Strange planet

[Stargazer83]

HIP 63835 CD 1 is one of the most strangest planets i have stumble my joyrneys! It is normal class 3 gas giant but what make it special no sun light or any light ever hit the planet it is comletely dark planet! Not even close by (600ls away) giant O class star light never reach the planet why? Possible because it's orbiting two black holes only 8.5ls distance so my theory is those black holes capture all light i don't now is it the reason but could be most logical reason because even light can't escape black holes also how it possible that planet even can be exist!?!? System HIP 63835 is close the habitat space only 275ly from sol so go check it out

 

[Karl Marx]

HIP 63835 CD 1 is one of the most strangest planets i have stumble my joyrneys! It is normal class 3 gas giant but what make it special no sun light or any light ever hit the planet it is comletely dark planet! Not even close by (600ls away) giant O class star light never reach the planet why? Possible because it's orbiting two black holes only 8.5ls distance so my theory is those black holes capture all light i don't now is it the reason but could be most logical reason because even light can't escape black holes also how it possible that planet even can be exist!?!? System HIP 63835 is close the habitat space only 275ly from sol so go check it out

Honestly, that sounds like a graphics artifact. Black holes only capture light that enters them, not like that goes near them.

 

[Vasious]

It will be the "only one soruce of light" effect.
The Planets in close orbit of the Black hole will use that as their source of light in favour of the O class 600 light seconds away and thus will be very poorly illuminated if at all.

 

[adrinker]

at the heart nebula black hole:

 

[JerryLove]

It will be the "only one soruce of light" effect.
The Planets in close orbit of the Black hole will use that as their source of light in favour of the O class 600 light seconds away and thus will be very poorly illuminated if at all.

So... bad design decision by the coders.

 

[Wylie28]

So... bad design decision by the coders.

No its a great decision. Otherwise 90% of their userbase would have less than 20fps. Multiple light sources are still mostly movie territory. Especially when procedural planets are involved.

 

[JerryLove]

No its a great decision. Otherwise 90% of their userbase would have less than 20fps. Multiple light sources are still mostly movie territory. Especially when procedural planets are involved.

That would be a "False dilemma" fallacy. There are more options than "chose the closest light source" and "use multiple light sources".

You could, for example, chose the light source that would be brightest for the target. You don't even need to do that "on the fly". You could code it into the system properties at system creation.

 

[Siranui]

That would be a "False dilemma" fallacy. There are more options than "chose the closest light source" and "use multiple light sources".

You could, for example, chose the light source that would be brightest for the target. You don't even need to do that "on the fly". You could code it into the system properties at system creation.

You should probably call them up right now and let them know how easy it is. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear.

 

[Jack Schitt]

You could, for example, chose the light source that would be brightest for the target. You don't even need to do that "on the fly". You could code it into the system properties at system creation.

They could also do a quick spot average based on the spectra of all nearby sources and apply that as a sort of filter to the primary source. A bit tricky with black holes but it could be cheated a bit, like the way dark sides of planets brighten up when you fly close to them (and on a personal note I still hate that).

The problem with any of these quick fixes is that sooner or later someone will line the light sources up in a way that should produce a full eclipse then cry foul when the light doesn't change.

As I understood it the engine already supports two light sources but FD are waiting on improved efficiency in their own code and/or increases in graphics card hardware and drivers before implementing it. If that's the case then I understand their reasons; doing it now would introduce huge performance hits for many players, and even those whose hardware could support it probably wouldn't notice much difference in the majority of systems where secondary light sources are either too remote to be significant or are of a similar spectral output to the primary. Systems like the OP's, with primary black holes and nearby secondary main sequencers, are relatively rare.

 

[n4p0l3on]

No its a great decision. Otherwise 90% of their userbase would have less than 20fps. Multiple light sources are still mostly movie territory. Especially when procedural planets are involved.

I'm pretty sure that most of AAA games in the last 5 years already have many light sources, that's why things like deferred rendering became popular.

 

[JerryLove]

The problem with any of these quick fixes is that sooner or later someone will line the light sources up in a way that should produce a full eclipse then cry foul when the light doesn't change.

Planets put their moons in shadow, and moons put our ships in shadow, I don't see why black holes couldn't put planets in shadow.

The bigger issue would be when one star blocks a brighter star.

But here's the thing... it would be *better* than the existing situation.
It would be *less* noticeable and *closer* to realistic.

 

[Jack Schitt]

But here's the thing... it would be *better* than the existing situation.
It would be *less* noticeable and *closer* to realistic.

I absolutely agree. But FD have their ways, and one of their ways is, "We won't implement x until we can be sure it won't cause y." The community just has to live with these choices, in many cases without even knowing what x and y are.

Another way of thinking about it is, "We won't settle for a kludge when we know we can eventually do something perfect." Which is laudable for technical goals, but somewhat odd given how many gameplay kludges and placeholders there are in the game.

 

[Varrag]

Planets put their moons in shadow

Are you sure? Last time I checked planets do not cast shadows onto other nearby planets. I am still waiting to see shadows from the gas giant's moons -or rings- projected onto its surface, for example.

Btw multiple light sources aren't big deal in gaming for quite some time. FDEV's Cobra engine looks obsolete in this sense.

 

[Lobstris]

No its a great decision. Otherwise 90% of their userbase would have less than 20fps. Multiple light sources are still mostly movie territory. Especially when procedural planets are involved.

Whistles, and points at Space Engine...

 

[JerryLove]

I absolutely agree. But FD have their ways, and one of their ways is, "We won't implement x until we can be sure it won't cause y." The community just has to live with these choices, in many cases without even knowing what x and y are.

Another way of thinking about it is, "We won't settle for a kludge when we know we can eventually do something perfect." Which is laudable for technical goals, but somewhat odd given how many gameplay kludges and placeholders there are in the game.

That would be great if we were discussing a feature that wasn't there (well: not great... "perfect" is the enemy of "good" after all).

But we are not. Lighting planets *has* been put in the game, and there's a problem with it. It would be great if they could move to perfect lighting; but in the mean time there's a minor tweak that would improve the situation considerably.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I love how some know easy fixes for code they've never seen before, or deduct what Cobra can and cant do based on what one game running it does.

 

[Darth Ender]

I love how common aspects of the environment (multiple stars) aren't handled by the gaming engine properly, leading to nonsense like in the OP or if you happen to ever travel in multi-star systems that the lighting abruptly changes from one star's light to the next or that your view of an object gets brighter when you view it while all light from the star is blocked out because now it's being "lit" by the background stars. Or that everything labeled a star generates a light source even if the object is colder than ice (literally) and would be impossible to be a source of any visible light (looking at you Y dwarfs with < 260 kelvin temps).

I just lovvvveeeeeeee that.

 

[JerryLove]

I love how some know easy fixes for code they've never seen before, or deduct what Cobra can and cant do based on what one game running it does.

Well. They could be the world's worst coders, having written something where even minor changes are nigh-impossible.
Or there could be some incredibly strange, unexpected, and esoteric reason why it would be difficult.

But everything has to be lit by something. It's either a variable set somewhere in the system (likely on the item itself), or it's something computed IRT.

I would think it would make more sense (given the limitations present) to decide and hard-code it at system creation, which would yield greater flexibility when hand crafting. If so, it's just a variable to change.
If it's figured out IRT, then you'd be adding a conditional that doesn't exist... likely a call to a new "chose brightest source" routine. I suspect it's not even down at the bottom layers of the engine.

No. I've never seen their code.

But I am a programmer... and I have created mods for other space-sim games. I can make an educated guess.

The other part of your post doesn't make sense.