Obviously we have no real close up picture of a Black Hole. Would all we really see is gravitational lensing? Or gravitational lensing around a literal black hole? I do feel however that Black Holes in this game are rather docile.
Are the Black Hole's accurate looking?
- Thread starter CMDR QuantumElement
- Start date
They aren't near deadly enough. They should also have accretion discs around them if there is any matter nearby. Yes, I believe we would see gravitational lensing as the gravity is bent pretty sharply in the area. Scientists see lensing from dark matter what they say is dark matter, so why not black holes? I can't wait for us to actually see a black hole in the optical frequencies. X-ray is nice, but just doesn't get it for me. Oh! In those x-ray images you see great torrents of energy and/or particles coming out of the hole. Why? I thought black holes swallowed everything! =p I believe that we don't know near enough about them to make any assumptions.
Indeed. So far, they're just big docile spheres with distorted lensing. They need to be deadly. Instead of heat, you'll get outright hull damage. System will fail as you're getting pulled in, unless you manage to escape. After all, you are capable of going Faster than Light.
There's plenty of gravitational lensing going on but it's focused on your pilot's head instead of the black hole itself... or something. Basically, the distortion moves along with your pilot's head when it should remain stationary. There are no accretion discs to speak of, and the black hole I saw was only a few light-seconds from a blue giant and the star wasn't affected by the black hole's gravity (no material being siphoned) nor the lensing. The entire skybox would be distorted all to hell but the blue giant was unaffected and as round and normal looking as ever. And yes, they're way too docile. You can actually reach the body exclusion zone (the closest you can get to an object before the game auto-stops your movement towards the object) without suffering any ill effects, apart from a slight temperature increase. I'm speaking from experience.
It also doesn't make any sense how neutron stars are infinitely more dangerous than a black hole. Those suckers will cause your temperature to skyrocket. Black holes, though? You could keep one as a pet.
It also doesn't make any sense how neutron stars are infinitely more dangerous than a black hole. Those suckers will cause your temperature to skyrocket. Black holes, though? You could keep one as a pet.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the biggest problem with black holes currently. I submitted it as a bug report and it was sent up the chain, along with a possible solution. A few others have made similar posts with similar solutions. FD knows about it in any case and it is being referred to as a "graphical bug". It makes the black holes look quite silly, so hopefully they fix it before too many people go exploring and the BH funhouse headcam effect doesn't become a point of mockery.
The problems with Black Holes not being dangerous are essentially the same problems with any star or celestial object not being dangerous: our SC mechanism prevents any serious damage from occurring by halting our progress at a safe distance. Perhaps once planetary landing comes into play we'll get an override option with the ability to die by black hole surfing as well.
Last night I parked up for the night in the core, in a star system with the designation GRS before it's numbers. GRS = Gamma Ray Source, with the gamma rays in question coming from the activity of the active black hole(s) interacting with their accretion disks. It should be an extremely hazardous place to visit, but as nothing was happening I thought I'd spend the night there! 
Wouldn't they look similar to this?
Yes. The only difference is the lensing would get wonky if you turn at all.
I wonder if they would add in time dilation, the photon sphere, or spaghettification... I've been waiting for an interactive death-by-black-hole simulator, ha!