Galaxy map Realistic view stars disappear while turning

madbilly

M
Hi fellow explorers :)
As explorers I assume you use the realistic view of the galaxy map more than most. Are any of you also experiencing this issue, or have found a fix for it in the past?
Cheers :)
 
Last edited:

madbilly

M
Hi all,
Sorry for the duff link, I had too much copy/paste going on. I've corrected the OP and for quick-ref here's all the info:

Bug in beta (also existed in 2.2, maybe earlier but I didn't use the realistic map so much then).

Bug in 2.3.

Pics and vids.

I'll try and have a look at the galaxy map mods tonight.

Cheers :)
 

Qohen Leth

Qohen Leth
Hmm, I'm not sure it's a bug, afaik there are number and distance limits to what the map can display. Stars outside the invisible display 'bubble' won't show, and after an x number of displayed stars, the map won't show more. I tend to think both are linked, meaning that the densier the area, the smaller the display bubble is. And of course, if you spin the map, some stars can fall out of that bubble. that's a possibility.

EDIT: it's very noticeable on the pics in my GalMap tweak.
 
Last edited:

madbilly

M
Thanks for the suggestion Qohen, are you seeing the same effect?

I'm not sure that quantity and distance are the main drivers of this problem. Many times there are middle-distance stars that disappear, but I can still see close ones and far ones - sometimes WR's >500ly away! Last night I was in a very dense star area and could still see stars 00s of ly away, but there were times when I was crossing between the outer arms that I couldn't seem more than my jump range! Which stars are visible at any particular time seems to be based partly on stellar type, and partly on distance. E.g. in one of the videos I think there are some middle-distance M or K stars that disappear, but other stars beyond them remain visible. It may be partly linked to luminosity but the effect is quite coarse-grained -e.g. I've had orange giants (KII) disappear along with other orange dwarfs (KV).

I'll try and play with the galaxy map mods tonight and see what happens. Fingers crossed I'll find a miracle setting, but otherwise I'm depending on FDev to find the key.
 

Qohen Leth

Qohen Leth
Seeing about no star at all in sparse areas is common and normal, it's part of why the plotter is so unable in these areas.
As it's quite hard to estimate distances by eyeballing on the gal map as you do in your video, I'm not sure your point is valid. Don't forget that giant stars are also bigger in realistic mode, which you might then think that they're closer than others.

Finally, depending how the camera movement works, we may not be spinning the galaxy around an axis that is in the display bubble, but outside it, then possibly causing border stars to fall out of that display bubble as we think we're spinning around them.

And yes, the map annoys me much and feels primitive.
 

madbilly

M
I've now added a video from 2.3 release where I show I can see WR stars almost 900ly away and show middle distance stars appearing and disappearing. I don't judge distance by sight only, it's virtually impossible, the old "small or far away?" problem.

I fiddled around with the star count in the overides xml but it didn't make a noticeable difference, there were still loads of stars disappearing the same as before, it was just as much a problem. I also tried in non-Horizons 32 bit but the issue is still there, not surprisingly.

I really want to know if anyone else is experiencing this bug, then we can start to work out what our setups have in common.

On another note, zooming close in reduces the vertical view distance more than the horizontal, there's a considerable difference on max zoom in. At the standard zoom there doesn't appear to be any difference.
 

Qohen Leth

Qohen Leth
If I think of it, i'll have a look on my client.

I never really paid attention, but I'm not sure one is supposed to 'see' stars that far, in any situation, and the fact that you can hover on those stars but not see them, as it seems, tends to show that. So perhaps the curious thing is that you can hover on those when you shouldn't be able to?

As for whole groups disappearing, I've seen that, but I would think that it's down to how the camera internally works. As far as I can tell, I don't recall seeing anything like this with an increased density, when I buff it up to 120,000 stars or so, I see a very dense and perfectly limited bubble of stars, no star out of that bubble and no chunks of it disappearing when I spin the map. Say there's actually no bug, it would show that the 'problem' lies in how it works and in the settings.

Then again, I should have a look with default settings. Haven't played in a while.
 
Last edited:

madbilly

M
Maybe the resolution of the video is too low to show the furthest stars, because I can definitely see them on my screen, that's why I hover on them.

I'll try with 120k stars then. I tried a few numbers, but 128k was the highest I went because at that number I got was a very nicely populated disc of stars, not a bubble.
 

ToxickToe

ToxickToe
I just loaded up the realistic and there is nothing there. Just a big blank box of nothing. I was about to tell a friend how to switch stars off for navigation, but it seems that is something that is broke

20-04-2017_23-58-36.png
 
Last edited:

Qohen Leth

Qohen Leth
Toe BLarone said:
I just loaded up the realistic and there is nothing there. Just a big blank box of nothing. I was about to tell a friend how to switch stars off for navigation, but it seems that is something that is broke

View attachment 118856
Click to expand...

? That's how it's supposed to look... If you mean in terms of map settings under Realistic, yeah, there is no setting, that's normal.
 
Last edited:

madbilly

M
Qohen Leth said:
? That's how it's supposed to look... If you mean in terms of map settings under Realistic, yeah, there is no setting, that's normal.
Click to expand...
Yep, unfortunately there's no way to change the realistic view except by zoom, pan etc., except by modifying the graphics settings, but we don't fully understand what does what - although Qohen et al have a pretty good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom