Gamma Comparison

lefty1117

L
Just thought I'd post once and for all what I am seeing (and whining) about in various threads regarding "space is too dark" or "gamma broken". This is what I see. In Horizons we have the different hues of what I guess is space dust on the right side of the screen. This is in Horizons on normal Gamma - the slider is about halfway to the right.

In Odyssey, with same Gamma settings, you can see in the second picture how space is completely dark. The color variations are gone except near the galactic plane .. the more "local" dust on the right side of the screen seems to be gone.

But it's NOT gone ... if you turn gamma in Odyssey all the way up, as I have done in the third picture, you can see it's still there.

So what I want to know is, is the second picture a stylistic choice by FD and the new "normal", OR is there some issue with Gamma? An easy solution would be to simply turn Gamma up in Odyssey, but then that makes interiors way too bright.

In the various updates I have never seen the loss of dust visibility directly referenced by FD, though I see complaints about it all over going back to the alpha. In the top 20 list, which I'm really glad FD are sharing, there's a reference to lighting issues being considered fixed, but no specific gamma or dust callout. Does that mean they don't consider this an issue? I think the first and third images look better - more colorful and more interesting, even if some think they are less realistic. So would be good to finally get some feedback from FD - what's your stance on this?


Horizons

20210812141946_1.jpg



Odyssey (normal gamma, about midway on slider)

20210812142401_1.jpg



Odyssey with Gamma turned all the way up

20210812142524_1.jpg
 

FX2K

FX2K
I too prefer #1 and #3, although I know some prefer #2.
But turning the gamma up to restore the galaxy backdrop to #3 just ruins everything else :( so #2 it is, for now.

Good luck with the thread :)
 

Bottom Hat

Bottom Hat
This is a good thread for examples of non planet lighting concerns, as you have shown the same image in the three forms you are quoting.

I hope it is an interesting thread too as so many have devolved into a melting pot of angst and argument! Good on you OP.


Forgot to say, I agree with fx2k
 

FX2K

FX2K
Regardless of personal preferences though, I do think its not working as the devs intended.

If they intended the backdrop to be like #2 with very little variation, fine, but then why have the clouds of dust just to hide them, its not as if its a layer that has been turned off, its still there, just not visible under normal settings, like before. There's clearly lighting imbalances relating to new materials and techniques in use that still need sorting a little bit, here and there.
 

Erei

Erei
You picked the good side^^
This is what most of it look like :
20210813222452_1.jpg

VS
20210813222841_1.jpg

While we can't get as many stars in the sky as there are IRL due to tecyhnology limitations, I'd rather have the Horizon skybox. The "haze" effect made it feel like there was more stars than we had.

Neither are realistic anyway :)

Also, many stars have that "flickering" effect, which is due to our atmo. So we shouldn't have one in space ? Unless I'm mistaken.
 

lefty1117

L
I guess if people like the dark picture, that's certainly their prerogative, I find it to be very boring myself. But regardless it would be good for FD to comment on whether pic #2 is intended or not. Put the question to rest and then let people decide what they think about that if it really is meant to look that way.
 

Morbad

Morbad
If it's there and you can't see it because of the gamma setting, it's wrong.

Doesn't matter what looks subjectively better or even what the intent was, drawing stuff that cannot be seen on a correctly calibrated display is a waste of dynamic range and a reduction in detail.

The second image in the OP has overt black crush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom