Time to add visible accretion disks, Frontier.
- Thread starter Scharmers
- Start date
Only when the graphical quality of the asteroids are back to previous standards.
What about the black holes themselves? I was so disappointed when I first saw a black hole and only saw the lensing effect with no actual black hole at its center.
This is how black holes are supposed to look.
This is how black holes are supposed to look.
No, it isn't. That's how Disney's Black Hole looked. No one has observed a black hole because they emit no light. They can only be detected by observing the motion of stars or x-ray detection. Frontiers lensing version is probably quite accurate.
Exactly. Black holes look like this in ED, when they should look like this. Accretion disks only after this is fixed. Also I think that rings should be restored to their original quality first.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
By that standard we can make all the stars except the Sun cube-shaped. We don't have any proof what a black hole looks like, but a bunch of mathematical/theoretical evidence nonetheless (+ knowlwdge from computer simulations). So no, that image is in line with the current science.
images:
black hole as according to the current theories
black hole as according to current theories with accretion disk
binary black hole
ED black hole
expected ED black hole
Disney black hole
Last edited:
I'd spend so much time around black holes in-game if they looked better, and I seriously do hope they get to look better at some point. The gravitational lensing model needs fixing up first and foremost so that it doesn't centre on where the player is looking and instead is actually coming from the black hole; the general effect looks to be correct, but it just needs to be... moved, so to speak. Of course, we do also need to actually see the freakin' event horizons, damn it! Black holes may be singularities, but they sure as hell aren't naked singularities! 
And then bring in the accretion discs, but only around some black holes and not others, for varieties sake
And I think I'll just leave this here... you know, pretty much the most accurate representation of a black hole with an accretion disc to date (minus some of the expected Doppler Effects)...
And then bring in the accretion discs, but only around some black holes and not others, for varieties sake
And I think I'll just leave this here... you know, pretty much the most accurate representation of a black hole with an accretion disc to date (minus some of the expected Doppler Effects)...
who put in charge of deciding how what has to look like? Is it a good paid job? ^^
LOL, that's not Science. It's wishful thinking. More Hollywood movie nonsense.
And it's not even a simulation but a time lapse of some guy waving a light ball around, then tweaking it to death like a Photoshop kid on crack.
By all these 'standards', a computer/artists impression of wormholes now equal reality and 'science'.
And it's not even a simulation but a time lapse of some guy waving a light ball around, then tweaking it to death like a Photoshop kid on crack.
By all these 'standards', a computer/artists impression of wormholes now equal reality and 'science'.
The last time I checked, scientists salaries were somewhat low but I wouldn't know.
I suppose that therefore artist's renderings of a spherical star are just as good as a rendering of a cube-shaped star (except the Sun). One thing is drawing images with artistic freedom, and the other one is doing it according to simulations and scientific predictions. We're not saying that the black hole as described by science today is the real deal, but what we are saying is that it is a better bet for what is a real deal as opposed to images that were drawn with artistic freedom. So no, simulations don't equal reality, but they do equal science and therefore they equal the best bet.
Last edited:
Ah this thread again, It's been a while.
As above we've never gotten close enough to "see" one. Our tech only allows visualisations of non-visible particles via x-rays etc as others have said.
Yes accretion discs are plausible as Hollywood and others have included in films. They'd occur when another star is in very very close proximity and there is fuel to feed the accretion so probably 1 per 15,000 black holes maybe even less.
Basically what i'm saying is yes they would look awesome, yes it's probably worth manually adding one or two stars close to black holes and publicising it to players for some amazing pictures and marketing. But realistically this would only occur extremely rarely and even then it's arguable how the final result would actually look to the naked eye. Yes it'd be awesome but so few people would see them unless FD went for the awesome yet probably un-realistic approach of making every black hole look like that.
To be fair I'd like to see phenomena like paired stars first as tight orbit stars seem to be a lot more common (at least from my exploration trips).
As above we've never gotten close enough to "see" one. Our tech only allows visualisations of non-visible particles via x-rays etc as others have said.
Yes accretion discs are plausible as Hollywood and others have included in films. They'd occur when another star is in very very close proximity and there is fuel to feed the accretion so probably 1 per 15,000 black holes maybe even less.
Basically what i'm saying is yes they would look awesome, yes it's probably worth manually adding one or two stars close to black holes and publicising it to players for some amazing pictures and marketing. But realistically this would only occur extremely rarely and even then it's arguable how the final result would actually look to the naked eye. Yes it'd be awesome but so few people would see them unless FD went for the awesome yet probably un-realistic approach of making every black hole look like that.
To be fair I'd like to see phenomena like paired stars first as tight orbit stars seem to be a lot more common (at least from my exploration trips).
Last edited:
Yes the disks and the jets should be rare. But every single black hole should have the black disk in the center. They have it in Space Engine and every other rendering of a black hole that I have seen so I don't know why not here.
http://www.universetoday.com/115462/what-would-a-black-hole-look-like/
Could just be a pinhead sized spot for all we know.
Edit: It's actually it's quite interesting, I'm getting into some scientific papers at the moment before I go to bed. Some are theorising that smaller black holes are pinhead sized and they "blossom" after taking in enough matter potentially like the supermassive ones having a size of several Ls across with the possibility for Ly wide black holes somewhere in the universe. All theoretical and all completely guestimated with some scientific knowledge thrown in.
Last edited:
I'm talking about the event horizon. Not the singularity. The shape of the singularity is irrelevant as it can never be seen, since it is behind the horizon.
EDIT: The radius of the event horizon can be calculated. It's actually a pretty simple formula.
r = 2GM/c^2
So no, it can't be pinhead in size unless the M is not very large. Which isn't the case with black holes in ED.
Last edited:
I like how everyone saw Interstellar then heard about the simulation the science advisers did for the movie and suddenly everyone became experts on how black holes are supposed to look.
Incidentally, this is slightly off topic but the same science adviser featured on the Infinite Monkey Cage Christmas special which was a fairly amusing discussion based around the science of Doctor Who over the years. He discussed the theories around the black hole designs and other things in Interstellar. Perfect listening for the car stereo if you have to drive anywhere I find.
Incidentally, this is slightly off topic but the same science adviser featured on the Infinite Monkey Cage Christmas special which was a fairly amusing discussion based around the science of Doctor Who over the years. He discussed the theories around the black hole designs and other things in Interstellar. Perfect listening for the car stereo if you have to drive anywhere I find.
There is a difference between experts on how black holes are supposed to look as according to the current theories and experts on how black holes are supposed to look. The first one is pretty simple to become. You just read the papers.