Irrelevant.
"that the milky way, as seen from Earth, looks *very* different in game than it does in real life,"
Yes, just like the nebulae are not anything like depicted.
IF you use the human eyesight.
"If FDev's intent was to add more realism to the game by simulating zodiacal dust, empirical evidence shows that it hasn't worked."
Nope, their realism is that the lighting comports to reality.
Zodiacal light proves that the assertions kwhatever made are arrant nonsense compared to reality. If his assertions were vaguely true, zodiacal light does not exist and would make a huge glowning halo around the solar system.
If you can't keep reality straight, go back and read it slower. Get it right.
"Sooo...anyway, as far as I can see this thread has run it's course. It's basically absolutely everyone versus Sterling MH."
So? I'm rihgt, "everyone else" is wrong. But it's not everyone, is it. Histrionics. Pretend that it MUST be me wrong. Argumentum ad populum. A million flies can't be wrong!
Fallacy.
" And you're not really coming across as very level-headed, given as your preferred method of responding is to belittle anyone who disagrees with you."
And your passive aggressive snark ensures that YOU are making it even more off topic. Yet more ad hom. Proving you have nothing to counter my argument, so you slag me off instead.
"Maybe you're right about the zodiacal dust causing this colour tint"
MAybe you could try keepig to what I have said, not make it up to fit your ridicule?
"I'm also going to have to add you to my ignore list."
Well, like the other idiots, keep everyone appraised of who you will ignore. But remember: this is the third time I've pointed out that telling someone you're ignoring them is the OPPOSITE of ignoring them.
A whole sockfull of sharp tools in the sock drawer here.
This lack of concrete thought is why so many against me are wrong: they don't think. They just WANT SO BADLY.
Being more right than you is EASY. What isn't easy is getting you to be right. you refuse that. It's unpossible to change.
Proof i said only solids are measured in kg/m³? .
Zodiacal light doesn't prove anything,
I'm saying that equating space to an ocean is a flawed argument. Stop inferring stuff that i didn't actually say. I never said space dust doesn't exist.Yes, huis post makes no ense. Never did.
Yes you do. When you claim space == ocean when I am talking about reflections, and dust reflects too, then YOU are asserting dust == nothing.
I'm saying that equating space to an ocean is a flawed argument.
But that's not what's in the game. The game only depicts tinting in areas that are already have light emiting objects, never in non-lit ore empty areas. So you literaly don't get reflections in the game from empty areas that should also have dust. None. Only where you already have illuminated objects in the background. For your assertion to be true the would have to conform exactly to the shape of the glactic background. Does it do so in real life? Would that make any sense if the dust patterns had the exact form of nebulas and star clusters?Nope, it proves that you CAN get reflections from "empty space". You claim the image is fake because you can see light reflected from nearby suns. Which is what zodiacal light IS.
The game only depicts tinting in areas that are already have light emiting objects, never in non-lit ore empty areas.
Where have i insisted that ocean=space? I have said that ocean=space is a flawed argument. You were the one who seamlessly switched from interplanetary dust to ocean to go on about reflections. Why? What has reflection on fluid boundaries to do with space?When you insist that ocean==space you are asserting dust==nothing. I do not. So whenoyu insist that I have equated ocean with space, that is you. Not me.
Where have i insisted that ocean=space?
So the sun does not illumate zodiacal dust, but it's illumated by objects behind it? That's not how zodiacal lighting works. Again, you disprove your own argument, which is why depcition in game is wrong. The light doesn't come from backgrund objects but from local star, which is why dust should be illuminated not only where it coincides with background objects!Which is what happens. If there is no light source, then you see black. That is not a tint. Black.
In real life if you are near a coloured light, the coloration tint of that light becomes more and more pronounced,here there is no light source to cause a tint, you get no tint.
So the sun does not illumate zodiacal dust,
No, i said ocean!=space. Ocean=space is a flawed argument.When you insist that I equate ocean == space. Duh.
No, i said ocean!=space. Ocean=space is a flawed argument.
No.
Try again. Read my posts again and this time DON'T make up what you want to be there.
And there is still no such thing as zodiacal lightning.
Which is what happens. If there is no light source, then you see black. That is not a tint. Black.
In real life if you are near a coloured light, the coloration tint of that light becomes more and more pronounced,here there is no light source to cause a tint, you get no tint.
What? ocean!=space = ocean==space? For the last time I never said that they are the same thing! I said equating them is flawed. Make of that what you will, i'm tired of telling you this.And Again, when you insist I equate ocean==space you are asserting that ocean==space. And if you insist that ocean==space is flawed, so what? The only one making them the same thing is you. Not me.
What? ocean!=space = ocean==space?
Your own words. No light source, no reflections. Equals no dust in black areas. What am i missing?
This isn't not programming logic. I said ocean=space is flawed argument. You can pretend thatit was not an answer to your flawed assertion is it makes you feel better.Saying "ocean==space is wrong" is you asserting ocean==space.
This isn't not programming logic.
I said ocean=space is flawed argument..
No - i stated that you only see the tint in back-lit areas, which is not what happens in real life. In real life the dust reflects light of the local star regardless of position. Not so in the game. There you don't see illuminated dust in random positions along the eccliptic - you only see illuminated dust where it coincides with emissive objects in the background.Nope, those are not my words.
you quoted my words. Then ignored them.
Which is what happens. If there is no light source, then you see black. That is not a tint. Black.
In real life if you are near a coloured light, the coloration tint of that light becomes more and more pronounced,here there is no light source to cause a tint, you get no tint.