Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[Sterling MH]

For crying out loud, it's not space dust, .

Nope, it is.
Well, it;s actually a simulated picture of what you'd see.This IS a game. But within the gameworld, it really IS space dust.

You provide prove first. And no, zodiacal light would not manifest like that, look it up.

Well, after you prove it isn't space dust. and all those proclamations about alternative facts that "prove" it can't be. I'll wait.

 

[Sterling MH]

No, it’s indiscriminate because it’s a post-processing pixel shader

Nope, the definition of indiscriminate is not "it's a post processing pixel shader". Full screen motion blur is ALSO post processing via (potentially) pixel shader. But it doesn't bluer the ENTIRE screen.

It's not indiscriminate. You don't know what goes in. INDISCRIMINATE would be just slapping a red shift over it all. Clearly THAT isn't going on. So there's a determinant to what it does. Making it non indiscriminate. look up the word.

 

[xondk]

There is a point to OP's point, but I think it might be the idea to simulate that the star light is hitting space dust and thus why that colour is there? but maybe should be expressed differently?

 

[Sterling MH]

There is a point to OP's point, but I think it might be the idea to simulate that the star light is hitting space dust and thus why that colour is there? but maybe should be expressed differently?

Said all along, some people don't like the change. They don't have to.

But it's simple to say "express it differently" however FD already did. Hence the complaints on the threads about the colouring. They expressed the colour differently and some don't like it. If they express it another way, why will that become acceptable?

Said all along that some control over how the screen looks by colour controls is not uncommon. That may help. If it doesn't, then it's wasted dev effort. So do that on your end and find what RGB curves you use to make it look good. If it doesn;t work everywhere, then the solution is not as simple as claimed. If it does, then you don't need it changed, but you HAVE proof what will change it for "the better" and that can be taken on as the same three sliders you used. Heck, maybe even telling the card to redo the colour correction rather than put it in the program itself: Windows will do the changes, see the control panel.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Maybe you need to actually ask NASA or whatever your local space agency is what THEY think. A claim made out of professed ignorance is one that is worth less than nothing. But 0/10 for effort trolling there, dude. Keep it up.

Way to lash out at an innocent bystander Be careful however, innocent bystanders can use google to actually prove their point:

source: https://www.nasa.gov/content/milky-way-viewed-from-the-international-space-station

now compare with this:

How's that for keeping up? [haha]

 

[krautbernd]

Nope again. And this one isn't even a claim. Weak. Try harder next time.

No, i meant dispersion when i metioned velocity.

Which means they exist in a per-volume volume in REAL SPACE. Average distance between things being, say, 1cm apart, means it is 1 per cubic cm. Which is 1000 per litre.

You still don't give densities in mass per litres, doubly so if you densities are low enough to measure average distances in kilometers and you're not measuring liquids but solids in empty space.

Intergalactic space has 1 atom per litre, at least if cosmology is correct. if you had them compressed into one hydrogen clump it would be the size of a nanogram dust particle. Your assertion is that dust is only 100 times or thereabouts more dense than intergalactic hydrogen...

Go on, tell me you did the maths. Where else could you have pulled this kms between dust motes from? Care to source it?

I'm not sure i understand what you're confused about. Hydogen is the most abundant element in the universe by far. Why should the interplanetary dust cloud be that much denser?

 

[krautbernd]

INDISCRIMINATE would be just slapping a red shift over it all. Clearly THAT isn't going on. So there's a determinant to what it does. Making it non indiscriminate. look up the word.

Have you even looked the screenshots? That is exactely what is oing on, at least far as the tint everbodies complaining about is concerned. The problem wouldn't exist if it was discriminate.

Edit:
added and fixed images

 

[Sterling MH]

No, i meant dispersion when i metioned velocity.

That still isn't it. Because that wasn't what the person you were complaining about meant. They said dispersion. Not you. So when you said velocity you were talking about soething that the person you were claiming it to was false. So, yes, NOPE. And wasn't even a claim.

You still don't give densities in mass per litres,.

Yes you do.

Well you do if you know what you're talking about.

Which I do.

doubly so if you densities are low enough to measure average distances in kilometers .

Which is not the case for dust. But you must still claim it PER VOLUME. because the space they are in is three dimensional. Try it one day. So when you claim one per km, you mean a single dimensional line. Per square km, a plane, and cubic kilometer is volume. And space is a volume.

But this is irrelvant because dust is not km spaced apart. Its per litre.

and you're not measuring liquids but solids in empty space.

Litres is not a liquid. Water is a liquid. Not litres.

I'm not sure i understand what you're confused about.

Not my problem. Fix your end of the internet. PEBKAC your end

Hydogen is the most abundant element in the universe by far. Why should the interplanetary dust cloud be that much denser?

Yes. Silicon is also very common. As is oxygen and nitrogen and carbon. All of which is in outer space.

So, your assertion is irrelvant. Care to find something that actually SAYS something? Or do you have nothing and this is the best you got?

Still waiting on your proof that it's km between dust motes in interplanetary space, too.

 

[Sterling MH]

Way to lash out at an innocent bystander]

Well let me know when there is one, will you.

Oh, regarding the pics. What? Nothing problematic there. See that glowy stuff? Dust. Emission from gasses. Nothing unrealistic there. When you see Nub shiggurath, let me know because that would be unrealistic.

 

[Sterling MH]

Have you even looked the screenshots?.

Yes.

That is exactely what is oing on, at least far as the tint everbodies complaining about is concerned. The problem wouldn't exist if it was discriminate.

Wrong. Hitchen again. When you decide to support your claim with proof, I'd then put more effort into it, If you don't want to, why should I?

Edit:
added and fixed images

Only by your personal preference is that "fixed". It's not "realistic", it's what you expected to see. And since you expectations are built on factually incorrect information, your conclusion is entirely and utterly wrong.

Oh, by the way, your "fixed" image is wrong. That neutron star is reddish in the middle. They aren't red. They're high in the upper wavelengths, most assuredly blue/white.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Well let me know when there is one, will you.

Oh, regarding the pics. What? Nothing problematic there. See that glowy stuff? Dust. Emission from gasses. Nothing unrealistic there. When you see Nub shiggurath, let me know because that would be unrealistic.

Still in denial? Well I'm too lazy to photoshop the solution for you, just mentally take the nice red milky way from the in game screenshot, rotate 90 degrees, put behind planet and then compare to actual photo from the space station. Oh, no red milky way on the NASA image you say? Atta boy!

 

[Sterling MH]

The only one making a fool of themselves here is you. When you HAVE an idea, give it a go. So far you failed to manage one.

Oh and colour me surprised. An image rotated to face a different way doesn't look the same as if oyu took the scene and rotated the scene camera that way? Do tell. Tell me, does turning away from a neutron star turn it into a ringed red blue and white object? Does it turn light falling in the cockpit from a star right in front that is blue, heavily blue, into red? No? Well that's what happens in the "fixed" image.

The "unfixed" one has a cockpit lit blue by a blue star. The "fixed" one has a lot of reds.

No amount of photoshop changes that.

 

[rhiz]

Nope, it is.
Well, it;s actually a simulated picture of what you'd see.This IS a game. But within the gameworld, it really IS space dust.

Well, after you prove it isn't space dust. and all those proclamations about alternative facts that "prove" it can't be. I'll wait.

Look, I really hope for your sake that you simply enjoy getting a rise out of people on the internet rather the alternative , but since you pride yourself on your skills as a logician, consider the following:

I took a flat, 2D jpg representing the kind of image that we saw prior to the update (bottom), brought it into photoshop and within 30 seconds of adjusting the color balance achieved results that were virtually identical to the more extreme cases in the current game (top).

So either:

A) FD are performing a series of remarkably complex and computationally crippling calculations that accurately model the behaviour of light and particles down to the minutest detail, and that remarkably this yields exactly the same results as a simple photoshop filter.

Or

B) This really is just a GLSL colour grading filter slapped on at the end of the render pipeline.

Which is more likely?

 

[Sterling MH]

Look, I really hope.

That I let you win? Or that I just accept that your assertion I am a bad person is true because... um... well, BECAUSE.

?

I took a flat, 2D jpg representing the kind of image that we saw prior to the update (bottom), brought it into photoshop and within 30 seconds of adjusting the color balance achieved results that were virtually identical to the more extreme cases in the current game (top)..

Good for you. But you claim "EXTREME" when that is your opinion. Changing a word doesn't make it any less your opinion.

So either:

A) FD are performing as series of remarkably complex and computationally crippling calculations that accurately model the behaviour of light and particles down to the minutest detail, and that remarkably this yields exactly the same results as a simple photoshop filter.

Or

B) This really is just a simple GLSL colour grading filter slapped on at the end of the render pipeline.

So tell me something relevant? It's got all to do with realism nor which is extreme.

It can be a really simple shader language routine to do a colour shading pass like they did for every frame of LoTR. But if the current output is more accurate to reality, it's more accurate to reality.

bernd things it cannot be, but that is based on the MFP between dust motes being kilometers. Since that isn't the case in reality and this simulates this real universe, his assertion is based on wrong data.GIGO.

No matter how much a simple GLSL shader pass it might be, it doesn't make it either indiscriminate or extreme or any of the other labels you have asserted as fact rather than personal opinion. Neither does it turn the assertion of "extreme" from subjective to objective.

If it did, then a GLSL pass you did made it MORE extreme. Added to the extremeness.

Note too that you changed one image. Do them all. Do them on the planets and tell me that they have not been beiged up.

 

[krautbernd]

Nope, it is. Well, it;s actually a simulated picture of what you'd see.This IS a game. But within the gameworld, it really IS space dust.

It can't be, seeing how discrimantes how and where it reflects light.

Well, after you prove it isn't space dust. and all those proclamations about alternative facts that "prove" it can't be. I'll wait.

I already did though, since dust doesn't discriminate between lit background and non-lit space. If it was dust, you should see it reflect light not only in areas that coincide with the lit background areas.

 

[Sterling MH]

It can't be, seeing how discrimantes how and where it reflects light..

Nope. Utterly wrong.

I already did though, since dust doesn't discriminate between lit background and non-lit space. If it was dust, you should see it reflect light not only in areas that coincide with the lit background areas.

Prove that dust doesnt discriminate between lit background ant non-lit space. Explain also what the difference is, because the background IS space and the only thing in really empty space IS photons (well gravitons too if they exist as per Standard Model). Heck the only place you GET photons is in empty space. And it's the only bit that IS "lit". By defiition, photons light up where it is.

Explain too why non lit space matters when it comes to matter (dust) reflecting light. If there's nolight coming from that direction (non lit space), then there's no light to reflect, so has no effect and is irrelvant.

Then prove that this "not discriminate" causes to reflect other than it does.

Oh, see the ocean on a sunny morn or eve? Or any windows where the sun is reflected? Is the sun behind that ocean water or gleaming window or not? I would say that reflections can come when the reflection is toward you from a plane that is facing the correct way, whether or not that plane is in front or "beside" the sun.

Sunsets glint off water though they are both EXTREMELY close to each other. not in completely separate quadrants.

And if you want to complain that the light needs to be coming from the sun only, I point to the sea again. you can see the blue sky reflected there too, not just the yellow sun's reflection. Where do you think that blue light comes from?

Oh, and best explain zodiacal light too if your assertions were in any realm a reality.

 

[Mengy]

Oh, regarding the pics. What? Nothing problematic there. See that glowy stuff? Dust. Emission from gasses. Nothing unrealistic there. When you see Nub shiggurath, let me know because that would be unrealistic.

Why are you so obtuse? You proposed to ask NASA what the galaxy looks like from Earth, someone correctly showed you a pic as we know very well what the Milky Way looks like from high Earth orbit and then showed how Elite is currently portraying it as very red which is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and then you simply dismiss it because the truth isn't fitting your inane argument?

Give it up dude, you're not doing yourself any favors here. Oh and stop insulting people just because they disagree with you, I've seen you do it several times and its making you look childish and immature which isn't helping your argument any.

 

[krautbernd]

That still isn't it. Because that wasn't what the person you were complaining about meant. They said dispersion. Not you. So when you said velocity you were talking about soething that the person you were claiming it to was false. So, yes, NOPE. And wasn't even a claim.

The space dust particulates could be small enough to diffract the light without being actively visible themselves. Floating around the heliosphere.

Nope, still says diffraction.

Yes you do.

Well you do if you know what you're talking about.

Which I do.

Nope, apparently not. You don't measure densities of solids in x/l. SI base unit would be kg/m³. The only case where you use kg/l would be when you have fluids. Tell me, is empty space a fluid?

Litres is not a liquid. Water is a liquid. Not litres.

See above - liquids = litres. Solids =m³ or cm³.

Not my problem. Fix your end of the internet. PEBKAC your end

Nope, not when you're making confused and non-sensical statements.

Yes. Silicon is also very common. As is oxygen and nitrogen and carbon. All of which is in outer space.

Proof that they are anywhere near as common as hydrogen? BTW, care to source statements regarding interplanetary hydrogen densities?

So, your assertion is irrelvant. Care to find something that actually SAYS something? Or do you have nothing and this is the best you got?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4759 for example, but i doubt you'll like what it says regarding dust density.

Still waiting on your proof that it's km between dust motes in interplanetary space, too.

See above. Average dust density is given as 10^−23.27gm/cm³ out to 1.53 AU. Single grain density 2.5 g/cm³, particle size about 100µm. I'm not really in the mood to do the math right now, so i guess you're going to have to tell me if that results in a particle density above or below interstellar hydrogen. While you're at it, explain to me why interstellar hydrogen density should be significant when we're talking about interplanetary space.

 

[rhiz]

That I let you win? Or that I just accept that your assertion I am a bad person is true because... um... well, BECAUSE.

I'm not saying that you're a bad person, it's just that when you refuse meet people half-way in a debate and respond so dismissively and offensively, it feels like you're deliberately provoking people. Sometimes things are simple, especially when it comes to game development. They've introduced these filters as a cheap and easy means of adding variety and atmosphere to the game - that's all.

By "extreme" I meant the greatest deviation from what we had prior to the update, and was referring specifically to the dimming of the HUD.

That's the point - we're not just talking about the skybox, but the HUD and every other element on screen. Taking all of that into account, can you really stand by your position? If so then fine, but there's no point in arguing any further.

 

[Sterling MH]

I'm not saying that you're a bad person,.

Nope, you are. because if it sticks, you are absolved of being disproved.

That's the point

There's no "the point". bernd here insists that dust doesn't exist like that and doesn't reflect, if it did, no matter how dense, makes a glow because "that's discriminate". Others whine that its not realistic, you insist it's about the current scheme being "extreme" and "indiscriminate". You insist that "it will all be fixed by a simple GLSL program" AND "the planets will look fine because the changes for some reason don't make the planets change colour".

The point is that YOUR assertion "extreme" is YOUR opinion. Your assertion it will be fixed by that is based on what you ASSUME, not what you KNOW, yet you act like this MUST be knowledge because you are an expert in GLSL. THAT is the appeal to authority fallacy. Likewise the assertion the planets won't beige was a point you now pretend out of existence, because whatever I argue you get wrong is "not the point" afterward. And a point made up out of nothing again. At least I said could. And gave a non conclusive argument for the causal link to that. You? Nothing. Just you know GLSL (I know enough to not have to read your link, despite your attempts to pretend I am unlettered here too).

But this isn't about what you can fiddle with images.

You made a new point, now consigned to pretendland, that you took the old images and fudged them to look "much like" the current ones. This proves nothing. Can prove nothing. Only that a lot of the change is in the lighting of a scene.

Given the entire patchlist for this feature IS "we include colouring from more than one light source now", this is hardly divine inspiration to tease out.

Yes, colouration has been added, so if you futz with the colour, you can get something similar.

But look at kwhatever's post. See his picture that he claims is "fixed"? Notice how the previously blue lit cockpit by a blue neutron star no longer has a blue lit cockpit when he "fixes" it?

Or does he have no point?

In which case, why are you not arguing that he has no case, no point, and leaving it to me?