Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[Bunkerkind Anni]

"Baked" lighting is when you get baked and decorate? [haha]

No, I know you mean the pre-calculated light maps for the cockpit. Problem is that they are indeed pre-baked so they wouldn't be able to manipulate that lighting on a per-star basis.
The whole problem here is that the Cobra engine doesn't support multiple light sources per-viewport.

wrong -
just because its baked into the texture, it doesn't mean that it can't be affected by dynamic lights. game engines do that already for decades.

what FDEV did here was replacing their too-bright ambient (Image based) light, that caused the no-nightside syndrome pre 3.3,
with a fullscreen colorizer effect.

thats a step from bad to even worse.

for me the question really is - why didn't they tone down the IBL and added the color to that one where it belongs, if they wanted to have the star color have more impact.

 

[krautbernd]

Sterlings explanation is that we see the galaxy through a cloud of space dust inside the system. The space dust does reflect the light and that's why everything is so colourful... Problem is that this space dust would mostly be present in the orbital plane and shouldn't affect anything when I am 20.000ls above it. On the other hand I don't know anything about this stuff, so feel free to tell me how I am completely wrong.

Point is that the dust itself should reflect light - and be visible, since it tints the light of the stars in the background. It doesn't. The space around you should be visibly glowing if it did. It's not zodiacal light.

 

[babelfisch]

Your room!=space. Your room reflects light. Space does not.

But dust reflects light, which is his point if I get it right.

PS
Just saw you already adressed it.

 

[da_wae]

wrong -
just because its baked into the texture, it doesn't mean that it can't be affected by dynamic lights. game engines do that already for decades.

what FDEV did here was replacing their too-bright ambient (Image based) light, that caused the no-nightside syndrome pre 3.3,
with a fullscreen colorizer effect.

thats a step from bad to even worse.

for me the question really is - why didn't they tone down the IBL and added the color to that one where it belongs, if they wanted to have the star color have more impact.

That would still require the Cobra engine to support multiple dynamic light sources per scene. The cockpit lighting is not a dynamic light source and cannot be manipulated without post-processing. It's a static light map.

 

[Sterling MH]

Why though? They are both light sources.

Tke your camera. Point it at your lightbulb. Take an automatic exposure. look at the time of exposure. Now up it to as high as your camera will let you. 15s for a camera phone is easily possible. Take the photo again.

See the same image?

No?

But they ARE the same light source, not merely just both light sources.

Now explain how the latter image is entirely white and has almost no non-saturated pixels.

 

[da_wae]

Point is that the dust itself should reflect light - and be visible, since it tints the light of the stars in the background. It doesn't. The space around you should be visibly glowing if it did. It's not zodiacal light.

The space dust particulates could be small enough to diffract the light without being actively visible themselves. Floating around the heliosphere.

 

[Sterling MH]

But dust reflects light, which is his point if I get it right.

PS
Just saw you already adressed it.

Exactly.

Plus also there is the atmosphere in the cockpit. The scratches on the cockpit canopy. The external lights of the ship. Oh, and condensation (or ice if running cold). Not forgetting the exhaust of the engines to move around.

Like I said, there's dust. Zodiacal light. Black interplanetary space does that. It's NOT our atmosphere.

 

[krautbernd]

Tke your camera. Point it at your lightbulb. Take an automatic exposure. look at the time of exposure. Now up it to as high as your camera will let you. 15s for a camera phone is easily possible. Take the photo again.

See the same image?

No?

But they ARE the same light source, not merely just both light sources.

Now explain how the latter image is entirely white and has almost no non-saturated pixels.

Because the amount of photons your camera recorded is higher. I literally explained this very thing in my post. Is the color different? No? Why? Because the wavelength of the emitted light is the same. Again, you influnce brightness, not color.

 

[Sterling MH]

The space dust particulates could be small enough to diffract the light without being actively visible themselves. Floating around the heliosphere.

The dust IS in his field of view. He looks at the dust light and proclaims "THAT IS EMPTY SPACE!!!" then because he claims it is empty, claims there's nothing there. Circular illogic.

It's not empty space there. Just emptier than a full atmosphere.

 

[krautbernd]

Like I said, there's dust. Zodiacal light. Black interplanetary space does that. It's NOT our atmosphere.

No. Look up how zodiacal light works. It's not space dust. Space dust would reflect light indiscrimenately around the star. You would be inside a glowing sphere. Instead only the emissive parts of teh galactic are tinted. It's not zodiacal light.

 

[Sterling MH]

Because the amount of photons your camera recorded is higher. .

Good. So WHY is there only saturated full 255s in the pixels of the second image? After all, if the camera recorded more photons, why did it record a blank identical number when you can CLEARLY tell that some parts were still brighter than others, so should have registered a DIFFERENT number.

Go on, explain why your image didn't just come back into full view if you divided the image values by, say, 200. It would take the 15 second exposure back to about 1/10th of a second, likely what your camera took on auto exposure.

Why when you divide the pixel values by 20 do you not get something that looks like the shorter exposed image?

 

[krautbernd]

The dust IS in his field of view. He looks at the dust light and proclaims "THAT IS EMPTY SPACE!!!" then because he claims it is empty, claims there's nothing there. Circular illogic.

It's not empty space there. Just emptier than a full atmosphere.

No. Circular logic would be presupposing that there must be dust because you observe something is tinted and then arriva at the conclusion that the tint must be because of space dust. Exactely your line of reasoning.

 

[Sterling MH]

No. Look up how zodiacal light works. It's not space dust.

Yes it is.

Space dust would reflect light indiscrimenately around the star. .

It does. Just like when you see a rainbow. Everyone can see it because the rainbow appears indiscriminately.

Tell me how many people can see a rainbow, despite being in a different place, if it's NOT photons being indiscriminately scattered from the sun?

You would be inside a glowing sphere. Instead only the emissive parts of teh galactic are tinted. It's not zodiacal light

So how come we're not surrounded in an atmosphere that is so dust laden as ours? According to your pull from the nethers claim, we should be in a blinding sphere where we cannot see a thing, because all those CCNs that, well, cause clouds whenever the humidity allows it, are reflecting, as is dust's claimed wont, indiscriminately around everyone?

 

[krautbernd]

Good. So WHY is there only saturated full 255s in the pixels of the second image? After all, if the camera recorded more photons, why did it record a blank identical number when you can CLEARLY tell that some parts were still brighter than others, so should have registered a DIFFERENT number.

Go on, explain why your image didn't just come back into full view if you divided the image values by, say, 200. It would take the 15 second exposure back to about 1/10th of a second, likely what your camera took on auto exposure.

Why when you divide the pixel values by 20 do you not get something that looks like the shorter exposed image?

Lossy image compression and an algorithm not designed for what you propose I should do with the image.

 

[Sterling MH]

No. Circular logic would be presupposing that there must be dust because you observe something is tinted

Well that would be. However it is not the case. We KNOW about the interplanetary dust. We have pictures. Spacecraft are affected by it. We have all the evidence it is possible to have, and it's a lot.

However, you are wrong in you "No" claim. You look at a picture, claim there's nothing there despite it being visibly there, then proclami that because you CAN see something there, it must be fake. because there's nothing there. And therefore if oyu can see you are plainly wrong, there is something there, it must be fake and unrealistic.

circular logic.

Prove there's no such thing as interstellar dust, ice, etc.

And when you've managed that, explain micrometeorites... and protoplanetary disks... and cometary tails... and...

 

[rhiz]

Sterlings explanation is that we see the galaxy through a cloud of space dust inside the system. The space dust does reflect the light and that's why everything is so colourful... Problem is that this space dust would mostly be present in the orbital plane and shouldn't affect anything when I am 20.000ls above it. On the other hand I don't know anything about this stuff, so feel free to tell me how I am completely wrong.

The thing is, none of this is really relevant since the indiscriminate tinting that we're seeing is little more than a limitation of the techniques being used - not a carefully thought out emulation of reality. The whole issue is being muddied and over-complicated. Skybox aside, there's no explanation for why my HUD would look like this, an emissive source, other than the fact that FD have slapped a 2D GLSL shader onto the final stages of the render pipeline which is shifting everything towards the blues/greens. No doubt someone will come along and counter that, but it’s merely a well known and often undesirable consequence of colour correction – pure and simple:

I recreated the effect by taking a jpeg and mucking around with the color balance in Photoshop (obviously, the bottom one is the original) - same thing:

 

[Sterling MH]

Lossy image compression and an algorithm not designed for what you propose I should do with the image.

Nope. you should still get the image. the CCD recorded it and the compression kept the images. The contrast between image elements would be identical, just between two higher numbers.

Try again.

 

[krautbernd]

Yes it is.

In the game you baffoon. Zodiacal light is space dust, but zodiacla light doesn't cause the effect we see in the game.

So how come we're not surrounded in an atmosphere that is so dust laden as ours? According to your pull from the nethers claim, we should be in a blinding sphere where we cannot see a thing, because all those CCNs that, well, cause clouds whenever the humidity allows it, are reflecting, as is dust's claimed wont, indiscriminately around everyone?[/QUOTE]What? Are you asking why we can see the sun depsite the existence of clouds?

 

[Valorin]

Nobody demands you have to like it. Just don't pretend that it's a proiblem outside your own preference. Like this:



No, it's not a bigger issue. You just made it a bigger issue because there's things you DON'T like.

Guess what? You don't have to.

And please, don't vageuty vague vague. You gave a very short list of what your argument was, and none of them were "bigger ... and affects the whole system". It's still there for us to read.

Uhm. You know, I just ignore you from now on. Bye.

 

[Sterling MH]

the indiscriminate tinting :

Is a shibboleth. A figment of your own desire. it's indiscriminate because it is more than you are happy with. Your opinion, an those who share your opinion, claim it indiscriminate.

AS YOUR OPINION, this is inarguable.

But also irrelevant, since opinions differ and you present this as objective fact when it is no.

It's not "indiscriminate" except by your mores and expectations.
And as demonstrated so ably by kwhatever, for reasons that are entirely self serving. It shouldn't be there, therefore it's fake and if it's fake, it must be indiscriminate colouration. Since the reason for it not supposedly being there are wrong, the entire chain falls down.

It stops being objective fact and just your opinion.