"Visual exaggeration" - Beautiful photographs vs realistic blobs: Why not both?

[Nitross]

From the following livestream Q&A, under the QUESTIONS FROM 09/11/2017 - Discovery Scanner 1 - Creating a Galaxy with Dr Anthony Ross.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...swers-Thread?p=5898193&viewfull=1#post5898193

There was this question that got me thinking:

12) Will Nebulas one day resemble the Hubble painted shot?

One of the common discussions on the dev floor is about the level of visual exaggeration we portray to the players. For example, most nebula images you can see are false colour ones of non-visible EM wavelengths. Do we make radiowaves visible in-game to reflect these beautiful photographs? Do we go the realistic route of showing these hydrogen clouds as greyish, slightly greenish diffuse blobs? No promises, no guarantees, nothing to announce at this time, but I am always interested in potential improvements to the rendering of stellar bodies and phenomena.

Why not both? You have the perfect in-game excuse: the canopy HUD.

If your canopy is intact and powered, you see the "beautiful painting" with some additional spectrum rendered.

If you power down the ship - or just the canopy - or if your canopy gets blown out, you see the "real" picture. After all, when your canopy is destroyed, you no longer see the elements from the HUD.

This would also add a new level of immersion to canopy breaches. Also, allowing the canopy to be shut down would also means there is an in-game impact to repairing it with an AMFU.

If something like this is done, they could also make stars brighter - nearly blinding - without the HUD to regulate what you see. You still have a helm to protect you, but there should be a difference. I have often seen comments that it's strange that you can look directly at a star so easily; this would keep the game functional, while increasing realism.

The external camera could have a toggle to switch between the 2 views for screenshots.