Backdrop of stars looks flat?

DogTailRed2 · Jan 19, 2015

Is there any way to improve the backdrop of stars present in SC?
I know it's just a flat image but it looks so `flat` that it breaks the immersion somewhat.
It's a pity there can't be a little more depth to it.

Helvellyn · Jan 19, 2015

What do you mean? They're all so far away from you that they may as well be flat.

Getcarter4dynamo · Jan 19, 2015

It could certainly do with some attention.

Tenshi · Jan 19, 2015

DogTailRed2 said:
Is there any way to improve the backdrop of stars present in SC?
I know it's just a flat image but it looks so `flat` that it breaks the immersion somewhat.
It's a pity there can't be a little more depth to it.

It is not a flat image anymore, they replaced the old skybox way back in beta to use the actual milkyway backdrop. So it now changes with your location, I am about 300LY away from Achenar and I can see the end of the disc and the Witches Head nebula on its own now without the Horses Head Nebula behind it.

Also it may look flat because you are not perceiving depth perception on it as objects all look to be the same distance from you. This is how it would look in space if you was there, without a planet or trees in the foreground the back ground would look flat anyway.

Katkon · Jan 19, 2015

Helvellyn said:
What do you mean? They're all so far away from you that they may as well be flat.

I'm with this guy. I cannot conceive of how FD could possibly improve on this aspect of the game. Look up at the night sky - it too looks "flat". Sure, some stars are brighter than others - but that's also what I see in ED. What am I missing, OP?

DogTailRed2 · Jan 19, 2015

Maybe better resolution, I'm not sure. But to me it always looks wrong somehow?

Rhaedas · Jan 19, 2015

It's a related "problem" as complaints about things not looking to scale. Without a frame of reference, things don't look right to us. With the stars, it's the distance added onto that. If you could move at super-super cruise, enough speed to make parallax happen quickly, then (if the game engine actually did the calculations and redrawing) you would see different stars move differently based on their distance, and you'd get your depth. Move around in the galaxy map, you'll see that.

Sentenza · Jan 19, 2015

Stars are so far away that your eyes cannot detect any variation in distance, so any stellar backdrop "looks flat" by definition.

Helvellyn · Jan 19, 2015

Parallex is tiny though, move 1 AU (mean Earth - Sun distance, 499 Ls) and something 3.26 ly away (1 parsec) will move 1 second of arc compared to an infinitely far (hence fixed) background. That's 1 /3600 th of a degree. You'd really need to be shifting to notice it.

A few of the background objects don't look quite right though, what I think is the Andromeda Galaxy looks a little odd (there was a thread on it yesterday).

MrVibrating · Jan 19, 2015

I have the same issue - it's hard to describe as i'm not a graphics guy, but i think it needs better use of shaders or something - just looks too much like a matte painting, or bitmap. The real night sky has a sense of depth that a black curtain with holes in it doesn't.

Seperate gamma sliders in the options menu for empty sky, stars, nebula, planets and stars might be one route - allowing us to tune it to personal preferences. I think it's needs some clever shader FX though.. Whatever they are.

Oheck · Jan 19, 2015

If you are not close enough to the objects to trigger the various cues that create depth perception, it might as well be a 2d image. You have to realize we are dealing with enormous distances here. Just come out of super cruise near a planet, and fly around. You can't perceive any movement in that planet, whether you are getting closer or farther away from it. We aren't used to scales that vast and empty of input. That's why they had to create the streaks you see when you move, or the only movement you would be able to sense is your rotation, given there are no nearby objects to give your brain the information to suggest you are indeed moving.

scanline · Jan 19, 2015

Remember when we look at stars at night we're looking through our atmosphere. Even in the most brilliant of dark nights that has to have an impact on what we're seeing. Don't ask me what it's like to actually look at the stars without an atmosphere because I don't know. I've seen images, but those are just images.

My guess, when you're in space, your ability to discern depth and distance between the starts with your very poor human eye would be difficult.

CaptainSodom · Jan 19, 2015

I don't see it as flat, and looks gorgeous on a 86" projection screen..

What I would like to see, though, is HDR lighting. It would fit perfectly with the bright stars and black space.

pev69 · Jan 20, 2015

MrVibrating said:
I have the same issue - it's hard to describe as i'm not a graphics guy, but i think it needs better use of shaders or something - just looks too much like a matte painting, or bitmap. The real night sky has a sense of depth that a black curtain with holes in it doesn't.

Seperate gamma sliders in the options menu for empty sky, stars, nebula, planets and stars might be one route - allowing us to tune it to personal preferences. I think it's needs some clever shader FX though.. Whatever they are.

Argh, No! This is a representation of the real galaxy, not some farout-scifi-special-effects-psychedelic visual! As has already been mentioned here, the real "sky" as seen from space is very static and flat, because of the distances and lack of atmospheric interference.

EDIT: It may be that the relative brightness of some objects is slightly different from reality because of modeling inaccuracies, but still this does not change the basic "flatness" of the real thing.

MrVibrating · Jan 20, 2015

pev69 said:
Argh, No! This is a representation of the real galaxy, not some farout-scifi-special-effects-psychedelic visual! As has already been mentioned here, the real "sky" as seen from space is very static and flat, because of the distances and lack of atmospheric interference.

EDIT: It may be that the relative brightness of some objects is slightly different from reality because of modeling inaccuracies, but still this does not change the basic "flatness" of the real thing.

I don't mean anything artificial-looking - rather, something that looks more naturalistic. Granted Scanline's point about atmospheric distortion, but that's still not quite my criticism - the space between the stars should have an ethereal quality, whereas in ED if i increase the gamma that far i see pixelation, making it look even more bitmapy...

I think CaptainSodom's right - it needs HDR lighting. A touch of bloom from the stars, that kind of thing..

Slickvic · Jan 20, 2015

DogTailRed2 said:
Is there any way to improve the backdrop of stars present in SC?
I know it's just a flat image but it looks so `flat` that it breaks the immersion somewhat.
It's a pity there can't be a little more depth to it.

But it's not a flat image. Just buy an Oculus and move your head around.

Shads · Jan 20, 2015

So when you look up to the night sky you can tell how close/far each star is then?

pev69 · Jan 20, 2015

MrVibrating said:
I don't mean anything artificial-looking - rather, something that looks more naturalistic. Granted Scanline's point about atmospheric distortion, but that's still not quite my criticism - the space between the stars should have an ethereal quality, whereas in ED if i increase the gamma that far i see pixelation, making it look even more bitmapy...

I think CaptainSodom's right - it needs HDR lighting. A touch of bloom from the stars, that kind of thing..

Well personally I don't want any extra effects because they would not be consistent with reality. Although ED is scifi, I still think a big plus point in it is that the galaxy it presents at least tries to be and look as real as possible.

Asp Explorer · Jan 20, 2015

You may want to try editing C:\Users\%username%\appdata\Local\Frontier_Developments\Products\FORC-FDEV-D-XXXX\GraphicsConfiguration.xml

<GalaxyBackground>

<High>
<LocalisationName>$QUALITY_HIGH;</LocalisationName>
<TextureSize>4096</TextureSize>
</High>

and see if that improves things for you.

stevesideas · Jan 20, 2015

MrVibrating said:
I don't mean anything artificial-looking - rather, something that looks more naturalistic. Granted Scanline's point about atmospheric distortion, but that's still not quite my criticism - the space between the stars should have an ethereal quality, whereas in ED if i increase the gamma that far i see pixelation, making it look even more bitmapy...

I think CaptainSodom's right - it needs HDR lighting. A touch of bloom from the stars, that kind of thing..

I'm a 3d artist and I can honestly say that HDR lighting wouldn't do a thing to the sky background. They are points of light. Having HDR lighting create a diffuse or reflection channel for the background wouldn't change a thing. Bloom. I don't agree with that either. When I look at the night sky I don't see bloom. Maybe some small flares if I'm wearing glasses or a bit of twinkling due to the atmosphere. There are good examples of how stars should look in other threads about the same thing. Just check out the films Gravity or Promethius.

Howver, in my opinion the scale of all the stars seem to be off. They all need to be reduced in scale to give a much more distant look. I feel they are all just too close at the moment. That's how I feel when using the DK2 anyway.