Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[krautbernd]

Nope. Utterly wrong.

Nope, utterly right if you look at how how it's renderd in-game - only the lit background areas are tinted, everything else is utterly black. So somehoe the dust perfeclty resembles the form of the lit background areas. Otherwise you would observe a glow in dark areas. There goes your hypthesis.

Prove that dust doesnt discriminate between lit background ant non-lit space..

No. The notion itself is preposterous. How would dust, which isn't sentient, be able to discriminate between light levels? Prove to me that it does discriminate. Proof to me it is sentient. Otherwise get lost, and take your harebrained ideas with you.

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.

Because non-lit areas would have to be lit by the reflected light.

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.

Because you would see the light reflected from the local star, which you don't. Ergo no dust in those areas.

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

what?

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.

You equate the ocean with space. I don't need to answer any of that.

 

[Old Duck]

I don't know if anybody in this thread is interested in getting back on topic, but I'm jumping back in just long enough to mention that something is

REALLY SCREWED UP

with this lighting system. Go find a system with just a neutron star (I can't remember if the NS in the bubble has other stars in the system), and look both at the galaxy and your own ship from the external camera when you first jump in. It's a cold, very noticeable blue light (which oddly turns the galaxy green). Now fly a few thousand LS away from that NS. Not only will the skybox look like pre-3.3, but your ship will look like it's being illuminated by a white light source instead of a blue light source. In other words, I'm beginning to question if Frontier is even using colored light sources, or if they are just filtering the final image via post-processing. If the NS was truly emitting blue light, then my ship would reflect that blue light regardless of distance from the star. The light would grow dimmer, but it would not shift to white of similar intensity, unless Frontier is trying to simulate some weird optical nerve phenomena that I'm unfamiliar with...

Can't afford a blue bulb, just put on the blue-lens sunglasses instead!

 

[Sterling MH]

Nope, still says diffraction.

Yes. So when you said velocity you were wrong, diffraction has nothig to do with velocity.


"Nope, apparently not. You don't measure densities of solids in x/l."
Nope.

" SI base unit would be kg/m³. "
Nope, litre is a metric unit of volume. you DO know that kilo grammes are not a unit, it;s a thousand units of a gramme. cgs system. See, there's not just SI units. and pretending otherwise is just you being a fool.

"The only case where you use kg/l would be when you have fluids."
Nope.



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

Nope.

"Nope, not when you're making confused and non-sensical statements."
Nope. It being entirely over your head does not make it nonsensical, just that you cannot comprehend it. Different.


"Proof that they are anywhere near as common as hydrogen? BTW, care to source statements regarding interplanetary hydrogen densities?"
Proof I said it was "as common as hydrogen".


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

Nope. Why? Because the title of the paper is not what you claim. "An improved model for the infrared emission from the zodiacal dust cloud: cometary, asteroidal and interstellar dust".

Explain to me how they can measure something that you claim does not exist?


"See above. Average dust density is given as 10^−23.27gm/cm³ out to 1.53 AU. Single grain density 2.5 g/cm³,"

Yup. So a dust grain is not km apart.

"particle size about 100µm. I'm not really in the mood to do the math right now,"

Go ahead. Try it.

" so i guess you're going to have to tell me if that results in a particle density above or below interstellar hydrogen. "

Above.

"While you're at it, explain to me why interstellar hydrogen density should be significant when we're talking about interplanetary space"

Why should dust be as rare as hydrogen in intergalactic space? Your assertion was ridiculous because it would make the interplanetary medium rarer than the intergalactic one.

 

[Sterling MH]

Now fly a few thousand LS away from that NS.

So you're saying that the closer you are to a light source that is not a white spectrum, the more coloured your view is by that tint?

Tell me, how is that messed up? That's what happens in real life. Try going a long way from a strong blue light (so you can easily see it) and tell me what colour your hands look, and compare it to when you're really close. Does it not look a lot more blue when you're near it?

Does for me.

 

[Sterling MH]

You equate the ocean with space. I don't need to answer any of that.

Nope, I equate reflection with reflection. Space doesn't reflect. Dust does. Ocean does. Do keep up. Since this is such errant nonsens, the rest of that drivel is ignored. Try a post with ideas that ARE based in reality. If you can only manage one like that, try just that one.

 

[galahad2069]

Nope. Utterly wrong.



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.

Here's a picture showing both the Milky Way and the zodiacal light:
http://www.astronomy.com/-/media/Images/News and Observing/News/2018/10/zodiacallight.jpg

Now check out this one:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4813/46084661781_d753a09b5d_o.png

The source of the tint (~discolouration of the Milky Way) you can see in the second (ingame) image cannot be caused by the interplanetary dust, because
1. the tint only affects the Milky Way, while the zodiacal light should be visible even where there are no background stars
2. since the density of the dust is not the same everywhere (it's a disc, not a sphere) and the planetary planes rarely coincide with the galactic plane, it shouldn't affect the whole Milky Way uniformly.

 

[krautbernd]

Yes. So when you said velocity you were wrong, diffraction has nothig to do with velocity.

Dispersion has, which was my point, me being a non-native speaker.

"Nope, apparently not. You don't measure densities of solids in x/l."
Nope.

Densitites for solids are given in g/cm³ or kg/m³, as per SI.

" SI base unit would be kg/m³. "
Nope, litre is a metric unit of volume. you DO know that kilo grammes are not a unit, it;s a thousand units of a gramme. cgs system. See, there's not just SI units. and pretending otherwise is just you being a fool.

Litre is a derived unit, not a base unit, hence densities are usually given in kg/m³. kg is actually a base unit, believe it or not. CGS is deprecated, and for good reason.

"The only case where you use kg/l would be when you have fluids."
Nope.

Yeah, i guess people who use cgs are different.

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

I can think of no good reason where you would give the density of solids in kg/litres. None.

"Proof that they are anywhere near as common as hydrogen? BTW, care to source statements regarding interplanetary hydrogen densities?"
Proof I said it was "as common as hydrogen".

You were the one citing other elements being as common and compared space dust to hydrogen. Show my why the density shouldn't be only hundreds times higher, given that hydrogne makes up about 75% of all mass in the universe.

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

Nope. Why? Because the title of the paper is not what you claim. "An improved model for the infrared emission from the zodiacal dust cloud: cometary, asteroidal and interstellar dust".

Because they also measure the mass-density of zodiacal dust. Read it, then you can go complain. Don't complain about something without knowing what it contains.

Explain to me how they can measure something that you claim does not exist?

I never said dust doesn't exist. I said your hypthetical duest in the game doesn't bahave like the dust you compare it too. Lern to read. I'm getting of repreating myself.

"See above. Average dust density is given as 10^−23.27gm/cm³ out to 1.53 AU. Single grain density 2.5 g/cm³,"

Yup. So a dust grain is not km apart.

"particle size about 100µm. I'm not really in the mood to do the math right now,"

Go ahead. Try it.

" so i guess you're going to have to tell me if that results in a particle density above or below interstellar hydrogen. "

Above.

Show me your math, then we'll talk. Like i said, should be easy for you to calculate.

"While you're at it, explain to me why interstellar hydrogen density should be significant when we're talking about interplanetary space"

Why should dust be as rare as hydrogen in intergalactic space? Your assertion was ridiculous because it would make the interplanetary medium rarer than the intergalactic one.

Dust != Hydrogen. What is the density of interstellar dust? Do you think dust is everything in interplanetary or interstellar medium? No, but it's part of it, like hydrogen.

 

[Strangepork]

Whoever read the beta forum might remember my thread there.
This is actually my greatest, and almost the only, complain I have about Chapter 4. I can't look past it and it's everywhere. If you just play the game for a gamey fantasy space experience, you might not care about it in any way, but if you are only a little bit into the science of the game, you might hate it as much as I do.

That galaxy we live in is a beautiful thing, and the impression it makes on the night sky is absolutely impressive. Elite never really got that right, but it is there and it's basically our view on the Stellar Forge and the gameworld wie play in. So why treat it with that little respect? The new lighting and colour grading systems tint everything in a system, and in some cases that really looks impressive. Trouble is, that it also tints other light sources in the system and, which is the issue I am complaining about, it tints the background.

Our beautiful Milky Way is a red haze when around a red star. It is dipped in ink when around a blue one. The whole background, also containing the stars and nebulas are tinted in the star's colour.

Put simply: it's wrong. It looks wrong, feels wrong, is scientifically incorrect to an extend that I stopped making screenshots in space because it just looks horrible for me.
I mean, of course that red haze looks dramatic and atmospheric, and that's okay if we play a game like No Man's sky, which is very light hearted and set in a fantasy space. In Elite though it doesn't fit in at all.
It kinda insults all the effort the devs put into the science of the game. Sure, the game also compromises because it's a game, but it's about things like these:

- The star types.
- The gravity system.
- The sounds based on astronomical data when targetting planets in the FSS.
- The realistic textures of cracked asteroids.
- The vast galaxy simulation based on astronomic data.
- All the little things I forgot that make Elite unique and interesting simply by being closer to science than any other space game out there.

So why would treat the representation of all these things, the Milky Way and everything else in the background, in such a way? I really don't know.

And yeah, I know it's the post process effect and that it tints everything and that this seems to be intended and so on... Doesn't change that it's wrong. If you play Skyrim you know the beautiful auroras, and you know the beautiful sunrises. Imagine seeing the aurora instead of a sunrise. Still beautiful, but so wrong it's not enjoyable anymore. For me it's even on a higher level of wrong.

I'd love to see this issue killed. it's a bug. And if it's being kept in I'd love a toggle.

Milky Way in a system with a blue star


Orange star - yes the red slur is actually the Milky Way


Blue star with Smurfy Way and Heart and Soul nebulas in the background


That's in Earth orbit...


That's ships in supercruise tinted by an orange star


A few of these pictures are from beta, but I didn't spot any difference in the live version. Otherwise I wouldn't have created this thread.

This so need sorting, it's so lazy to pop instagram filters over the whole game.

 

[Sterling MH]

Dispersion has, which was my point, me being a non-native speaker.

So you have no point. Irrelevant.


"Densitites for solids are given in g/cm³ or kg/m³, "

Nope. Densities can be in for any medium. Gas, liquid, solid or plasma. Air has a density about 1kg per m3.


Litre is not derived. It is defined canonically as 1000 cubic centimeters.

Since you continue to proclaim fatuously arrogant idocies, the rest of your dribble is likewise going to be dribble and just as wrong.

 

[krautbernd]

Here's a picture showing both the Milky Way and the zodiacal light:
http://www.astronomy.com/-/media/Images/News and Observing/News/2018/10/zodiacallight.jpg

Now check out this one:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4813/46084661781_d753a09b5d_o.png

The source of the tint (~discolouration of the Milky Way) you can see in the second (ingame) image cannot be caused by the interplanetary dust, because
1. the tint only affects the Milky Way, while the zodiacal light should be visible even where there are no background stars
2. since the density of the dust is not the same everywhere (it's a disc, not a sphere) and the planetary planes rarely coincide with the galactic plane, it shouldn't affect the whole Milky Way uniformly.

This, but i doubt he'll care - or understand.

 

[Sterling MH]

This, but i doubt he'll care - or understand.

there;s nothing there. Someone who proclams that only solids are done in kg/m3 has no claim to know what reality is. His posting is likewise rubbish of no content that relates to reality.

 

[nanite2000]

Can you show me a quote that says it isn't?
You can see the things I mentioned. They're even modelled. Verisimilitude, but modeled nonetheless. Remember, that was to someone who pointed out that the field of view is NOT empty.

It isn't.

Even discarding space dust, which is a thing, no need to ask FD if it exists, we have reality to ask. Go ask it.

So unless you can find FD saying they wanted to fake images in the cockpit, can you stop saying the images are wrong? By definition of those using the galaxy map and prior images as "proof" of what "realistic" is for ED, that realistic has now changed to this one. It is canonically and definitionally realistic for the game.

Discarding that you need to show REAL realistic pictures that show what you expected to see in this game.

Go ahead. Feel free to find some.

Well, this poster demonstrated that the milky way, as seen from Earth, looks *very* different in game than it does in real life, because of the new filters. But you completely ignored that fact in your response to him.

If FDev's intent was to add more realism to the game by simulating zodiacal dust, empirical evidence shows that it hasn't worked.

Sooo...anyway, as far as I can see this thread has run it's course. It's basically absolutely everyone versus Sterling MH. And you're not really coming across as very level-headed, given as your preferred method of responding is to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

Maybe you're right about the zodiacal dust causing this colour tint. It's been 20 years since I studied Astrophysics at University, and we never really discuss the visual aspect under different light wavelengths, so I'm not dismissing your suggestion that this may be causing the colour tint.

But, like others in this thread have already done, I'm also going to have to add you to my ignore list. You may be factually correct, but you're such an obnoxious and condescending person in this and other threads, that I can't envisage any productive future discussion with you.

 

[krautbernd]

Dispersion has, which was my point, me being a non-native speaker.

So you have no point. Irrelevant.

Explain to me how diffraction could occur either, given the average distance between particles in space. Take your time.


"Densitites for solids are given in g/cm³ or kg/m³, "

Nope. Densities can be in for any medium. Gas, liquid, solid or plasma. Air has a density about 1kg per m3.

I didn't exclude fluids. I said densities are commonly measured in kg/m³ or g/cm³. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Litre is not derived. It is defined canonically as 1000 cubic centimeters.

True, my bad. I meant to say it's not an SI unit.

Since you continue to proclaim fatuously arrogant idocies, the rest of your dribble is likewise going to be dribble and just as wrong.

Don't blame me for not repyling to your space=ocean dribble either, or your sentient space dust. If you were actually able to prove your own statements instead of asking others to disprove your fantasies this would be a lot more productive.

 

[Sterling MH]

Don't balme me for not repyling to your space=ocean

And a repeat of the same idiotic proclamation. Read this:
ocean=reflective.
Reflections from dust acts the same way.

If you insist that dust is empty space you lied when you asserted you do not claim dust does not exist.

Try ONE thing related to reality.

 

[krautbernd]

there;s nothing there. Someone who proclams that only solids are done in kg/m3 has no claim to know what reality is. His posting is likewise rubbish of no content that relates to reality.

Proof i said only solids are measured in kg/m³? I said density in gneral is measured in kg/m³. I never said fluids can't be measured in kg/m³ as well. But i guess dismissing a claim out of hand and not having to defend your baseless assertion is what you usually do.

 

[Avago Earo]

At day time our sky is blue and black at night. At noon our sun is yellow/white, at dawn orange/red, same thing.

Same thing? Comparing hues caused by light scattering in Earths atmosphere, to colours observed in a vacuum?

Notice, you also wrote 'black at night'; can you see what you did there?

 

[krautbernd]

If you insist that dust is empty space you lied when you asserted you do not claim dust does not exist.

Try ONE thing related to reality.

That doesn't make any sense. I never said or insisted that dust is empty space. Show me where i did. I said that your hypothetical dust in the game does not behave like acutal dust would. Nothing more.

 

[Sterling MH]

Well, this poster demonstrated

Irrelevant.

"that the milky way, as seen from Earth, looks *very* different in game than it does in real life,"

Yes, just like the nebulae are not anything like depicted.

IF you use the human eyesight.

"If FDev's intent was to add more realism to the game by simulating zodiacal dust, empirical evidence shows that it hasn't worked."

Nope, their realism is that the lighting comports to reality.
Zodiacal light proves that the assertions kwhatever made are arrant nonsense compared to reality. If his assertions were vaguely true, zodiacal light does not exist and would make a huge glowning halo around the solar system.
If you can't keep reality straight, go back and read it slower. Get it right.

"Sooo...anyway, as far as I can see this thread has run it's course. It's basically absolutely everyone versus Sterling MH."

So? I'm rihgt, "everyone else" is wrong. But it's not everyone, is it. Histrionics. Pretend that it MUST be me wrong. Argumentum ad populum. A million flies can't be wrong!

Fallacy.

" And you're not really coming across as very level-headed, given as your preferred method of responding is to belittle anyone who disagrees with you."

And your passive aggressive snark ensures that YOU are making it even more off topic. Yet more ad hom. Proving you have nothing to counter my argument, so you slag me off instead.

"Maybe you're right about the zodiacal dust causing this colour tint"

MAybe you could try keepig to what I have said, not make it up to fit your ridicule?

"I'm also going to have to add you to my ignore list."

Well, like the other idiots, keep everyone appraised of who you will ignore. But remember: this is the third time I've pointed out that telling someone you're ignoring them is the OPPOSITE of ignoring them.

A whole sockfull of sharp tools in the sock drawer here.

This lack of concrete thought is why so many against me are wrong: they don't think. They just WANT SO BADLY.

Being more right than you is EASY. What isn't easy is getting you to be right. you refuse that. It's unpossible to change.

 

[Sterling MH]

Same thing? Comparing hues caused by light scattering in Earths atmosphere, to colours observed in a vacuum?

It's a LOT of vacuum. There's a harder vacuum between us and Sag A*. Yet you can't see it. 10,000Ly of "vacuum" adds up.

It's not a vacuum. Zodiacal light. From dust. In that "vacuum". The shift in colour CAN be because of rayleigh scattering, which is why sunsets are red.

 

[Sterling MH]

UOTE

That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, huis post makes no ense. Never did.

I never said or insisted that dust is empty space. Show me where i did. I said that your hypothetical dust in the game does not behave like acutal dust would. Nothing more.

Yes you do. When you claim space == ocean when I am talking about reflections, and dust reflects too, then YOU are asserting dust == nothing.