Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[Jenner]

Please take the oceans=space argument to PM, as it is monopolizing this thread at this point and derailing the discussion. Thanks.

 

[Sterling MH]

No - i stated that you only see the tint in back-lit areas, which is not what happens in real life.

And that is not what happens in the game. Just like the reflection off the sea by the sun is "in back lit areas", the ocean is not "backlit" and neither is the dust.

Previously you asserted "away from the light source" and "where it is dark". These are not synonymous with "backlit".

 

[krautbernd]

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.

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?

Again, i don't see what's keeping you you from answering the question. It pretty much sums up the qualms i have with your assertion that the game depicts zodiacal dust, since the dust obviously isn't located around the local star in a random pattern or aling the eclipptic like would be expected. Otherwise you would see light refelcted from those areas as tehy are illuminated by teh local star. Instead you only see tinted areas around existing background objects.

 

[Sterling MH]

Again, i don't see what's keeping you you from answering the question.

I need a question to be asked, first.

Then there comes the fact that you have made claims in contrary to evidence of absolute fact (cf the measure of density for example) and the need for the proofs of your blank assertions (cf why it can't be dust, why non lit areas matter when the appears to be no dust in those areas which can be explained by there being no light to see the dust by), etc.

There's a term "Just Asking Questions" and it is a troll tactic. From the bad faith arguments from you for so very very long, there needs to be some proof that you're going to attempt an actual argument, not a row.

"since the dust obviously isn't located around the local star in a random pattern "
which is it? You claim random and then claim it is in a region, the opposite of random. And how do you know either case?

Not one of your images show "dust in random places" nor that it is not outside the ecliptic.

None of them managed to prove anything except your "fixed image" showed that you had overly adjusted the neutron star to be far more red than it should realistically be, because you were concerned with removing the blue from the image and not with showing what you think is realistic.

A cockpit lit by a bright blue star looking all red orange and brown is not realistic.

That you think it does nulls any attempt of you to claim that an image is unrealistic.

 

[krautbernd]

And that is not what happens in the game. Just like the reflection off the sea by the sun is "in back lit areas", the ocean is not "backlit" and neither is the dust.

Previously you asserted "away from the light source" and "where it is dark". These are not synonymous with "backlit".

I have no idea what you're trying to say. By "backlit areas" i mean the tint in-game is located only in front or around existing celestial objects. Which is not what happens in ral life. The dust doesn't magically conform to the shape of existing nebulas or star clusters - it's diffuse. It's a literal dust cloud along the ecliptic that's illuminated by the sun. If it reflects enough light to tint - or be visually tinted by - light coming in from background objects (where it is apparent), every part of it should be illumniated the star around which it is located, i.e. the main star of the system you're currently at.

It's not. It's not zodiacal light.

 

[Sterling MH]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. By "backlit areas" i mean the tint in-game is located only in front or around existing celestial objects.

And that is where you will see reflected lights, tinting. A long way away from the star and, absent being near another refletive body such as a planet, most of the illumination will be from the aggregate galaxy, not from the star.

So you will see the dust in "backlit areas" if you mean "near the star or other existing celestial object" because it is that light that is doing the tinting. Elsewhere there is no strong light to tint, only the generic untinted view from the galaxy as a whole. Which will generally tend to be reddish.

Note too that far from a star the light will be much less bright, and the reflections equally less bright. So far from the star you will see very little in the way of dust because there's not much light to reflect.

 

[krautbernd]

"since the dust obviously isn't located around the local star in a random pattern "which is it? You claim random and then claim it is in a region, the opposite of random. And how do you know either case?

Not one of your images show "dust in random places" nor that it is not outside the ecliptic.

None of them managed to prove anything except your "fixed image" showed that you had overly adjusted the neutron star to be far more red than it should realistically be, because you were concerned with removing the blue from the image and not with showing what you think is realistic.

A cockpit lit by a bright blue star looking all red orange and brown is not realistic.

That you think it does nulls any attempt of you to claim that an image is unrealistic.[/QUOTE]

So you refuse to answer my question and you can't provide any evidence for your claims? Show me an image that you think illustrates zoiadical dust in the game. The images i've provided apparently aren't good enough, despite showing what's actually in the game in an unaltered form. None of my images are modified, apart from compression artifacts (the gifs also have less color). Why are they not good enough?

 

[Sterling MH]

NSo you refuse to answer my question

You never asked one that needed to be answered.

and you can't provide any evidence for your claims?

You never provided any of yours. And the evidence for several of my claims were easily googled. Zodiacal light. I told you to google it.

If you pretend I never gave any evidence or proof when such proof WAS pointed out to you, in what way can your claim I have not provided proof be counted as anything other than just blather?

Plus complete non sequitur.

And zodiacal light was proof tour claim that there should be nothig from a star behind was factually in this real world realistic really real thing that's real is wrong. Zodiacal light is seen after the sun goes down if its dark enough, it is caused by light from the sun being scattered by dust etc, proving that "outer space" is nowhere near as empty as you think it is. And it being visible toward the sun rather than away is, given your special definition of "back lit area", is visible most clearly IN A BACKLIT REGION OF SPACE.

That's real life, this one, right outside our windows.

Since the reality everyone lives in shows the lie to your assertions as of proof to the protestation that the current system is "fake news" is why i brought it up. Not that I can get a jpg from ED showing it. All not doing that could mean is that the ED images are not realistic enough and it needs more of this tinted background of empty space than it currently does, the opposite of what you claim to be true reality.

 

[krautbernd]

And that is where you will see reflected lights, tinting. A long way away from the star and, absent being near another refletive body such as a planet, most of the illumination will be from the aggregate galaxy, not from the star.

Do you have any source for that claim? Or to assume that an interplanetary cloud would form or be lit that way? Our own zodiacal cloud isn't located at the fringes of our solar system - it's located within our inner solar system and illuminated by our sun. Even at the outer fringes of our solar system our sun is hundredths of times brighter than the full moon. How would a zodiacal cloud be lit from the galactic background but not the parent star?

So you will see the dust in "backlit areas" if you mean "near the star or other existing celestial object" because it is that light that is doing the tinting. Elsewhere there is no strong light to tint, only the generic untinted view from the galaxy as a whole. Which will generally tend to be reddish.

There is a whole star that would illuminate the dust brihter than any object in the galactic background would, at least barring a nearby supernova.

Note too that far from a star the light will be much less bright, and the reflections equally less bright. So far from the star you will see very little in the way of dust because there's not much light to reflect.

And how far from a parent star of the same class and size of our sun would that be the case? How far out would that cloud have to be to not be illuminated mainly by the parent star, but by background objects?

 

[Sterling MH]

Do you have any source for that claim?

Tell you what, get on the backlog of proofs of your claims and THEN I'll get on it.

Again, the rest of your post is JAQing off. Going to treat it with the low level of effort it warrants. Reality disagrees with what you assert it must be, and since your conclusion that the current lighting is wrong is BASED on that incorrect belief, the conclusion is unsupported by reality.

 

[Sterling MH]

There is a whole star that would illuminate the dust brihter than any object in the galactic background would, at least barring a nearby supernova.

What was that? No support for that claim? It's like you only want proof given, not provide your own. Which is why I'll get on digging proof out when you start showing me what effort you count as being "proof", so I can tailor my effort to that.

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

Would it be possible that the ships canopy is causing the tint effect?

 

[Sterling MH]

Would it be possible that the ships canopy is causing the tint effect?

In some of the pictures, that is clearly the case for some of it.

However when I proffered the existence of the cockpit condensation and the scratches thereon, I was snided with "Got any proof that this exists?!??!!?".

But it's near impossible to say since all you get is "LOOK AT THIS PICTURE!" which doesn't help. Maybe they don't mean that bit at the edges of the cockpit "glass". The picture does not say and they did not either.

 

[krautbernd]

What was that? No support for that claim? It's like you only want proof given, not provide your own. Which is why I'll get on digging proof out when you start showing me what effort you count as being "proof", so I can tailor my effort to that.

Our own sun is still the brightest object in the sky by far out a Pluto. Take my word for it, or look it up.

Also, remind me again, when exactely have provided proof for any of your assertion? Or am i just to take your word for it? That's not how this works. Your explanation is lacking on multiple points. You haven't answered one.

Show me at what distance out from our own sun it would appear less bright than the galactic background. Because that's the minimal distance your cloud would have to be located at to have the effet you ascribe to it's in-game counterpart.

 

[Sterling MH]

Our own sun is still the brightest object in the sky

Yup. And this changes nothing. The rest of the galaxy is not a single object. So even if your assertion happened to be correct (likely by accident), it does not apply to a sum total. How bright is the sun compared to everything else when you're out at Pluto.

If you were as close as you get to stars in ED, you would be unable to see anything because your eyes would be saturated and you would be blinded.

So ED isn;t using what your eyes see. They're using what more capable equipment would see. And what they see is dust in space illuminated by the star and bright nebulae that, if they are coloured light and not pure white, will cause that dust to be tinted with that light too.

Want proof? Shine a coloured light on white paper. See the redness.

 

[krautbernd]

So ED isn;t using what your eyes see. They're using what more capable equipment would see. And what they see is dust in space illuminated by the star and bright nebulae that, if they are coloured light and not pure white, will cause that dust to be tinted with that light too.

You are reapeting stuff that's alredy been refuted by others: Why don't we see any light reflected of dust that is not in front of other emissive objects. Why do we have black patches between those objects when the star should outshine any background objects, and the reflected light from the star should be visible against the backdrop? If that more capable equipment can amplify those feint light sources to such a degree, why don't we see actual zodiacal light?

Want proof? Shine a coloured light on white paper. See the redness.[/QUOTE]Not this again, you know it doesn't make sense in context and you keep repeating it ad nausaeum.

 

[Jenner]

Closed for moderation review. It may be opened again later on.

 

[Jenner]

Re-opened.

No handbags and no sniping please.

 

[Valorin]

Re-opened.

No handbags and no sniping please.

Thank you very much.

So. Tinting of the background skybox by the local star. Bad. Let's carry on with the mission!

 

[Stigbob]

Thank you very much.

So. Tinting of the background skybox by the local star. Bad. Let's carry on with the mission!

Subjectively bad for you given your personal aesthetic preferences. I like it gives different systems a different feel.

A toggle in options would make sense if enough people are bothered.