Ummm...that screenshot actually looks OK to me.
If you're on a red planet surface (similar to Mars), and you are bathing in the very blue/violet light of an O-Type star, then these are the colours I would expect to see.
:S
Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues
- Thread starter Valorin
- Start date
Ummm...that screenshot actually looks OK to me.
If you're on a red planet surface (similar to Mars), and you are bathing in the very blue/violet light of an O-Type star, then these are the colours I would expect to see.
:S
Well, we can actually just assume how it would look I guess. Perhaps exactly like on the picture... It's just cringeworthy.
i agree that there is not much wrong in that screenshot
just the lack of shadows from the smoke, and the missing illumination of the from the in-wheel lights, destroys the whole image for me
I'm not an astronomer, but I doub't very seriously that any REAL planets look like that. Mars is a "red" planet and it looks more like the brownish red seen in some parts of the US southwest. Its not shiny and vibrant. We might want to wish that planets come in every shiny color of the rainbow but I doubt thats very likely. Planets are made of rocks, dirt, and various scattered elements. I doubt any of them are pure enough, and polished enough, to show all those shiny vibrant colors. Dirt and rocks certainly will have various TINTS based on what their general composition is...
Some folks may like the new cotton candy universe, but if what you want is some semblance of reality, then the bright shiny crap needs to be dialed back out...
Some folks may like the new cotton candy universe, but if what you want is some semblance of reality, then the bright shiny crap needs to be dialed back out...
I dont think you did and I'm right with you there. The "new lighting" is, on the whole, great. Its just this overall color-gradient applied AFTER teh lights are rendered to the 2D space that is so dreadful
Yea, but what would Mars look like if our Sun was frickin' blue? Especially if you were down on the surface and getting blasted from much closer? It might not be cotton candy but it wouldn't look like it does to us now, which is what you draw the comparison to.
That image looks more like what you'd expect if you had a red surface illuminated by a cool white light with a deep blue filter. It just seems overdone. Our sun is about 5500K in color temperature and you can buy indoor lights with this color, if you buy a lamp with a 3800K temperature it still looks white to you, as does a much bluer light closer to say 9000K. Your eyes are very good at interpreting light as white which is why photography and video require color balancing or you'll get some very oddly colored images.
That blue star in the image is bluish but in reality it would produce white light with a blue tint, at that range I doubt you would see blue, just extremely bright white light. It is not the same as a blue color filter, filters are designed to absorb most colors outside a limited range. That image looks like they applied a blue filter to the light source.
Unfortunately FDEV have no clue how color temperature works, or else they wouldn't have made our sun emit orange-red light.
Stars are not colored lamps, they emit a spectrum of different wavelengths. Our sun emits all colors of the rainbow more or less evenly and in physics, we call this combination "white".
In the case of a (hot) blue star that spectrum is shifted more to the blue (ultraviolet) side, while in the case of a (colder) red star this spectrum is shifted more to the red (infrared) side.
Even a white-blue star emits some red light, which is reflected by a red surface, which makes it appear red to our eyes.
A red surface reflects red light and absorbs all other light, a pink surface reflects red and blue light.
If a star were to purely emit blue light, everything would be blue or dark. A red surface would be just greyish-blue, since there would be no red light to reflect. It wouldn't be pink, unless it reflects some blue light.
Last edited:
Unfortunately FDEV have no clue how color temperature works, or else they wouldn't have made our sun emit orange-red light.
Stars are not colored lamps, they emit a spectrum of different wavelengths. Our sun emits all colors of the rainbow more or less evenly and in physics, we call this combination "white".
In the case of a (hot) blue star that spectrum is shifted more to the blue (ultraviolet) side, while in the case of a (colder) red star this spectrum is shifted more to the red (infrared) side.
Even a white-blue star emits some red light, which is reflected by a red surface, which makes it appear red to our eyes.
A red surface reflects red light and absorbs all other light, a pink surface reflects red and blue light.
If a star were to purely emit blue light, everything would be blue or dark. A red surface would be just greyish-blue, since there would be no red light to reflect. It would be pink, unless it reflects some blue light.
Yeah, that's better technical explanation than I wanted to get into. I'm a broadcast video engineer so I've worked with video cameras from a hardware side for a long time, back to tubes. But, there is something definitely wrong with how the lighting is handled in the game. Most of the time it's not too bad but that picture is just wrong. I don't expect they would be using pure blue and I'm not even sure how it would look in a studio with standard blue filters on studio lights. It would be a rare studio setup that had nearly pure blue filters.
This really needs to be addressed, if FD even care about the quality of the game anymore?
Last edited:
Unfortunately FDEV have no clue how color temperature works, or else they wouldn't have made our sun emit orange-red light.
Stars are not colored lamps, they emit a spectrum of different wavelengths. Our sun emits all colors of the rainbow more or less evenly and in physics, we call this combination "white".
In the case of a (hot) blue star that spectrum is shifted more to the blue (ultraviolet) side, while in the case of a (colder) red star this spectrum is shifted more to the red (infrared) side.
Even a white-blue star emits some red light, which is reflected by a red surface, which makes it appear red to our eyes.
A red surface reflects red light and absorbs all other light, a pink surface reflects red and blue light.
If a star were to purely emit blue light, everything would be blue or dark. A red surface would be just greyish-blue, since there would be no red light to reflect. It wouldn't be pink, unless it reflects some blue light.
Thanks.
That star that lights up the planet I am on on that candy picture emits purple light. No matter the colour of the planet, it stays purple, also the rings. The planet I am on is grey I think.
But going back to our sun, it's yellow in the game, paints the complete background, including the Milky Way, nebulas, stars in a reddish tint which is still being seen when in Earth orbit. I think our sun is the best example to look at if you're checking on the new lighting system. I don't know if they changed anything about the sun's colour or if it's just the new lighting and colour grading that adds so much vibrance that colours are being falsified. But in the game, our sun is very wrong now.
I've commented elsewhere so won't repeat myself.
Suffice to say that the new lighting has an upside (dark side of planets) and downside (washed out, over exposed, lack of detail). I hope FD understands that the Stella Forge is one of (if not the) best features of ED and mucking around with it could significantly impact of the popularity of the game. I know some players will dispute this, but over the past couple of years there have been a number of threads on this forum about the best features of the game and the Stella Forge always gets top billing.
As for me, since 3.3 I'm really struggling to get past the degraded graphics in VR when on planet surfaces in low lighting. It is so underwhelming.
Suffice to say that the new lighting has an upside (dark side of planets) and downside (washed out, over exposed, lack of detail). I hope FD understands that the Stella Forge is one of (if not the) best features of ED and mucking around with it could significantly impact of the popularity of the game. I know some players will dispute this, but over the past couple of years there have been a number of threads on this forum about the best features of the game and the Stella Forge always gets top billing.
As for me, since 3.3 I'm really struggling to get past the degraded graphics in VR when on planet surfaces in low lighting. It is so underwhelming.
Last edited:
IMO, this is not really an improvement. They've simply traded one lighting weakness (dark side of planets being light when they should be dark) for another ('dark side' of planets being dark when they should be light).
As you get closer to the core, the ambient light from the galaxy *should* give the 'dark side' of planets an ambient light, with a bit of extra colour if you're inside a nebula too.
I really hope they restore the old method of using the galaxy backdrop as an ambient light source, and just dial back the intensity.
It's infinitely better than it was before. In the old system the planet would light itself up as you got closer. This had nothing to do with ambient light it was just some kind of dumb auto-brightening "feature" which kicked in below a certain altitude. You could dip in and out of the threshold with your ship and turn the light on and off. It was terrible and looked stupid not to mention half the time the night side of the planet was brighter than the day side. It's way way better now.
But yeah it's still really stupid that Elite can't figure out a way to take into account multiple suns, where part of a planet can be pitch black despite there being a big huge star looming overhead.
I beg to disagree. The lighting is straight out broken. The old system at least made sense taking into account that our canopy has some technomagic that amps up environmental light. Now they turned that from 'normal' to 'inverse'.
Last edited:
I really love the dark sides of planets now, but I also think the whole new lighting is a bit too generally applied to everything. Doesn't seem right in many places.
Well. And there is the tinting... still... I'll join DW2 and I hope so much for a fix for the background-tinting-issue. I'll be in space for a very long time.
Being 6000 ly closer to the core I've been jumped by a few more tinting attacks:
This is the black hole at Thor's eye and it would be absolutely epic if the Milky Way I used as a background to be distorted wouldn't be inked in blue by the blue/purple O-type in this system.
And that's really no dust or anything, The whole blueish cloud showing the black hole's distortion is in the background. Skybox.
This is the black hole at Thor's eye and it would be absolutely epic if the Milky Way I used as a background to be distorted wouldn't be inked in blue by the blue/purple O-type in this system.
And that's really no dust or anything, The whole blueish cloud showing the black hole's distortion is in the background. Skybox.
I agree to this topic,
thinking as if we were in Paintshop, it looks like that FD added a layer on top of everything with some color filter that depends on the star type which gives, in this case, a cheap result.
thinking as if we were in Paintshop, it looks like that FD added a layer on top of everything with some color filter that depends on the star type which gives, in this case, a cheap result.