Galactic Accuracy Now and in Future

[jusking3888]

G'day CMDRs.

I've been reading and watching various things about space and stuff out there recently and stumbled across a video by the Seeker channel on YouTube. Titled "How Close Are We to Photographing a Black Hole?" It discusses the techniques used to develop pictures of different objects around the galaxy. Specifically, it makes mention of the fact that currently, all pictures of black holes are just artist impressions and are the best we can currently do using maths and general knowledge of the physics involved.

The groups studying them are using radio-telescope arrays to receive the signals and are working on interpreting the information and building proper images of these terrifying objects.

My question is: what is the likelihood of FD altering the design of the black holes in game once more accurate images are made public? It would make sense that they would want the game to be as accurate as possible in that regard, and doesn't seem like something that would be overly difficult to implement. But I'm not a developer so...

Here's the video anyway:

https://youtu.be/8GDx7uM9Vdw

Cheers!

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Hopefully high, they re-did neutron stars and white dwarves last year to make them 1000% better (I have no maths to support that number ). I really really hope a similar upgrade for black holes and other objects are due sometime in 2018 along with the exploration improvements.

 

[jusking3888]

Absolutely. Considering one of E's drawcards is the general accuracy with which it recreates our small corner of the universe, I would hope FD step up to the plate for this one.

 

[DaveB]

Given that they've put in freshly discovered exoplanets and stuff like that, if we do get imagery of a black hole they'll probably incorporate it. However, it's worth bearing in mind that there are things the Stellar Forge engine "knows about" that aren't rendered in the game. Stellar Forge already generates comets, for example, but there are no in-game visuals associated with them. That bogus "Slow Down" in SC when you appear to be far away from any mass would be stuff like this, that "exists" but doesn't "appear".

 

[WR3ND]

I'm hoping they add CO–0.40–0.22* to the galaxy and the dust cloud around it. Being the second largest black hole in the Milky Way that we know of it, it'd be nice to go visit it off toward the core along with Sgr A* and the Great Annihilator. Would make for a nice little expedition.

 

[WR3ND]

Anyway, I imagine Frontier plan on updating the black hole graphics in the game maybe at some point anyway with accretion disks and the like.

Presumably though, you can mostly predict the image of a black hole with math and physics, though there are likely some additional situational differences based on surrounding objects and the like.

 

[jusking3888]

Anyway, I imagine Frontier plan on updating the black hole graphics in the game maybe at some point anyway with accretion disks and the like.

Presumably though, you can mostly predict the image of a black hole with math and physics, though there are likely some additional situational differences based on surrounding objects and the like.

I agree. I feel that we already have a pretty sound idea of what a black hole looks like, but i think of it like a police sketch. Sure, the suspect will look similar to the sketch (design/impression) but a photo will be much more accurate.

Fingers crossed!

 

[AsukaZ]

Replying to the OP ..

"The thing about black holes is that they're black, and the thing about space is .. well that's black as well ...". I don't recall where that quote came from (it just sort of stuck in my head), but IIRC it was an excuse why someone flew their starship into a black hole. Regardless of where it came from it's a valid point.

Outside of jets, accretion disks, gravitic lensing and the blocking EM waves from objects behind it (and I guess also the cosmic background radiation) there is just nothing to see. We can never actually 'see' a black hole, only the effects it has on it's immediate surroundings. A pedantic point I know, but there you go. Still it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

In answer to your question I think yeah probably yeah, if it's not too difficult, they do aim for realism in that area I believe.

On a tangent, the whole idea just boggles my meagre hunter-gatherer brain, as do many things we've discovered over the last hundred years or so (I'm looking at you Quantum Physics).

If you're interested here's a link to a lecture given by the master himself.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/into-a-black-hole.html

 

[koop26]

Yeah. From what I've read they are taking a picture of the silhouette of a black hole off the dust around it. There's plenty of data to be gained however. Based on the math, they have an idea of what to expect. The beauty of science is that the unexpected wins the day. I think we'll learn something amazing about the universe from these images.

There's a some theories based on wishful thinking that black holes don't actually exist as we interpret them. It's really a theory of convenience, rather than observation. Something about plugging in numbers and the theory of everything and gravity and all that. Black holes have posed an issue for solving these types of equations for a very long time.

 

[xondk]

G'day CMDRs.

I've been reading and watching various things about space and stuff out there recently and stumbled across a video by the Seeker channel on YouTube. Titled "How Close Are We to Photographing a Black Hole?" It discusses the techniques used to develop pictures of different objects around the galaxy. Specifically, it makes mention of the fact that currently, all pictures of black holes are just artist impressions and are the best we can currently do using maths and general knowledge of the physics involved.

The groups studying them are using radio-telescope arrays to receive the signals and are working on interpreting the information and building proper images of these terrifying objects.

My question is: what is the likelihood of FD altering the design of the black holes in game once more accurate images are made public? It would make sense that they would want the game to be as accurate as possible in that regard, and doesn't seem like something that would be overly difficult to implement. But I'm not a developer so...

Here's the video anyway:

https://youtu.be/8GDx7uM9Vdw

Cheers!

Accresion disks and such is on the to do list, last I checked, they've said so a few times, but yeah quite low.

 

[jusking3888]

Outside of jets, accretion disks, gravitic lensing and the blocking EM waves from objects behind it (and I guess also the cosmic background radiation) there is just nothing to see. We can never actually 'see' a black hole, only the effects it has on it's immediate surroundings. A pedantic point I know, but there you go. Still it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

I suppose, just as with movies, some liberties may/must be taken in the interest of making it more...well, interesting. You are right though. Technically we can't actually "see" a black hole at all, what with physics being a fickle thing. I hope that the images that come from the research show something exciting and truly terrifying, but I feel the chances are just as similar that it will be quite underwhelming.

I'd love for it to be a dirty great vortex that players would become so frightened of that they actively try to avoid them, but on the other hand they're eerily quiet and I'm honestly not sure if that's worse lol

I guess we will see!

 

[Ian Phillips]

Replying to the OP ..

"The thing about black holes is that they're black, and the thing about space is .. well that's black as well ...". I don't recall where that quote came from (it just sort of stuck in my head), but IIRC it was an excuse why someone flew their starship into a black hole. Regardless of where it came from it's a valid point.

Sounds like its from Red Dwarf.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Given that the new proper black hole image is supposed to be coming out someone this year, I wonder if FD are deliberately holding back until it's out there... Pointless redesigning something only to find out a couple of weeks later that it's wrong.

 

[jusking3888]

Given that the new proper black hole image is supposed to be coming out someone this year, I wonder if FD are deliberately holding back until it's out there... Pointless redesigning something only to find out a couple of weeks later that it's wrong.

Absolutely! It would be silly of FD to prematurely estimate what black holes really "look" like when the real images should be coming hopefully soon! I'm super-excited to see the image when they've got it all analysed and fixed up and everything!

 

[AsukaZ]

I suppose, just as with movies, some liberties may/must be taken in the interest of making it more...well, interesting. You are right though. Technically we can't actually "see" a black hole at all, what with physics being a fickle thing. I hope that the images that come from the research show something exciting and truly terrifying, but I feel the chances are just as similar that it will be quite underwhelming.

I'd love for it to be a dirty great vortex that players would become so frightened of that they actively try to avoid them, but on the other hand they're eerily quiet and I'm honestly not sure if that's worse lol

I guess we will see!

Indeed. We might be scratching our heads for a little while at what comes out.

Sounds like its from Red Dwarf.

Yeah, I'm thinking female holly in the early eps, something about a scannerscope.

 

[Muetdhiver]

The most accurate rendering of a BH with disk in a movie is the one from interstellar. There is a neat physics paper with the details on how you draw it accurately in various cases. (Rotation, no Rotation, disk or not).

The one in interstellar has been a tad prettyfied but the one from the paper not.

Does not deal with jet mechanics that are beyond the scope of what can be derived by the GR metric alone.

Googling arxiv interstellar black hole should do it.