Limitations of the stellar/planetary renderer?

I recently encountered the most extreme planet I've ever seen: The pressures and temperatures were absolutely immense, and the atmosphere was 95% + silicate vapour and 1.2% iron vapour. Pics to follow in a separate post - having trouble setting up my Rift for screenshots.

It was cool, but up close I was a bit disappointed. A planet with an atmosphere literally of blown glass droplets should, well, glow. It should be this incredible cauldron that is hell's own blast furnace. Instead, it was rendered as a flat grey that I mistook at first for the surface.

I realize that it's an edge case, and stellar forge is perfectly capable of coming up with planets, moons, and stars that the renderer doesn't know what to do with. That said, it doesn't hurt to start a list for the devs to consider when enhancing the renderer.

So, what extreme bodies have you come across that the renderer couldn't do justice?
 
Currently the planets are just using basic info from the Stellar forge when presenting the planets for us. With Horizons we will see them use far more data and therefore far more accurate and detalied planets.
 
Not sure if it counts as the renderer not doing it justice, but I found a very hot gas giant that sort of broke it! https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131543

Wow! That's incredible.

I'm certain the renderer uses temperature, since surface features include more or less ice depending on the temperature. It uses volcanism, rendering volcanos of various sorts on the planets. And it definitely uses atmospheric components, rendering clouds and storms, and sometimes wrapping the planet in an opaque fog (as well as blowing the volcanic plumes, which is a nice touch). It would be interesting to know what data it doesn't currently use. Maybe we can all park outside moons on the night of Horizon's launch, and post "before and after" pics.
 
Back
Top Bottom