Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PDCWolf

  1. 25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Again, NASA doesn't put lights up on probes and neither should the player. The viewport is just an imaginary construct that effectively shows the probe carrying out whatever takes the player intends to do. NASA doesn't need lights to turn engines on and off, and the player shouldn't need lights to interact with parts in the same manner.

    Gotta love the dodging. You do not need lights on probes, you've got the highlight, action groups, the UI full of telemetry.

  2. 3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    There's a difference between those listed and blindign the player altogether.

    You shouldn't need lights to be able to interact with an autonomous ships. There's no kerbals. The player doesn't exist as far as the ship is concerned. The player shouldn't need to pack lights when it's not an engaging gameplay feature.

    You do not. You have instruments, a full UI providing lots of telemetry, and action groups and actually, for manned ships, Kerbals on EVA already have lights integrated into them. Hmm, kinda like it's all there for working in darkness, which you do already in all those scenarios I mentioned but you magically don't consider them the same:

    1. Landing in the dark is an engaging gameplay feature, packing lights seems ok by you.
    2. Docking in the dark is an engaging gameplay feature, packing lights seems ok by you.
    3. EVAing in the dark is an engaging gameplay feature, packing lights seems ok by you, suits have their own lights for this already.
    4. Going into interstellar space puts you in the dark, a pretty unique characteristic of this setting, but here light is not a gameplay mechanic, you need to see the ship magically at all costs... hmm?


  3. 26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Lighting isn't a fun or engaging gameplay mechanic.

    For you. On the other hand: Eclipses, atmospheric haze, solar panels, every mod that includes a greenhouse, landing on the dark side of a body, night launches, night docking. Lighting as a mechanic is already there in multiple forms, let us not pretend that this is the only way light would play a role.

    26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Besides, autonomous ships don't need light to to toggle modules, but a player needs light to interact with the probe. NASA isn't stringing lights across probes IRL so that they can toggle modules, so this shouldn't even be a valid gameplay mechanic in a game that's set hundreds of years ahead of the space race.

    Autonomous ships don't need human input or vigilance in the first place, that's what autonomy is there for. However, in the case of KSP, you don't even need lights, remember that you have instruments, and you don't need to interact with the ship via clicking either, that's what a different mechanic is there for: action groups. Really you've failed to bring any problem that isn't actually already solved with actual mechanics that are part of the first game.

    22 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

    You also has starlight, if you ship is reflective who makes plenty of sense it will reflect a good amount of it. The reflectivity matter a lot here. If the ground is covered with snow, starlight give enough light an clear night for easy visibility, I compare this with an white painted ship. raw steel or aluminium will reflect more, while radiators will be black. 
    The are however an good place to put spotlights. 

    Its not that different from doing eva in orbit in KSP 1 or even dock on the dark side. 

    Yeah, a reflective skin would help with visibility a bit, though working on the outside of a ship that's almost a complete mirror would be pretty scary and surreal. I'd doubt manned ships wouldn't include external floodlights along with something like collision lights.

  4. 50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    If this was a game of architecture I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the point of KSP can be as far away from "pretty lights" as possible. 

    Bottom line: gameplay over graphics. No pitch black. Gameplay would be being able to manage the rocket in pitch black. I'd also light to add that being able to see the skybox at all times is much less disorientating - again, gameplay over graphics. Being able to see trumps the novelty that some graphical mods have.

    A game where you literally build rockets that can overcome the challenges of spaceflight... Guess we should remove batteries, as being able to control your craft trumps the novelty of electricity management. 

    Don't take me wrong, you're entitled to your opinion, just don't try to disguise it as the obvious, objective, gameplay design choice. Fake ambient light is not gameplay, designing your ship around simulated mechanics is gameplay.

  5. 1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

    Thanks for the explication.

    The Space.StackExchage answer gave me a different opinion: you would still see the ship:

    The thing it did not do was discuss the viewer's distance from the ship.  A Kerbonaut on EVA, if close to the ship should be able to readily see it - and even if in varying shades of white be able to discern differing parts.  Mainly due to the albedo compared to the illumination: if you are close, you will perceive more of the reflected surface light & the information it contains... move far enough away and you will see just a vague reflection, and farther still the 'black silhouette' against the brighter background - where the reflected starlight is insufficient to show the ship because the incident light of the stars from behind it is brighter than any light reflected off the various surfaces of the ship.  Further still, and it would have to occlude a star for you to even know it was there.

    I think the problem is that - for purposes of this discussion - you were arguing different things in that thread.  My interpretation is that you did not want to see stars in the immediate background of any large reflective/illuminated-by-the-system-star body because the light reflecting / illuminating that body would be significantly brighter than any 'ambient' illumination provided by the background stars.  That could make sense given the photographic images you provide - but I don't think it's entirely controlling.  Blocking the immediate illumination from the receptor should (at least in vacuum) allow visibility of background stars.

    for example:

    NASA is thinking of implementing 'star shades' to block starlight to enhance a space telescope's ability to spot exoplanets: To Study the Next Earth, NASA May Need to Throw Some Shade | WIRED


    Discerning is not the same as seeing, resolving, etc. That's why the discussion includes a mathematical solution and a simple to understand conclusion: "You will not be able to make out any kind of details. You will be essentially colour blind. You will be able to see the presence of "large" white/light objects, but details will be impossible to make out." Remember that this is for the case of being in eva and wanting to work on the exterior of your ship, so as close as possible.

    The purpose of the discussion is different, but it is rooted in the same subject matter: How cameras and eyes perceive stuff in different lighting situations. The other thread was "too much light, so you adjust down and lose dim stars", this thread is "too little light, so you adjust up and see stars, but it's still not enough light to see the ship".

    Finally, those starshades have a very different purpose: They're trying to see the planetshine on an object that's merely arcmilliseconds away from a light source (their parent star)  hundreds of magnitudes brighter. Those "starshades" block a single star, only to be able to make out the planets next to it. If anything it proves my point on the other thread: Big light make small light not visible.

  6. Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

    I remember from that thread you had a very 'energetic' opinion - but I don't think it was debunked.

    From what I recall... you suggested that stars are not visible from space?  (Because, ahem, Hubble, Gaia, etc.)  Or was it that a large, reflective body like a planet would overwhelm any sensor, including the Mark 1 Eyeball and prevent stars from being imaged in its vicinity?

    Please explain what you're arguing again - and respectfully, remember I am the resident knuckle-dragger - so I am actually interested to know what you're saying so as to not misinterpret it.

    Might come off as a jerk, won't deny that, but it is probably because I'm not a native English speaker. Anyways, my point in that thread was that, for cameras, adjusting the exposure to (for example) discern surface features on a sunlit planet, or "toning down" the sun to see the rest of the objects, pretty much removes any stars from the picture, as they're the dimmest light sources. Whilst for the eyes the effect might not be so extreme, they will still try to adapt to lighting conditions, thus looking at a bright moon, a street lamp, a reflective hull of a spaceship, or other light sources will also wash off stars from your sight. So in the end my suggestion was to follow reality, and dim (or disappear) the stars from the skybox when appropriate. In that thread I did not argue a single point with people that expressed opinions on whether they liked the idea or not, I only kept my arguments centered on people that wanted to discuss reality.

    In this thread, in interstellar space, you'd have a full background of stars, as they're the only light source, but they don't give off nearly enough light to illuminate a ship travelling in the interstellar medium. Thus you'd see not much more than a black silhouette, unless your ship was the brightest white possible (you'd barely gain any detail anyways). For those cases I presented evidence from the past thread, plus that new stackoverflow answer that mathematically calculates for eyesight that you would indeed only see the silhouette of the ship.

    My intention is (was, in the other thread) to cement what actual facts are, and we did that back then with simulation software, astronauts' experiences, and maths. What I wanted to do here is to reuse that same factual foundation as soon as I saw the discussion was going that same way. Hopefully, if we all agree on that factual foundation (hard to disagree without some good evidence), we can move on to actual opinions and not further beat the dead horse back into its constituent atoms.

  7. 18 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    The fact that KSP 2 isn't making interstellar space pitch black kinda speaks against the person(s) that think a few mods speak for what good gameplay is.

    Gameplay over graphics.

    Are we gonna compare the decision of one or two game designers against the potential tens of thousands of voluntary searches and downloads of mods? Also, if you read again, what I have a problem with is attempting to objectively define "good game design". The extensive and super diverse catalog of successful indies gladly makes fun of anyone who thinks a single solution is the only way to design any game.

    3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

    If anything, one can just adjust the ambient light in Settings to one's preference, right?

    But even if a pitch black silhouette is realistic and one is running ultra realistic, am I the only one who puts lights on a craft intended to light it up for EVA work and docking and such?

    wowowow, did you just attempt to give a realistic solution to a real challenge of interstellar spaceflight like putting lights on your craft? calm down bro, people don't think that far ahead as you can see.

    5 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

    Just for the record, is that the Roci in space engine?


  8. 2 minutes ago, t_v said:

    Lots of arguments were made. I think the conclusion is that while orbiting a planet on the day side, or the night side in a high enough orbit, stars are not visible due to lighting from the star that a planet is orbiting. Stars only appear when orbiting very low or landed on the night side. This is, as PCDWolf explains, “Camera vs eye chicanery” because technically, with infinite visual range, you can capture all light and make out the details of everything, but cameras and eyes both have different visual ranges (neither of which are infinite) Personally, I want to see a background despite realism, but I can respect other opinions. And also my opinion, as long as there is a way to distinguish which way the ship is pointing and any identifying features so that I can click on them with my mouse, I’m fine with it being a black outline. I can use the highlighter that shows up when I hover over a part. 

    The difference from that discussion to this one is that here we'd actually see the stars, since those are the only light sources, and they aren't much brighter from one another to wash each other off the sensor. What we wouldn't see here is the ship, it'd be almost a fully featureless black silhouette if realism were to be followed. On that other thread we exposed how if you adjust exposure to see (for example) surface features on a daylit planet, or for the sun to not blind you, you'd be washing off stars from the sky. Just different situations that end up working the exact opposite.

    Just now, MechBFP said:

    It is not going to be a black outline, I can say that with 100% certainty.

    It makes doing any game play activities cumbersome and annoying. For example imagine having a mother ship and having to blindly scan over it to find something like a reactor you forgot to turn on before leaving the solar system?

    No one is going to force the player to do that, or force them to load a save to do it in proper light, it is just absolutely hilariously bad game design.

    The downloads on mods like DOE, Scatterer, PlanetShine and other lighting fixes all kinda speak against the people that think they objectively know what good game design is.

  9. 17 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Not what again?

    Camera vs eye chicanery, anecdotals as source (specially since everyone seemingly has super eyes and lives in the middle of the Niue pacific dark spot when arguing what they can see). All of that has been gladly debunked, and we know (thanks to hard source chasing and original investigation work through simulation software) what a camera is capable of doing, and what the sky would look like in a myriad of situations. We've beaten that horse into jelly on what still is the most replied to single-idea thread on the suggestions forum.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion and those are to be respected, but opinions are not facts, and we've worked hard enough on the facts already.

    For example, this is an opinion (which I don't agree with):

    8 hours ago, MechBFP said:

    Looking at a black screen in interstellar space does not make for a compelling game, no matter how realistic it may be. 

    This image depicts a fact, that no matter how high you crank up the exposure (even to perfectly see nebulae), stars alone will not light your ship up:


    And to dispel further chicanery, even with the human eye, you'd need a perfectly bright white ship to discern its silhouette in starlight alone, mathematically calculated:

    https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25901/how-bright-is-starlight-in-deep-space#:~:text=So let us say that,discern it even in starlight.

  10. 5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

    I pontificated on this a while back; having spent many a moonless night deep in the desert... it's certainly possible to see by starlight.  Admittedly, on Earth I'm being benefitted by atmospheric scattering and the amazing properties of the Mark 1 Eyeball.

    I suspect that some of the problems with photographic methods is, as mentioned above, exposure.  It's likely that a space-walking Kerbonaut could see his craft illuminated by starlight in interstellar space.


    4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    That, and moonlight, artificial light, sunlight that finds its way through the atmosphere, etc.

    Not this again, thought we had left this back on that other thread once all camera chicanery got debunked by both NASA sources and Space Engine camera setting simulations.

  11. Voyagers right now exists in perpetual darkness, and they're barely outside out solar system. The space between stars is the darkest out there, only beaten by intergalactic and inter-supercluster spaces. However, you would see a lot of stars, since there'd be no other light source.

    However, since we'd be speaking about camera lenses, exposure settings could  probably tone down the background, OR overexpose to bring even more stars into view (though the ship would still be unlit).

    Since newest footage doesn't seem to reflect these suggested improvements, I have little hope for whatever they do with interstellar space lighting other than generic skyboxes.

  12. 12 hours ago, t_v said:

    I think that it is very important to distinguish between numbers like we are being shown here and mathematical formulae, abbreviated to maths in this thread. In particular, I want to try to explain @Bej Kerman’s comment which created this reply. I get the feeling that a fair few games have numbers in them that players interact with, from survival games managing resources to strategy games managing… well, resources, even to platformers which represent their numbers in distances in a tile system. One thing platformers do well is that the numbers are presented very intuitively and are well incorporated into the games, literally being the levels, which allows players to more easily interact with them, and I feel like KSP could also do a bit of a better job making their presentation of numbers more intuitive. But I digress. 

    The point is, lots of games have numbers present, but don’t ask players to consciously do math with them. In a game of Civilization, I might be factoring in lots of numbers, from troop movement times to manufacturing delays, but I never feel that I am consciously working out the math, even though I am doing it constantly. The same thing applies to KSP. I have these numbers and I fiddle with maneuvers and I do math around delta-v, aerodynamics, electricity, comms, and even heat in modded environments constantly. But it doesn’t feel too math-intensive because there is a calculator always present in the game in the form of all those readouts above. Now, I am not at all opposed to the option to have those calculators be visible as opposed to just getting the result of the calculation, but the point here is that the numbers currently present are not to be classified as the same thing as the suggested formulas. They occupy different places in people’s brains even though they are connected, and so the case for formulas needs to be predicated on something other than the current delivery of information in the game. 

    In this case, the math is already done for us, so it's not so much an implementation as it is a presentation of what's already there. Of course, it'll put people off if shoved in their face, but you can ignore them the same way you can ignore all those tools I presented. 

    1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:


    What mod is that last screenshot from?  I love the visualization of the transfer, and am curious about where it came from.

    No mods, all of that is stock as of 12.2, and I didn't screenshot the clock because I modded it.

    6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    If basic addition and subtraction counts as hard, proper math to you, math that could scare anything off, then power to you I guess. The only obscure term I see there is dV, among basic stuff like km and m/s.

    TWR and Isp formulas, and applying them to dV are not simple addition and subtraction, that only applies once everything is solved and you can just manipulate values inside the dV equation.


  13. 7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    1. What

    2. Isn't the point of KSP that you learn orbital mechanics by being hands-on with it and come to terms with cause and effect in the context of orbital trajectories, and not having to figure out a bunch of math?

    And you could just not look at the math, the same way a lot of people have no idea what the Isp, DeltaV and TWR readouts are until they take interest on them.

    +1 to the idea.


    Great post. This also shows something they did straight up wrong. Overexpanded plumes in vacuum look nothing like what they show in this video, with that convex-ish pyramid shape:

    Adding a bit of insult to injury, they actually showcased the correct shape in a much previous video: 

    Correcting exhaust behavior is a first step towards a jellyfish. As for reentry plasma, that's a whole different matter.


  15. Quote

    I wonder if it can recreate the actual brightness range needed for completely realistic stars though.

    This I doubt we could do realistically, but there are many ways to at least solve the problem programmatically by having them on different layers or something like that, without doing something crazy like actually having 10 to 20 thousand point light sources at different brightness levels.


    What I am about to write is probably wrong in many ways.

    me when


    If I understand correctly, each frame is calculated in high-dynamic-range HDR mode,  which has the max range of brightness values. This HDR image is calculated in 16 bit, which means each pixel can have brightness values between 1 and 2^16 = 16500. This is transformed to a low-dynamic-range (LDR) image to show on the screen, which basically cuts off the lowest and brightest values (and does some squishing & log transformation). The trick to simulated eye adaptation is determining where it should take this slice of the HDR's brightness values. The LDR needs 255 different brightness values, the amount of brightness values of a computer screen. If it has less than 255 brightness values banding artifacts occurs, there are jumps between the different brightness values.
    So what's shown on screen can be a slice of the calculated brightness values: 255/16500 = 1.54% the brightness values of the HDR. (This is optimistic because of the log transform: more detail is needed for the darker values of the LDR than the brighter values -> For the LDR you actually need a bigger slice of the HDR values or artifacts will occur.)

    It's off but not that far off: https://knarkowicz.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/automatic-exposure/


    Our eyes can see 24 stops brightness difference at any one time, that means the brightest thing you can differentiate is 2^24 = 16 million times as bright as the darkest value you can differentiate.We want to be able to see sunspots and other cool details when doing a flyby over the sun (as opposed to the sun always being overexposed, even when it fills the screen), and we want to be able to see the milkyway/ the dimmest visible star.

    We can't normally see black spots, not with our eyes alone, unless you have a huge chunk of atmosphere magnifying and also attenuating the sun (i.e. only during sunrise or sunset, and yes, this damages the eye anyways). In any other condition, the brightness just overwhelms the spots. We can, however, see all the way down to zodiacal light when there's no pollution, that bit is correct. Finally, once outside the atmosphere, astronauts are able to see even more, since atmospheric extinction is no longer bringing everything down. 


    My Conclusion:
    We cannot have completely realistic lighting range in game, a 16 bit HDR image does not offer enough detail. I don't think they can switch to higher bit HDR calculation, that may not be supported, would be slower and require more memory.

    Of course not, but as space engine shows, we can very well reproduce the effect in a credible way. Still, using a skybox instead of actual stars would require different trickery to reproduce the effect at such levels of detail.

    @SOXBLOX I see you've edited your comment. First off, YEAH, AMAZING, this is like the 5th or 6th most viewed thread in this subforum, and the most commented thread. Second off, any accusation of sloppy wording, or straight up incorrect expressions I'll take, but only because I'm not a native English speaker. Finally, yeah, I think the objective side of the thing is all cleared up as one follows the discussion, and what we're left with are technicalities and subjectivities. However, if I were to base myself on other suggestions, none of them have the super specific claim that would clear any discussion up as the center of the opening post.

    As for the alien sky thing, it's a game we could play: It's a fact that the sky is not different, but my point is reliant on references to find orientation, not constellation wandering via parallax. We could give each other small sectors of the sky, without reference, orientation data, or context, to actually see how much we can identify, if we can identify anything at all. At this point I'll still die on the hill that neither of us, or anyone in this thread, would correctly identify constellations in those circumstances.

  16. 15 hours ago, kedrednael said:

    So, no examples of games that do have correct exposure adjustments.

    Yeah, not with the genre limit. That's important, as there aren't that many games in the genre to begin with anyways., otherwise the list is as big as we want it to be, since every unity game has an option to natively implement full-scene-luminance-histogram based eye adaptation: https://docs.unity3d.com/560/Documentation/Manual/PostProcessing-EyeAdaptation.html

    This is also a feature available to every unreal 4 (and 5) game, and it works exactly on the same histogram method: https://docs.unrealengine.com/4.27/en-US/RenderingAndGraphics/PostProcessEffects/AutomaticExposure/


  17. 21 hours ago, Axelord FTW said:

    Unity or not, KPS is about building rockets, and launching them in a world that (try to) simulate them in a realistic manner. At some level or another, be it joints or the very structural integrity of a part, it will flex. It must flex. Without a way for a craft to give way, there will be no RUD, it will be instant planned disassembly when things fail. Player can and will build ridiculous contraptions that would have no choice but to bend, even in real life. A normal-looking rocket must behave like a normal rocket, AND a noodly-rocket must behave like a noodly-rocket, all using the same system. Either KSP2 introduce a system that allow certain parts to be connected by more than one node (for example, two fuel tanks on top of another being attached by five nodes in a cross pattern by default) which will significantly reduce flex, or you keep something that works like the current autostrut+rigid attachment in place. Once again, I can't think of a way to implement plastic deformation into a game either that wouldn't be endlessly frustrating.

    There are no golden eggs here.

    P.S. While I'm at it, did you know the link in your signature is bust?

    Whilst I agree that there are parts that need to bend, like aircraft wings, I think we can safely allow tank to tank joints to not bend at all, as the consequences of allowing it set off a domino of effects that end up in having again to disable part to part collision, and the implementation of magic "do not bend" buttons, as game friendly fixes like struts do not work well either. As for your solution, I remember the og devs saying something about not being able to work with multiple joints, since that violates their tree-like serialization of construction for saving craft.

    Also yeah, my signature is from a bygone era, even though the thread does still exist (the mod doesn't tho), it's just a pre forum software migration link.

  18. 15 hours ago, Axelord FTW said:

    Thing is KSP is a building game as much as anything else. Parts need to be able to handle stress, and it need to show. Noodly rockets can't be eliminated, because that's a function of building noodle-like rockets. You can't eliminate atress on joints, and you can't eliminate those joints stretching, compressing, twisting, etc.

    KSP1's solution is struts, autostruts, and rigid attachment (which make joints stiffer, but more brittle). It's not elegant, but I can't really think of a better system, other maybe than having a 'structural' or 'reinforcement' slider on parts which make them and their joints stronger, but also heavier and pricier. The drawbacks to this are obvious, and not worth the hassle.

    The KSP2 trailer with the flaccid exultation of a rocket is missleading I think. The same rocket would have done fine-ish in KSP1 afterall and there is no reason to implement such progression.

    Autostrutting exists because it was too late to change from Unity's default crappy joints. You could argue it's useless to include a mechanic if you're gonna include magic buttons to fix the problems it causes. Mods fixed this in three ways: welding the parts into a single one, changing all joints to be the max size ksp allows (bigger parts have stronger joints), and outright doing away with lego construction via procedural parts. However, KSP was way too late to fix this in the codebase, and struts have always been absolute crap, creating more problems than they solve, so they went with the magic fix my rocket button called autostrut.

    Speaking of hacky ways to fix stuff, let's remember that KSP had to disable part-to-part collisions on the same vessel, as that would also cause RUD, something which was only brought back to play around with robotics, again on a magic button.

    I don't think KSP2 needs to go through coding the same problem in the codebase again, just to add a magic button to fix it later on. Wet noodle rockets are just not a thing, they fail before bending visually, and due to lack of a better way to show realistic structural failures (which would be constant on a lego based construction model like we have, look at FAR), I'd prefer to not have bendy rockets at all. It solves the problem, stops the question from happening, avoids magic buttons to fix it later in the development cycle, and allows stuff relying on part to part collision to work intuitively.

  19. 2 hours ago, Delay said:

    Rather easily refuted. A spacecraft is too small to completely cover the sun most of the time. Just how close do you want the camera to be?

    Literally a matter of perspective. It's pretty common to completely eclipse the sun with your craft in KSP.


    Interstellar space is an obvious one. You're not arguing that, either. Even the title of the thread excludes interstellar space from being considered.

    That's on me for not remembering KSP2 was gonna include interstellar travel. Multiple star systems were confirmed long ago.


    As for eclipses, I find it difficult to find any photographs of that, neither from the ISS nor the ground. I know that it's possible to observe stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse (one of the first demonstrations of general relativity), but no video or photo seems to exist that demonstrates the phenomenon. I could just not look deep enough, though. Would you like to share a photo?

    ...unless you were talking about lunar eclipses, which happen at night (see title) and it wouldn't be possible to observe a lot of stars with at most a 1/60s exposure time (assuming no motion blur is desired. Though star trails do look pretty...). The sky from the ISS is quite bright.

    I've personaly witnessed a total solar eclipse, stars are visible. Obviously nothing like watching the sky at night, but if you happen to have a good spot and the stars are (pun intended) on your side, you might see the brightest ones. In preparation for that eclipse on July 2 2019, I checked articles like these: https://www.space.com/36721-stars-planets-visible-during-solar-eclipse.html

    I can tell you too that if you're purposefully trying to photograph the corona, it's so very dim that you won't see stars, but that's a matter of what you can actually see with your eyes (both corona and stars) vs balancing exposure on a camera. 

  20. 15 minutes ago, Delay said:

    That is literally everything. I'd have to look exactly up in the middle of Kerbin's shadow to even try to see a few stars.

    Now, you could fix that by increasing the simulated exposure time, but that would necessitate the implementation of at least motion blur, and not just over 1-2 frames.

    Hey, where's the rest of my list lmao. If you look away from the possible halo, or at least shielded your eyes from it, you'd see stars too. That's how astronauts see a excrementston of stars at night on the ISS, and also auroras. 

  • Create New...