Why is space so dark (graphically speaking)?

[Ichijo]

Literally everywhere I go it's dark as hell. Did the developers want to portray a sense of realism or is it because everything is procedurally generated that it has to be like that? Looking at pictures of EVE Online gameplay there are many parts of the universe lit up and it's very very beautiful even though it is the background you see for hours on end. In Elite Dangerous the only time you see something pretty are the rare Earth-like planets that have visible lights from the assumed cities down there. Star Citizen is looking pretty nice so far.

Check out this screenshot I found on google images, I have no idea what's going on but the background sure looks better than Elite Dangerous's black universe:

 

[Otis B.]

If it's a clear night where you are look at the sky.

Dark, isn't it?

 

[Monk]

It is meant to be realistic and not oversaturated with fluff.

When you do end up somewhere brighter, like the core or a nebula...it is stark and special.

Plus, some of my best screenshots are in near total darkness with whatever is lit up becoming the focal point.

Dark is beautiful...light is harsh

 

[Tarman]

I'm kind of partial to the believable blackness of Elitespace after years of magically-lit space in other games.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Man just posted an Eve screenshot. Hold on to your pants folks, this one is going places.
|
EvE is set up in a fantasy galaxy. Elite: Dangerous is set in the Milky Way. We know what the Milky Way looks like, thus that's what you see. If it seems boring, check out some of the nebulae near the galactic core.

 

[Cmdr Raz]

It is dark (and realistic looking, as stated in the thread) - out where humans live. But on the center of the galaxy, it is quite brught and busy, as can be seen in the numerous screenshots of Sag A* in this thread.

 

[Sidey]

For most nebulas, the vast majority of radiation emitted is outside the visible spectrum. When you see photos of them on websites most of the time they employ false colouring, and the ones that are taken using visible light normally have exaggerated colouring to try and show the different colours more clearly. Whilst most nebulas do emit in the visible light spectrum, their actual effects and looks tend to be a lot more understated than we see in photos.

As such a lot of games have tried to replicate the "space nebula" effect to try and make space look more colourful. The reality is that it isnt and if anything FD have done a fantastic job of keeping it quite authentic and for that they really should be applauded (imo)

There are a few well known nebulas which are really colourful in visible light such as the Orion nebula and the Crab nebula. Some others however are big disappointments compared to the pictures you may have seen of them, such as the Pillars of creation.

Anyway, thats my 2c.

 

[specialsymbol]

Good question.

Thing is, what you see in EVE is some artistic backdrop image. It's creative and all that, but - it's quite rare to have such a nebula there. It will be out there, but - yes, that's the question. Can't tell how often.

Ok, turns out space is even more beautiful than I thought:

Real Photo. Tone mapping for Hydrogen and Oxygen only.


Another real photo from our galaxy. We should be able to find and see those in Elite Dangerous.

The only explanations I have are:
Nebulas can't be simulated or there are too many stars nearby in your FOV so that you're constantly blinded (as when you look at photos from space of earth - no stars visible, because the earth simply is too bright. If you took a photo of somewhere else, without reflections from the sun, you should be plenty of stars)

 

[Mr_Zeno]

How can you tell what colour the background is in that screenshot, can't see a damn thing for all the UI gibberish all over the screen.

 

[Sidey]

@specialsystem

That second photo is good, but the first one is of the horsehead nebula.

The false colouring makes a huge difference, especially the hydrogen (hydrogen is everywhere in space) thats all the red. Here is a photo of the horsehead nebula seen through a standard telescope with a normal camera.


Still impressive though imo

 

[Cmdr Raz]

@specialsystem

That second photo is good, but the first one is of the horsehead nebula.

The false colouring makes a huge difference, especially the hydrogen (hydrogen is everywhere in space) thats all the red. Here is a photo of the horsehead nebula seen through a standard telescope with a normal camera.
View attachment 52406

Still impressive though imo

And quite a lot closer to how it looks in ED.

 

[specialsymbol]

@Sidey

Even better without the colouring!
Here's one of the Lagoon nebula. Mind that the area depicted is about as large as eight times our moon (four side by side in two rows) - both as seen from earth:

The amount of stars is simply incredible.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Gene Cernan on the Moon (during the mission of Apollo 17) made the following citation. The earth is in suspension and we do not see the wire which could prevent it from falling. It is suspended in a black so intense that even the human imagination can not conceive

 

[EdzUp]

Its all dark because 'the creator' didnt pay the electric bill so its been cut off

Seriously though its mostly different wave lengths that some we can see other we cant but can pick up with technology.

 

[monkeymagoo]

Only been exploring once but when I got close to some of the nebulas they looked better than the one in the EVE screenshot IMO. And the rest of the star background looks fairly similar. It certainly doesn't look any worse at least. Plus when very close to a star, that star's light drowns out most of the other distant stars, so you can't make many out but as you move away you can see a lot more and it looks a lot better.

I'd like to see millions of stars in my field of view too tbh but I guess there are limitations to consider e.g. resolution of the monitor, and not to mention how much processing it would take since they aren't painted onto th background, they're all calculated when you jump into a new system.

 

[Cody]

Seriously though its mostly different wave lengths that some we can see other we cant but can pick up with technology.

To know ultraviolet, infrared and X-rays
Beauty to find in so many ways
Two notes of the chord, that's our full scope
But to reach the chord is our life's hope!

 

[jugabyte]

As one CMDR has already said, fly a couple thousand light seconds away from the sun and you'll notice the colors begin to change. Very useful for screenshots.

 

[Reacher]

Personally I would prefer some additional colours / grand vistas' as opposed to the mostly boring black and edge on view of the milky way.

Even if there was an option where you could switch from 'realistic' to 'graphically enhanced' would be awesome.

When you look at streams of ED or Youtube vids its just a picture of black and whatever colour people have opted for in their UI.

 

[Ziljan]

Most sci fi techno color skies are LIES. But it's not their fault, because even the beautiful NASA pics above are utter LIES. They are false color images that took between 20 minutes and several HOURS to gather the photons for a single frame. And then they'll add about 15 frames together to make it even brighter!! The human eye has no such capability. So real space looks exactly like it does when you go camping: A bunch of pretty little bright dots and faint puffs of lights in an inky black sky. There is almost no color to be seen anywhere. But there are stars, OMG, there SO many more stars than we see from our light polluted cities, and that is where ED got it sort of right. However they short changed us on the star count. IRL you'd see about 10 to 20 times as many stars in the local Skybox.

That being said, ED has the most realistic SkyBox of any space sim to date, and strikes a decent balance between cartoonish NASA graphics and what a real astronaut might see.

[video=youtube;_9NMXy1FKPA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9NMXy1FKPA&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[Schmack]

Lost in Space, how could they be lost if it wasn't dark?