New Planet Tech is KILLER of Exploration (all terrain is tiling/repeating/not procedural/random)

[Erei]

OK, we agree about the brightness part, good.

Because I'm pointing out that you're wrong I don't understand. Right... Just to point it out again - in REAL LIFE the MIlky Way is a faint, continuous, non-black band. Away from it the human eye mostly (there's the odd other patch like the Magallenic Clouds) black, with lots of stars speckled on it. Putting aside effects like light pollution how many stars will very much depend on how dark-adapted the eye is;

It's far from being a black band, the Milky Way I saw was like the one I linked, but less bright.

Not that ugly red stain that I can barely make up.

We send telescopes to space. That was the point, it's significant enough to affect telescope performance, but not what they human eye would see.

It does, stars blink in atmo. They don't in space. A lot are also fainter.

if you're close to a mostly illuminated planet not in the outer reaches of the solar system the pupil won't be very dilated and you won't see many (the Apollo astronauts said only a few of the brightest ones could be seen from the Moon, although I don't know how much filtering was on the helmet visors).

Obviously. They landed on the DAY side of the moon. How many stars do you see during the day ?

We are speaking in space, where the star is very far, or not in front of you, and there are no big planet beneath you to reflect the light.

 

[MCCART]

OK, we agree about the brightness part, good. And the colour?

Because I'm pointing out that you're wrong I don't understand. Right... Just to point it out again - in REAL LIFE the MIlky Way is a faint, continuous, non-black band. Away from it the human eye mostly (there's the odd other patch like the Magallenic Clouds) black, with lots of stars speckled on it. Putting aside effects like light pollution how many stars will very much depend on how dark-adapted the eye is; if you're close to a mostly illuminated planet not in the outer reaches of the solar system the pupil won't be very dilated and you won't see many (the Apollo astronauts said only a few of the brightest ones could be seen from the Moon, although I don't know how much filtering was on the helmet visors).

We send telescopes to space. That was the point, it's significant enough to affect telescope performance, but not what they human eye would see.

From a dark site, the Milky Way dominates the night sky. From a middling site, it's still prominent. We send telescopes to space for many reasons. The main reason has nothing to do with sky brightness.

 

[Erei]

From a dark site the, Milky Way dominates the night sky. From a middling site, it's still prominent. We send telescopes to space for many reasons. The main reason has nothing to do with sky brightness.

Camera don't lie. They don't "invent" stuff. The brightness is from the sun, since it's long exposure, it took some light from sunset/sunrise. The stars and everything is there. The camera take it.
Milky way is very visible, and as you say "dominate" a clear night sky with no light pollution.

 

[Helvellyn]

It's far from being a black band, the Milky Way I saw was like the one I linked, but less bright.

Not that ugly red stain that I can barely make up.

It does, stars blink in atmo. They don't in space. A lot are also fainter.

Yes, it's far from being a black band. That's why I said non-black. A faint, shining white band is what it looks like.

In good seeing blinking visible to the naked eye is negligable, certainly away from the horizon. Also in good seeing the loss in brightness is very small.

Obviously. They landed on the DAY side of the moon. How many stars do you see during the day ?

We are speaking in space, where the star is very far, or not in front of you, and there are no big planet beneath you to reflect the light.

On the Moon? I've never been there to see. I've spent all my life on a planet with an atmosphere that scatters a lot of sunlight and is thus bright enough itself to drown out everything astronomical except the Sun, Moon, and Venus (if you know exactly where to look).

Space, far away from the star, no big planet (and no interior cockpit lighting) - yes, give me that photo for what we see, just tuned down to not be as vivid. A dynamic lighting model that achieves that, and scales to what the eye would likely see considering the brightness of various light sources - if only!

 

[Amy Pendergast]

From a dark site the, Milky Way dominates the night sky. From a middling site, it's still prominent. We send telescopes to space for many reasons. The main reason has nothing to do with sky brightness.

And on a sidenote:
In Elite I am at the same position as a telescope in space. So I would see more of it, much more than from earth at any given point.

And besides all that, Elite is still a game and has also cater to the "awe" moment, not only targeting hyperrealism.
If hyperrealism is what people want, we should start discussing flight models, the economy, super powers etc in game also.

 

[Erei]

Yes, it's far from being a black band. That's why I said non-black. A faint, shining white band is what it looks like.

In good seeing blinking visible to the naked eye is negligable, certainly away from the horizon. Also in good seeing the loss in brightness is very small.

On the Moon? I've never been there to see. I've spent all my life on a planet with an atmosphere that scatters a lot of sunlight and is thus bright enough itself to drown out everything astronomical except the Sun, Moon, and Venus (if you know exactly where to look).

Space, far away from the star, no big planet (and no interior cockpit lighting) - yes, give me that photo for what we see, just tuned down to not be as vivid. A dynamic lighting model that achieves that, and scales to what the eye would likely see considering the brightness of various light sources - if only!

Can you explain to me, if that's so perfect, how the sky in ED, from space, with no cities and whatnot for light pollution, is WORSE by a lot than on Earth, from my backyard ?

That's my issue. In horizon it was not perfect (can't be), but it was much closer to real life.

 

[Helvellyn]

From a dark site the, Milky Way dominates the night sky. From a middling site, it's still prominent. We send telescopes to space for many reasons. The main reason has nothing to do with sky brightness.

Yes, agreed. But it's still not bright though, like it was in Horizons. I want it there, when I'm not looking at a close star or planets. Just not brown and so bright that it probably nears the max my monitor can display.

We send telescopes to space for steadier seeing, to see some wavelengths that do get blocked by the atmosphere (non-visible ones), and because the small losses that the eye won't notice can make quite a big difference when viewing extremely faint objects, completely invisible to the eye. All totally irrelevant though unless telescopes are going to be added to the game at some point.

 

[MCCART]

I'd have thought that you'd have got it right then rather than sounding like someone who points to long exposure photographs instead of looking up and claims that's proof about what it looks like.

Non-magnified, longish exposure shots of the night sky are actually fairly representative of what you would see with the naked eye. Especially in the Southern Hemisphere. You can naked-eye open clusters, globs, galaxies, etc, all night. Also... That wasn't me.

 

[galahad2069]

Meanwhile in Horizons...
idc that it's not entirely realistic, it's still way better this way

 

[Helvellyn]

Can you explain to me, if that's so perfect, how the sky in ED, from space, with no cities and whatnot for light pollution, is WORSE by a lot than on Earth, from my backyard ?

That's my issue. In horizon it was not perfect (can't be), but it was much closer to real life.

Probably because I find the too bright extreme, particularly when there are other things to look at, the more irritating one. I find that excessive brightness further from life than the lack of it.

 

[Helvellyn]

Non-magnified, longish exposure shots of the night sky are actually fairly representative of what you would see with the naked eye. Especially in the Southern Hemisphere. You can naked-eye open clusters, globs, galaxies, etc, all night. Also... That wasn't me.

Sure, you can see them. But nowhere near as brightly as they're all made out to be. And you'll do very well to see them at all if you're sat in front of an illuminated console in a cockpit with lights on.

 

[Erei]

Probably because I find the too bright extreme, particularly when there are other things to look at, the more irritating one.

Haven't been in space, don't know if it's bright or not. Do you ?
I know, however, that's it's pitch black with very little stars, and that's not what I see from Earth.

 

[Helvellyn]

Haven't been in space, don't know if it's bright or not. Do you ?
I know, however, that's it's pitch black with very little stars, and that's not what I see from Earth.

As I've had to point out many, many times being in space really won't make much difference. I know how impressive the night sky can look to someone who's only ever looked up from a city, when they finally get a chance to see it in good conditions.

You think almost saturated clouds looks more like what you see from Earth, especially when you're sitting somewhere with lights on and you haven't been in the darkness long enough for your eyes to adapt?

 

[Sunyavadin]

I think I found the screen that everyone saying the planets look better in Odyssey uses.

 

[Erei]

As I've had to point out many, many times being in space really won't make much difference.

You think almost saturated clouds looks more like what you see from Earth, especially when you're sitting somewhere with lights on and you haven't been in the darkness long enough for your eyes to adapt?

In space ? No idea. Our atmo block a lot of light after all.

And it's a game. I don't play to have a boring black skybox with painted white dot from the late 90's.

Especially when said skybox look worse than if I go outside and look up.

 

[Sunyavadin]

All totally irrelevant though unless telescopes are going to be added to the game at some point.

I see you don't use the FSS much XD

 

[Helvellyn]

In space ? No idea. Our atmo block a lot of light after all.

And it's a game. I don't play to have a boring black skybox with painted white dot from the late 90's.

No, our atmosphere does not (in the visible spectrum anyway) - https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld009.htm

If "it's a game" then shame on, say, Red Dead Redemption 2 having all those boring green trees when it could've made them all sorts of glowing vivid colours to make it look prettier. I've seen games with green trees in the 80s after all!

 

[Erei]

No, our atmosphere does not (in the visible spectrum anyway) - https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld009.htm

If "it's a game" then shame on, say, Red Dead Redemption 2 having all those boring green trees when it could've made them all sorts of glowing vivid colours to make it look prettier. I've seen games with green trees in the 80s after all!

You are focused on brightness, we are on the blackness and lack of details. Yes yes, it may not be bright. But right now it's black with white dot. Even on Earth it doesn't look that way. You have red and blue, the milky way is a blurry mess of various color and stars and so on. That picture I posted don't lie. The camera doesn't add stars and color. Brightness, sure, the rest no.

In horizon, brightness might have been "off", but the rest wasn't.

 

[Helvellyn]

You are focused on brightness, we are on the blackness and lack of details. Yes yes, it may not be bright. But right now it's black with white dot. Even on Earth it doesn't look that way. You have red and blue, the milky way is a blurry mess of various color and stars and so on. That picture I posted don't lie. The camera doesn't add stars and color. Brightness, sure, the rest no.

In horizon, brightness might have been "off", but the rest wasn't.

Yes, agreed, other than on the colours (the eye doesn't see much variation in colour, it's mostly the rods that are responding).

I'd take Horizons with the brightness turned down, and also adjusted to be appropriate for whatever else is present - e.g. with the illuminated console we won't be looking outside with dark-adjusted eyes. Now we can stand on planets and look up with nothing else present to light anything up (or reboot and repair )

I guess we just have different views on which inaccuracy bothers us more

 

[Erei]

I'm ok with brightness turned down. I'll have to see ofc, it's a game, and not being able to see planets or station is annoying. Perhaps realistic, but annoying nevertheless.