This is the game with the filter:
This is the game without the filter:
A simple toggle for this would be enough.
Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues
- Thread starter Valorin
- Start date
This is the game with the filter:
This is the game without the filter:
A simple toggle for this would be enough.
Sterling MH
Banned
The link is about shader languages. Already know. But I guess you gotta pretend that I am ignorant of the tecnhicalities to hide your ignorance of logical and coherent argument. Sad.
And, again, if you'd HAD an argument rather than a fallacy, you'd present it first. An insult AFTER an argument can be taken as an insult, not an ad hom. However an insult in place of an argument IS an ad hom and an insult BEFORE argument is either ad hom or a poisoning of the well.
Again, educate yourself on logical discourse.
And realise that the only defence to DK is to know you have no defence to the DK.
- Muad'Dib rephrasing a Bene Gesserit aphorism.
Sterling MH
Banned
Yup. And if that works, then you can solve your problem now by fiddling with your TV to do the same thing.
But here's the thing. Does it fix any other image the complainers are unhappy about? Your original does not appear to have colour bleed or merging, nor a galaxy map badly coloured by ambient light. Does your fix "correct" those complaints, or not?
So you did this via a single toggle? No. you fiddled with the HSV curves. Not a toggle. And if this were done in game, tat would be a second postprocessing pass, not a removal of the current one or a change in the current one. So not a simple toggle.
Remembering that this is still 100% possible for you to do by changing the colour curves of your monitor. No FD required.
And,again, google images for Zodiacal light.
It's not the earth's atmosphere doing that. It's the interplanetary medium.
Lastly, two things. change your monitor to make that image and play the game. Post the changes to the HSV curves(or whichever method of colour representation you used) so that others can apply the same change. Find out if your idea works for anyone other than you and for any place other than that one location.
At the very least you will be helping people make do until something is changed in the game.
Last edited:
Then you may do some photometry and see how the intensity of the individual light sources do not change because of other light sources in the vicinity.
This is the point. The perception of the colours may change because of how human brains work, but there's no need to simulate that, because every single viewer already has their own brain to do that part. No need to do it twice.
This is what I was trying to say earlier using the example of the Herman grid (you don't need to paint the dark blobs at the intersections to show how the human brain will see the grid).
Last edited:
Check my bug report for further info. No, i didn't have to 'fiddle' with color curves. I don't know how often i have to point this out, but changing colors doesn't work. You'd need a seperate profile for every star system, and all UI colors that aren't tinted would look off as well. It also wouldn't solve the gradient change that the game applies when you fly away/towards a star. It's not a solution. Stop insisting that it is one.
There is a simple way to prevent the game from applying the filter. Unfortunately it's not permanent. Again, check my bug report.
Last edited:
Gods, you really love discussing, don't you? Checked what you are actually discussing here lately? I mean, what are you fighting for with all these fancy words and finger-pointing-fact-is sentences?
Apart from being a little bit over the top, it's also a bit off topic. Discussing and arguing for the sake of discussing and arguing is kinda pointless.
Don't get me wrong, it's nice how you keep this thread on the first page of the forum where it belongs, but don't you think you are spending a bit too much time on fighting, uhm... yeah, what exactly is your agenda here? I don't know. And actually I am also not keen about you telling me.
To go back to the topic, I created this thread because...
... Elite is a game taking pride in basing many of its functions on reality (see how I used words like "basing"? That means reality is taken into account into the presentation and functions and NOT that it's a 1:1 simulation)
... Elite and science go hand in hand and many things in the game respect real world physics to a believable degree (not, not EXACTLY and 100%! Alright?)
... the game is one of my favourite pasttimes after real world stuff is done, and I really, really love that it features the two points I meantioned above more than any other space game I know (that is not made with vector graphics), and that background and light source tinting really is a thorn in my side and yeah, it reduces my enjoyment of the game.
That's really all...
How's it believable that when you're parked right next to a star in your field of view, it doesn't affect your visual perception of your surroundings at all? That was the previous behavior.
Last edited:
But it also affects the colors when the star isn't in your field of view.
Q. E. D. - both approaches are unrealistic and this all boils down to aesthetic preference [haha]
Demonstrate it. Post a video or picture showing us your proof.
Sterling MH
Banned
Sorry. Did nobody tell you that this was a discussion board? EVERYONE is supposed to be here to discuss. Get with the program, dear.
Which means what? Words have to be used. It's called "communication". Without words, we can only point and grunt. Fine for some, I suppose. But I still fail to see why I am a bad man for doing any of this you have "seen" so far.
So don't go offtopic. Oh, you mean when *I* point out someone making a rhetorical error in their "argument", if such it be, it's offtopic, but when YOU do it, it's you being right.
No, I dont think reality works that way. Try to keep on topic. The topic isn't about me. Check the thread header.
The URL is "forums". Take a guess. What is YOUR agenda here?
No worries. You don't like the look. That's not an issue with the lighting, its an issue with a customer not liking it.
Why, however, are you telling me? I didn't tell you you were wrong. I never quoted you and corrected you until now. Why now? Because people who agree with your feelings are wrong and trying to make it my fault so that there's nothing to rebut and no counter to the "arguments" that support your feelings on the subjective experience of the new lighting must have no problems since anyone saing there is is a bad person, ergo wrong.
I mean if people like me were NOT wrong, why would you claim I was fighting and had an agenda? It's not like those words have negative connotations and eschew any form of logical reason and rationality is it?
Oh, hang on, yes, they do.
Last edited:
Only when you totally disregard what the game considers realistic.
Sterling MH
Banned
Yes. Light from diffuse objects that are in the field of view will STILL colour the view. And things that diffract will diffract light even when the light they diffract came from an object behind.
You assert as circular argument that the lighting is unrealistic because it affects colours when not in the FOV, and that they're not in the field of view, because you can't see them or their effect, so therefore the lighting is unrealistically affecting colours when not in the FOV...
Again, Zodiacal light. From the dust and crud in interplanetary space. But you'll only see it if you use sensitive equipment or are in a really dark place, like, for example, your ship blocking the light from a star behind you...
What the game considers "realistic" is whatever the developers release working as intended. This is not a static thing.
Before Multi-crew, the lore "considered realistic" that FTL communication didn't exist (hence data missions).
Now with Multi-crew, suddenly you have magical (perfectly instantaneous) FTL Holo-me galaxy-wide.
Please, tell me more about Elite's internal lore consistency [haha]
Last edited:
Sterling MH
Banned
What the game considers realistic is the lighting system they have now. By definition.
P1: the game defines realistic in its context
O1: The game has this lighting
C: the game considers this lighting realistic.
Sterling MH
Banned
Already have, dear.
Look at the colours of the screen. They are from "immutable" red green and blue. You will find no "grey" pixel on your monitor. We get the myriad colours by the spread of spectra from different coloured lights, none of those lights necessarily carrying the colour of any one of those pixels.
Apart from 0000FF, 00FF00 and FF0000, no colour from the RGB colourspae will EVER be seen on your monitor.
Yet you can still display "purple" on it.
Here, assuming that links are clickable for you:
https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/outputting/colour-spaces-explained/
Some colours cannot be shown on some devices even if they can be on others. You cannot get "gold" because it is not possible to produce that colour from an RGB colourspace. A gamut shows how much of the theoretical space in the colour coordinate system chosen can be displayed. Print and phospor, LED and LCD displays all show different gamuts.
We also see the same problem in perception. We can generally only discern some thousands of colours but the 32 bit RGB spacehas manyfold more. And failing eyesight or tetrachromatic cone receptors will change that gamut.
Plus filters like "redhancers" have a filter that puts a gap between the red and green spectrum beause the doping used for colour CCD work in cameras have a large overlap. A "red" CCD pixel will accept a defniitely greenish photon just as readily as the green CCD pixel would. So when you read off the charge in the CCD, how red WAS that photon???
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sure what you're babbling on about now - I wasn't aware that I was engaged in a "logical" dual to the death
... it kind of explains a lot. My argument is and has always been very simple: 1) I'm not very keen on the post processing filters
2) I think that the unavoidable changes to the HUD and Skybox are too great a sacrifice, for me personally
3) I would like the option to reduce or disable them if possible, and as someone who develops software based on the very same techniques, I suspect that it would be fairly easy to implement (although I conceded, I can not know that for certain)
It all seems very measured, but was met at every step by shrill, red faced blathering from yourself. Sorry Sterling MH, but my original instincts were correct - when it comes to conversing with your ilk online, the only winning move is not to play.
But yes, I concede brave sir, you win. Well played.
Last edited:
How would zodiacal light affect the HUD and the interior of the ship? Why does it effect the color of background stars, but is not visible by itself? That's not zodiacal light. If it's bright enough to affect the color of background objects, the whole area around the star should be glowing, judging by how it influences global lighting. It should not influence the color inside of your well lit craft either.
Last edited:
That is not demonstrating what you described. Your ‘example’ talks about light waves of different colours interfering (blending) with each other to form colour combinations (tending to white) which only happens when individual light sources can’t be distinguished from each other.
Your earlier assertion that I was referring to suggestsled that having individually distinguishable coloured LEDs will change the colour in the presence of other coloured light sources.
Show us *that* in action.
Because this whole thread is about how local coloured light sources should not affect other light sources, and it sounds like you’ve misunderstood what’s being described here.
A photo or video proof would help us to see what you are talking about.
Sterling MH
Banned
Again, not my problem. That's on your end of the internet. not this one.
Indeed, it explains why you have not managed a rational logical argument in support of your argument. An argument without a logical underpinning is called "irrational".- I wasn't aware that I was engaged it "logical" dual to the death
And it may not me. You have only ever said it IS possible. And that it is simple. Claims based on ignorance of what they did. But your argument may have been those three points in your head, but they aren't what you proclaimed.
Please stick to the generally accepted reality, not an alternative one you prefer.
So still more ad hom because you have no argument and are irrational. But like all the irrational, do not like that to happen. So the problem MUST be me, not you. So anything you don't like, like trump would say, is "fake news" and "a pack of lies".