A black hole. And a "Black hole."
This bothers me.
This bothers me.
Black Hole vs. "Black Hole"
- Thread starter Chase Quinnell
- Start date
-
- Tags
- graphics
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
Both are just artist's renditions.
Where is the first picture from?
Pug
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
No.....capitalised......E......for......Elite.....in second.....picture......this......bothers....me.
At first glance that Elite one looked a bit NSFW.
At first glance that Elite one looked a bit NSFW.
This is neither of the pic t users you originally posted. Also this is from a ridiculous distance even by ED'S standards. I'm sure it would look quite different from close and also, this picture came out how many years after ED was already a released product?
Imo this is a non issue. There are enough actual problems to be making more for no real reason
Pictures*
I have no bones to pick with the graphics, only the game mechanics. Ie, typical ED complaint.
They've always bothered me, too. This seems to be a point of contention with some but I don't agree with Elite's current black hole appearance. It's weird because things like White Dwarfs & Neutron Stars are great.
They used to have the event horizon (black disc) 'visible', which I prefer, but I can't say is more accurate. Though the argument can't be made that the one right now is more accurate than the old design w/ the black disc, it's just a different depiction. I just don't like it.
Another problem is that it only warps the skybox, not stars in the same system.
Lastly, other than the exclusion zone distance, there is no difference between them. Some intermediate mass ones in or near nebulas should have accretion discs. I don't think Sag A* is currently active galactic nucleus, and wouldn't have a disc.
Look at Space Engine and (yes, really) Interstellar for their depictions of black holes.
They used to have the event horizon (black disc) 'visible', which I prefer, but I can't say is more accurate. Though the argument can't be made that the one right now is more accurate than the old design w/ the black disc, it's just a different depiction. I just don't like it.
Another problem is that it only warps the skybox, not stars in the same system.
Lastly, other than the exclusion zone distance, there is no difference between them. Some intermediate mass ones in or near nebulas should have accretion discs. I don't think Sag A* is currently active galactic nucleus, and wouldn't have a disc.
Look at Space Engine and (yes, really) Interstellar for their depictions of black holes.
Get a bit closer to the event horizon, with something interesting in the background for the lensing to work on, and they're not too dissimilar. The biggest single difference is ED's lack of accretion discs, and not all black holes have those anyway.
I'm generally quite impressed with ED's black holes. I was worried they were going to be closer to Disney 1979 than Paramount/Warner 2014. I just wish the stellar forge modelled the destructive properties as well as the optical, but then I guess you'd have to do time dilation and spaghettification and a lot of other stuff incompatible with multiplayer.
I'm generally quite impressed with ED's black holes. I was worried they were going to be closer to Disney 1979 than Paramount/Warner 2014. I just wish the stellar forge modelled the destructive properties as well as the optical, but then I guess you'd have to do time dilation and spaghettification and a lot of other stuff incompatible with multiplayer.
Or literally any other depiction of black holes. We get that it's allegedly an "Artist rendition" but it doesn't match literally any common scientific or artistic consensus on how a black hole would look. Honestly? I think it's laziness. Just throw a lense warping effect and call it a day!
Technically speaking it does have an accretion disc of sparse hydrogen gas having a mass of about tenth of a Jupiter. How visible it is to the naked eye is anyones guess.
To be fair, unless one has a disc, you can't see it unless it's in front of something, hence the limited evidence and artistic versions we have
Though they could probably go either way with SagA* and still be relatively plausible considering that Sagittarius A* you can visit in the game is around 25 600 + 1286 years "to the future".
I hate to say it but I agree. I understand all of the science blah blah but jeez, this is a game right ? Just a wee bit more effort to make ED's black holes, I don't know, more fun/ interesting/ imposing/ scary/ something ??
Has anyone tried to fly into one ? What happens ?