Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[krautbernd]

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.

I already pointed this out to him, but he conveniently ignores everything that doesn't fit into his view of things. Yes, color blending exists, but it's not an explanation for tinting the whole screen instead of just the area directly around the star.

 

[Sterling MH]

A photo or video proof would help us to see what you are talking about.

if the photo does not display on your monitor, then how will you see it? And if your monitor is fine to view this proof, then I don't need to: you're already looking at the monitor that shows that the colour you see is changed by nearby lights, whether they are that colour or not.

Flerfers keep demanding a picture of a round earth, but they will never accept one given because that's always "faked CGI". Not good to copy their demanding natures.

Oh, and find "black" on your monitor.

Heck turn it off. See how not black it is. Quite black, yes, not not nearly as black as the black background of this page you are reading. Yet that not quite black is the same colour. just doesn't look like it.

If yo're not going to believe your own monitor and eyes, how do you expect a photo or video that appears there from me to change your mind???

 

[krautbernd]

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.

Do you see any tinting in this image? I don't see any tinting either. Ergo the cockpit view isn't realistic. End of story.

 

[Sterling MH]

Do you see any tinting in this image? I don't see any tinting either. Ergo the cockpit view isn't realistic. End of story.

Do you see any cockpit in that image? No? Then it's not in the same location. you know, that location that has the lights and things that you insist must be fake news.

Take a white piece of paper. Look how white it is. Now take it outside. Look at it under the orange sodium streetlight. It is TINTED!!!! I guess outside your house must be fake news too....

 

[krautbernd]

if the photo does not display on your monitor, then how will you see it? And if your monitor is fine to view this proof, then I don't need to: you're already looking at the monitor that shows that the colour you see is changed by nearby lights, whether they are that colour or not.

Not the point, stop trying to misdirect the argument. We're talking about light sources that aren't close to each other and hence don't blend. They aren't even foxused on the same area.

 

[Valorin]

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.

It's not. I like the new look when in scooping range around stars. It feels too bright and hot, just like a star should feel if you're sitting next to it. It's just that the issue now is bigger than the issue before and affects the whole system.

 

[Sterling MH]

I already pointed this out to him,

Yes, it was. And it was wrong. As I have already pointed out to you. But you conveniently ignore everything that doesn't fit into your view of things.

Yes, color blending exists, but it's not an explanation for tinting the whole screen instead of just the area directly around the star.

Yes it does explain. Again, zodiacal light. How many times will you ignore that?

 

[krautbernd]

Do you see any cockpit in that image? No? Then it's not in the same location. you know, that location that has the lights and things that you insist must be fake news.

I see you do understand how ED generates galctic backdrops. Not. Protip: That's the same area of sky, at practically the same position in relation to the rest of the galaxy.

Take a white piece of paper. Look how white it is. Now take it outside. Look at it under the orange sodium streetlight. It is TINTED!!!! I guess outside your house must be fake news too....

That's not how emissive light sources work, and this has already been pointed out to you multiple times by now.

 

[Sterling MH]

It's not. I like the new look when in scooping range around stars. It feels too bright and hot, just like a star should feel if you're sitting next to it.

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

It's just that the issue now is bigger than the issue before and affects the whole system.

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.

 

[da_wae]

It's not. I like the new look when in scooping range around stars. It feels too bright and hot, just like a star should feel if you're sitting next to it. It's just that the issue now is bigger than the issue before and affects the whole system.

Makes sense. That's why I support this approach:

Hey OP and like-minded CMDRs, what if the "range" of the tinting was greatly reduced? There is indeed a range, though I suspect it's ridiculously far out from larger stars. Visit a neutron star and fly away from it, and it doesn't take too long for the galaxy to look like it did before the 3.3 update (mostly).

I'm personally okay if the skybox tints when I'm fuel scooping, as I think of myself as in the corona, and my cockpit's adaptive tinted windows are being saturated with colored light (which actual can tint what we see through that glass). However this effect should very quickly dissipate once we head away from the star.

I bring this up because this would just be a variable in the code for Frontier to tweak, which theoretically should be very easy to do.

 

[Sterling MH]

I see you do understand how ED generates galctic backdrops.Not.

I see that you dont read what you quoted. I said "Do you see a cockpit in that view?". Your sniffy posting is irrelevant to rebutting that but presented as if it does so.

This does not work in logic and rationality.

Galactic backdrops are not built from the in-system lighting. It ignores "local lighting". Computationally necessary, else everyone would need a freshly generated galaxy map for every location the lighting exists.

However they don't need to do that. So they don't. They already HAVE the lightsources relevant to your cockpit when generating your cockpit view, so it doesn't cost any more for them to do it there, and they DO want to do it there.

So they do.

That's not how emissive light sources work, .

As you proclaim. But proclamation ex nihilo is refuted by hitchens' razor. I don't NEED to do more than that, though I've DONE SO before. It was ignored. So now you just get "that which is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence".

" That's the same area of sky, at practically the same position in relation to the rest of the galaxy."
But NOT the galaxy map.

The galaxy map is not lit by your cockpit. Try turning the lights on and watch the image not change. Not lit by the cockpit.

So to YOUR picture, show me where the galaxy map is in there.

Or go outside with a white piece of paper. Watch it be white. Then come back inside and look at it under the harsh blue white light of your room's lightbulb and notice how it is TINTED! Indoors for you must be fake news.

 

[babelfisch]

Do you see any cockpit in that image? No? Then it's not in the same location. you know, that location that has the lights and things that you insist must be fake news.

Take a white piece of paper. Look how white it is. Now take it outside. Look at it under the orange sodium streetlight. It is TINTED!!!! I guess outside your house must be fake news too....

I think you are making some good points for a tinted cockpit, but not for a tinted galaxy. When I have a blue lightbulb in my room and look out the window the moon doesn't become blue. Well, I believe it doesn't, I don't have a blue lightbulb to test it.

 

[rhiz]

Again, not my problem. That's on your end of the internet. not this one.

Yes, and thank Christ for that. Mate, just look back at our interactions. You're embarrassing yourself. The End.

 

[Sterling MH]

Not the point, .

Wrong. it IS the point. That was in response to someone who demanded I post them a photo proving my point.

Making my post 100% the point.

DO keep up.

 

[Sterling MH]

Yes, and thank Christ for that. Mate, just look back at our interactions. You're embarrassing yourself. The End.

And "igorance is bliss" is a truism for many people. Glad I prefer to know things rather than relish a dunning kruger issue.

Thing about the DK is they have no avenue for embarrasment. Just rewrite alternative facts until everything is in your favour. See Trump.

Doesn't stop them lashing out in anger that they aren't adulated like they think they deserve.

 

[krautbernd]

I see that you dont read what you quoted. I said "Do you see a cockpit in that view?". Your sniffy posting is irrelevant to rebutting that but presented as if it does so.

This does not work in logic and rationality.

Galactic backdrops are not built from the in-system lighting. It ignores "local lighting". Computationally necessary, else everyone would need a freshly generated galaxy map for every location the lighting exists.

Which is way local lgihting shouldn't influence the background and it shouldn't be tinted. Because it's not supposed to act like a piece of paper.

As you proclaim. But proclamation ex nihilo is refuted by hitchens' razor. I don't NEED to do more than that, though I've DONE SO before. It was ignored. So now you just get "that which is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence".

Does your scrap of paper emit light by itself, without setting it on fire? No? There's your evidence. Paper is not a light source. Feel free to disprove this by showing me an ordinary piece of paper that emits light without any external source of energy. Take your time.

The galaxy map is not lit by your cockpit. Try turning the lights on and watch the image not change. Not lit by the cockpit.

So it's the cockpit that's emitting the light? Two pages back it was zodiacal light. What's next? A piece of paper? The galaxy map and the background image are generated the same way - or used to, anyway, before the update. Hence the distinction between realtisic-unrealistic.

 

[Sterling MH]

I think you are making some good points for a tinted cockpit, but not for a tinted galaxy.

There's no tinting.

The "tinting" claimed is because you're taking an image white balanced against 6000K and an image balanced for the room lighting you are in and then proclaiming that the one balanced for 6000K white is "real" and the one you see with your own eyes is "wrong".

When I have a blue lightbulb in my room and look out the window the moon doesn't become blue. Well, I believe it doesn't, I don't have a blue lightbulb to test it.

Try turning the light off. See the moon get brighter.

How? Because your eye has to close because of the room ambient light. But if those photons are making your eyes close up a little, then the photons must be being recieved.

And if they are being recieved, why do they not change the colour balance, like any other light source your eye sees, whether in the direct view or not?

We ignore the presence of visual purple here.

If you dont think you can see (fair enough, -25 magnitude to -24 magnitude is not readily discernable, try it with the stars. A star at -5 may not appear at all if you're standing in your room with the light on, no matter how dark and clear the night, but turning it off changes the view and you may see that -5 magnitude star but not quite the -6 ones.

With only one moon, it's hard to cross compare. But appearing stars CAN be cross compared since there are lots of them up there.

 

[krautbernd]

And if they are being recieved, why do they not change the colour balance, like any other light source your eye sees, whether in the direct view or not?

It's called Adaptation. Color and brightness aren't the same thing fyi. Color is determined by the wavelength of the photon. Brightness by the amount of photons hitting your eye (though shorter wavelength = higher energy).

 

[Sterling MH]

Which is way local lgihting shouldn't influence the background

So you want the less realistic. Dont claim it to be more realistic, then. because local lighting DOES affect the background.

Does your scrap of paper emit light by itself,

No. But YOU were the one using cardboard. Tell me, how do you know there is no light source? You don't. You merely assert.

AGAIN.

ZODIACAL LIGHT.

So it's the cockpit that's emitting the light?

No. Because there is no "the light". There's light sources. One of which will be high beams if you have them on, and not include them when off.

You DO know how light switches work, right?

So if the galaxy map is in the same cockpit, meaning the cockpit view should match it, being under the same lighting conditions, turning the high beams on and off will show a difference, since they are by definition an additional light source when turned on.

Since this doesn't happen, we can conclusively prove that the galaxy map is NOT in the cockpit.

Therefore the posting of an image of the galaxy from the galactic map is no more proof that your white paper is actually orange than me taking a picture of it in normal indoor lighting but set a white balance for 8000K. Which are you going to believe? Your lying eyes or my photograph taken under incorrect white balance settings??!??!?

Two pages back it was zodiacal light.

Go look it up.

Tell me that it must be fake pictures because black interplanetary space has no lighting in it...

 

[babelfisch]

There's no tinting.

The "tinting" claimed is because you're taking an image white balanced against 6000K and an image balanced for the room lighting you are in and then proclaiming that the one balanced for 6000K white is "real" and the one you see with your own eyes is "wrong".



Try turning the light off. See the moon get brighter.

How? Because your eye has to close because of the room ambient light. But if those photons are making your eyes close up a little, then the photons must be being recieved.

And if they are being recieved, why do they not change the colour balance, like any other light source your eye sees, whether in the direct view or not?

We ignore the presence of visual purple here.

If you dont think you can see (fair enough, -25 magnitude to -24 magnitude is not readily discernable, try it with the stars. A star at -5 may not appear at all if you're standing in your room with the light on, no matter how dark and clear the night, but turning it off changes the view and you may see that -5 magnitude star but not quite the -6 ones.

With only one moon, it's hard to cross compare. But appearing stars CAN be cross compared since there are lots of them up there.

Rational thinking dictates that the colour of the moon might change the light in my room, but the light in my room will not change the colour of the moon.