you can't see why or what the benefit would be, then I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.
So you actually think it's okay to have a planet surface completely black with a freaking SUN in the midday sky? Wow... I don't even like it pitch black when there is a full moon in the sky, let alone a full sun, but at least I can compensate for this somewhat with my mod. AFAIK I won't be able to fix broken suns, however.
But as I said, my personal solution is to just avoid visiting systems with multiple suns spread at great distances throughout the sky. Even if two close binary stars are of the same color, then one light source is fin. It's when you have multiple stars of various colors spread at great distances throughout the sky that the lighting falls apart.