Jump to content

PDCWolf

Members
  • Posts

    842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PDCWolf

  1. 14 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    Very interesting. Thank you for pointing that out. Funny, I assumed they would have to be bright stars to show in those conditions. Seems like this confirms that, with the right settings, much fainter stars than even I thought possible are visible.

    Better leave fainter stars in the skybox, then.

    That's quite the jump.

    This is Saturn's dark side with some refracted light (like it happens to our moon during eclipses), and that's an enhanced image, I must remind you that THIS is the real image (as per this source https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329 ) Here they show the original image in which you can't see stars, then along they show the enhanced version (the one @OHara uses for his post) where you can see some stars.

    PIA08329.jpg

     

  2. 51 minutes ago, Jack Mcslay said:

    Now you're grasping at straws. The requirements for the art design follows the same thought process as the game design.  Games that do a good job with their art design become recognized for their visuals, while games that focus on realistic visuals will eventually end up looking dated. This is why Mortal Kombat 1-3 aged poorly but not Street Fighter II.

    Only grasping at straws if you ignore every other bit of argument in the entire thread. Not to mention your gross overgeneralization of where realistic vs artistic (which is also a very intellectually dishonest fallacy to compare) end up. As for the MK/SF comparison, all the games you named are dead and look dated. 

    Quote

    Now imagine if they implemented it. Those shots with nearby celestial bodies would look very dull and look more like a budget 60's movie. This is art fundamentals, good art is one such that impresses the viewer, not one that goes for visual accuracy.

    Funny you'd say that when modern day space epics have gone for a realistic look because that's exactly what sets them apart from simple hollywood flicks. 

    Spoiler

    OysHIYr.jpeg

    qtTtjc0.jpeg

    EGDgnfU.jpeg

     

     

    Quote

    Then why does the game allow painting your ship any color other than silver or white?

    Because we've had spaceships and rockets in a lot of colors. And we have the capability of painting them on any color, it's just cheaper to not paint them, or useful to paint them in reflective colors, or to easily visualize rotation.

    Spoiler

    Space Shuttle external tank - Wikipedia

     

    xTQDE.jpg

     

    447px-Dyna-Soar_on_Titan_booster.jpg

     

    dims?crop=4364%2C2786%2C302%2C0&quality=85&format=jpg&resize=1600%2C1021&image_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fs.yimg.com%2Fos%2Fcreatr-images%2F2018-12%2F4d6425b0-fefd-11e8-93fd-0ee9571d053a&client=a1acac3e1b3290917d92&signature=f246b86b65f83554fac90e5d45f36b2726872742.cf.jpg

     

     

  3. 1 hour ago, Jack Mcslay said:

    Except what you're suggesting is bad game design.

    I was being technical. A game engine does not know what big light and little light is, it only knows light values so you're instructing the game to make stars dimmer.

    Realism is not bad game design, specially on a "simulcade". On top of this, your video refers to mechanical gameplay decisions, not visual, which are two very different aspects, specially once you include artistic view as part of the second. At the moment, it is not clear (since the lighting on screenshots sucks on most cases) whether they've arrived to this stage by "artistic choice" or just because they haven't considered this particular phenomenon. 

    1 hour ago, t_v said:

    I would like to second this opinion. The discussion has turned from whether the stars would dim with bright light to whether the stars should dim with bright light. This are two questions, as it has been pointed out that KSP is not intended to be fully realistic, and does not even try to achieve maximum realism. Where the line should be drawn on realism is where it improves the experience of players, and this is different for different people. For me at least I love myself some nice starry skies, but this would not apply for you. So, it should not be the default but it should be an option. 

    This discussion is: "Stars dim in real life if there's a stronger source of light in your view, and I can prove it, can we have that in the game", and you can refer to the first post for the initial statement, and subsequent posts for the proof. People have tried to peg a myriad misconceptions and assumptions in an attempt to "defend" their personal tastes or their misconceptions/ignorance about how stuff actually works to this discussion.

    As to shove the "KSP is not a simulator" (or "this is too realistic for KSP") argument away, something that has had to be done time and time again since the first public versions of KSP1, the KSP2 development team has demonstrated their focus on realism through atmosphere visuals like sun scattering, realistic interplanetary lighting like eclipses, different lighting from different stars, engine exhaust lighting, reflections and shading of parts, all that work for water shading, etc. So, don't come at me saying this particular effect falls outside how realistic an image they're trying to achieve, because they've clearly gone further distances already working to bring in on other realistic aspects in lighting tech.

     

     

  4. 3 hours ago, Jack Mcslay said:

    KSP isn't a hardcore simulation, it's a simcade-level spaceship building game. It's meant to be a cool game before anything else, so I'm not sure dimming stars near celestial bodies is on the table, at least not by default, it could be an option you can enable if you want, otherwise someone will probably make that a mod.

    Except hardcore simulation would be something like principia, whilst some recognizable visual effects are present on almost every single modern videogame you could possibly name. Heck, unity sells all the effects on it's store and so does Unreal, so you can even get a basic form of them on most super low budget indies.

    Also, again, it's not "dimming stars near celestial bodies", it's big light make little light disappear, like when you drive on a road with the sun in front and can't see, or look at a full moon and have to look away and wait for your eyes to adapt again to see the dimmer stars.

  5.  

    4 hours ago, Ahres said:

    I'm glad someone mentioned this. The DOE mod does skybox dimming when a bright celestial body is in view, which I think is what @PDCWolf has in mind - and if it's worth mentioning, I absolutely love it. It very much adds to the immersion for me - especially in low orbit around Kerbin when watching my space station or when landed on a body's surface. It's my opinion that it's more realistic than how KSP1 handles the skybox currently. It's more realistic in that it lines up more with space photography and eyewitness accounts from the last few decades.

    Hell yeah, once you install DOE there's no going back. You go from unrealistic sun+stars on the same sky to something that actually matches both camera workings and eyewitness accounts. I recommend a good, realistic skybox mod, since KSP1's skybox is pretty lowres.

    Quote

    Think of some of the classic space photos of this and the 20th century. 'Earthrise' is a prime example. Folks in this thread keep mentioning it depends on where you're looking at your screen, but this isn't making sense to me. What you're seeing on screen is analogous to what you'd be seeing with your own eyes if you were floating there in space, peripheral vision included (like Apollo transcripts when reflecting on what was seen from the Moon's surface). This is how DOE handles it as well. I wanted to take a 'Kerbinrise' screenshot, and I couldn't do it without DOE. Even if you're looking at nothing but a starfield, if the sun is anywhere in your field of vision (or say in the corner of your screen) that starfield becomes really dim or even imperceptible, right? With DOE installed, if you're on the surface of the Mun you will or will not see the starfield depending on what's in view (on screen). If you're on the Mun's surface and it's daytime, you won't see the stars unless you're looking up so that the surface and Kerbol aren't on-screen. If it's nighttime, you'll see the stars no matter what. This makes sense to me, it's intuitive and it's what I'd expect if my own eyes were there. Now like Ohara also talks about in their quote, say you're out at Jool. Should the stars be more visible? I'd say yes, because you're so far away from Kerbol, but they should still be dimmer than if there were no Jool in view.

    It wasn't making sense to me either, there's no way the sun would be anywhere in your vision without blinding you, even if not looking directly at it. That's so common you fight it every single day when driving, so it really hit me wrong when people weren't getting an explanation based on such a simple effect, which is why I thought it was a copout. 

    Quote

    One more gripe about that Jool shot from KSP2, I don't understand why the bottom of Jool is still so illuminated unless it's a reflection from other moons. Still, it doesn't look good. The terminator doesn't seem as prominent as it should be either. Nor should Kerbol be that bright. Of course, all this is probably meaningless as it's still a develepment shot.

    If PDCWolf, @SOXBLOX@shdwlrd, and anyone else interested, hasn't seen the DOE mod in action I'd highly recommend checking it out and then coming back with your thoughts on its behavior. I'm a huge fan of it, and really hope it is stock in KSP2. In my mind, it's right up there in importance with the other features of DOE, as well as Planetshine and Scatterer. And we already know we're getting Scatterer and Planetshine in game.

    Yes, DOE+Planetshine+Scatterer+A good skybox make a (no pun intended) night and day difference, and this thread goes to the most simple effect (little light not visible when big light visible ooga booga), but if you actually analize the entire lighting in KSP2, it's actually pretty bad overall, to the point I don't even believe it's filling some sort of artistic approach. 

    1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

    @Ahres I've used DOE in the past, primarily for the telescope mod I use to use. I've have forgotten about it since it was incompatible for so long.

    To be honest, I've never noticed that effect. I'm too busy either watching the navball or waiting for the "warp to" here to finish up. I'm never really paying attention to what is happening with the skybox. 

    Good to see I'm not the only one. I understand looking at stars for guidance, it's pretty basic to do, but the moment you have a magically orienting 3d navball, it shouldn't really be necessary. 

  6. 2 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    There's the problem. That is what we were discussing. Like everyone else has said, the computer can't tell where you're looking. Better to just leave the stars in and fade them a little bit, rather than make the sky pitch black.

    That's such a big copout from the real point. The sun is there, even if you're not looking directly at it, it's still either washing the sensor with light, or your eyes with light. Away means that, away, as in that thing not being on the field of vision or scene, such that you're shielded from it's light. 

  7. 6 hours ago, Snark said:

    Lotta words below, as is my wont ;) ... but it basically boils down to "I expect so, yes."

    Great, thank you for your work splitting the thread and keeping it clean.

    14 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    @shdwlrd is right. We can't possibly come to a consensus, because a consensus isn't possible. Younger eyes than Neil's might see stars where he wouldn't. Someone just popping out from hours in a dark location might see stars fine until their dark adaptation wears off.

    Neil was 40 when he went to the Moon. Someone coming from a dark location having spent hours on it would have their eyes blasted into submission by the glare, unless he looked away from any source of light, which isn't (and wasn't at any point) the point in discussion. 

    Quote

    "Eyewitness" and "primary source" "facts" don't mean much.

    Comedy gold.

    Quote

    Making the skybox fade might have some scientific justification. It might not. Better to A) leave it as a toggle-able feature or B) leave it to the modders. (And anyways, like multiple people have said, it won't know what part of the screen I'm looking at. I'd like to see stars when I'm supposed to be able to see stars.)

    Doesn't matter which part of the sky (or the screen) you're looking at if you've still got big bright light sources blasting into your eyes making the iris contract to adjust. In the examples posted, you could look at Jupiter (or Jool) whilst still having sunlight fall into your eyes, meaning your eyes would adjust for that, like how you can't magically see the road until you actually cover the sun, even if you aren't looking at it directly when driving.

  8. 4 minutes ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

    Those screenshots have significantly less stars than KSP does.

    They will do a better job on realism in that aspect, but I think they left some of the stars for the cinimatic aspect.

    If we had stars on Moho, that would be confusing.

    The skybox (skyboxes maybe) is new, and we don't really know how it looks in it's entirety, other places have many more stars, and even nebulaic or zodiacal dust (in conditions in which it still shouldn't be visible lol), lots of these are from the last video, most examples compiled in this album:

    https://imgur.com/a/Vd7hLAm

     

  9. 1 hour ago, Snark said:

    Hi folks,

    To anyone who's arriving late to the party, just a note to let you know that this discussion was originally split off from another thread, where the lively discussion was kinda derailing the original topic.  Since it's an interesting suggestion worthy of discussion in its own right, we've split off the entire discussion-up-to-this-point into its own thread, here in KSP2 Suggestions.

    As a side note, let's please remember that while lively debate is fine, we all need to remain civil-- so please try not to stray into personal remarks.  It's possible to disagree without acrimony.

    Thank you for your understanding, and we now return you to the discussion already in progress.

    Nice, does this make it more likely for a dev to see the discussion?

  10. 21 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

    @PDCWolf @OHara @SOXBLOX I'm finding your discussion really interesting but funny at the same time. Your disagreement is about the threshold of when you should be able to see the stars. But the points of proof being used are too varied in the situation, the technology used, the techniques used, and may not be true to the actual conditions present. Everybody's eyes are different, every lens is different, every image sensor is different. 

    The very bases of the discussion, the threshold of when you can see stars, is subject to the situation, the person observing, and the equipment used. So no consensus can be made. There are too many variables at play.

    That's what my previous-previous post wanted to do: Coalesce the argument into a limited set of variables, with authoritative, and primary sources. It is a factual given that the human eye can't see stars during daylight in an atmosphere less bodies, as evidenced by astronaut recounts from the Apollo missions on their EVAs, OR see them from space when there's a lit body, as evidenced by the recounts of Apollo astrounauts orbiting the moon, and other astronauts orbiting the Earth. The only exception to the previous statements is shielding yourself in total shadow both from the sun and reflected sunlight from bodies, which works thanks to there being no atmosphere to scatter light back into your eyes indirectly.

    As for cameras, there's really no discussion that if the shot is taken to make light emitting or reflecting surfaces resolvable (as in, exposure brought down to not make them overblown points of light), stars aren't visible in space either. The only way to have lit bodies and stars on the same shot is for the light from (or reflected by) the body to be dim enough that you'd to bring exposure up to adjust, OR have HDR.

  11. 4 hours ago, OHara said:

    The stars look correct in their brightness relative to Jool, as seen from Vall, in that image in the post just above.   

    Jool is 5× Kerbin's distance from the sun, so 25× less illuminance, so we would expect to see stars 3.5 magnitude (2.5×log10(25)) dimmer than we can see on a clear night with a quarter moon.

    The sun is of course very overexposed in this view.  The sun would fill 0.4° as seen from Vall, while Jool would fill 16°, so the image of sun has 'bloomed' 8× larger than its direct image.  That blooming could be imagined to be scattering in the eye of the observer, or inhomogeneities in the glass of camera lenses, or spillover on an old-fashioned CCD detector.  The spiky flare could be directional scattering from the natural lens  of an eye, or off the blades of an iris in a camera. (The horizontal lens flare, though, is ridiculous; it seems they want to grossly exaggerate the artefact of anamorphic cinematography lenses from the 1970s.)

    No atmosphere to scatter the sunlight on Vall, so the sun does not affect the rest of the sky. 

    The  KSP1 mod Distant Object Enhancement  does this.  It can be disorienting.

    Meanwhile, on an engine that does it's lighting correctly, Jupiter and the Sun from Europa's surface. From SpaceEngine. 

    EEbzxse.jpg

  12. 7 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    Um, no. That's literally the definition of proportional. I still think you're confusing multiple different effects. 

    Just to leave it clear, we'll start with a person starwatching with his naked eye, from a sea level place on Earth.  The main principles and effects at play are these:

    1. Other, stronger light sources, directly and/or scattered by the atmosphere as light pollution.
    2. 0.32 lux of moonlight, in the absolute worst possible case, both direct and scattered by the atmosphere as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_scattering_by_particles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
    3. Atmospheric extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy)
    4. Atmospheric turbulence, not noticeable on big objects unless they're close to the horizon, but it is what makes stars twinkle.

    Now, of course when in space we don't have anything related to the atmosphere for obvious reasons, but that's just for clarification purposes. As for sourcing the general claim that you shouldn't see stars in space when there's a bright, sufficiently close body, or you're in a sunlit body yourself, that's something I can still do.

    For cameras:

    For the human, naked eye:

    Quote

    Anyway, this whole discussion is a moot point. As Deddly pointed out, the computer can't tell which part of the screen the player is looking at. Plus, the viewpoint is neither a physical camera or a human retina. If it is one of those, it needs things like lens flare or diffraction spikes to be "realistic", as well as fading the skybox in the correct proportions and regions.

    This is at least intellectually dishonest. Exposure/aperture adaptation has been a common feature in games since controlling scene brightness in real time became a thing. We're now at the point where competitive FPS even use the effect as a form of balancing (Rainbow 6 Siege for example). Further on, games have either picked to imitate the eye or the camera when going for realism, or even just mix in all the effects and roll with it. Lastly, pegging this discussion on the inclusion of other effects is at least fallacious, or not made clear that it is just your personal take on the issue. You don't need "all the effects", and neither do all of them have the same value when accounting for realism or immersion. 

    Quote

    I'm confident the developers and the scientists they regularly consult know what they're doing. We'll just have to wait and see what they do.

    I'm not confident because 

    unknown.png

    unknown.png

  13. 14 minutes ago, TLTay said:

    We've seen small clips of the physics and orbits working, so that's really all I need to see on that matter. It's physics, so i'm sure they've got it figured out. Besides planets, the only other things interesting to show would be parts or gameplay mechanics, but they are probably saving the really "wow" stuff for closer to release to drum up sales. 

    Also, I think the build of this game lends itself to a test-as-you-go kind of system, because if they have the basic physics engine etc down first, they can do assets and planets etc and insert and test them as they finish them. The whole thing doesn't need to be done to test it.

    Those clips of "orbits and physics" are what led to the huge debate (mostly on reddit) that ended up with them having to include a big "THIS IS NOT GAMEPLAY" disclaimer. 

     

  14. I'll repeat myself in saying that there's no way the release is this close again and they're still showing in-editor asset mockups and only one or two in game shots. They should be at late testing, yet their media reflects late in-development. Of course they could be just releasing old stuff but that's not what was happening this year when the original release was closing in and we were still seeing untextured renders.

  15. 6 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    No, moonlight isn't made brighter by scattering. The background is. But without the atmospheric scattering turning the background a subtly glowing dark blue rather than black, contrast would be increased. That would mean the stars would be easier to see. They'd have roughly the same brightness, on a darker background. This is the reason you can see more stars in the country (like where I am). Less light pollution/haze = clearer view. I think you missed my point again.

    I did not miss your point. I'd believe scattering makes the area of the effect bigger for moonlight washing out stars, but also removing the atmosphere would make the moon considerably brighter, whilst stars are still very faint. Your eyes would adapt to a brighter Moon, losing more stars than to a less bright (but scattered into a bigger area) Moon.

  16. 2 minutes ago, Deddly said:

    My only argument as an amateur photographer is that humans and cameras see so very differently that I don't think we should put too much weight on the capability of a camera when trying to determine what the eye can and cannot see. They are simply not articularly comparable. 

    You are of course right, though. Bright objects affect the human vision. As for the question of at what distance/luminosity a celestial body needs to be in order to block our view of all stars or make them fainter, that's a subject I don't feel qualified to comment on. I wouldn't object to having the effect in game to some extent, but how far do you take it? Shouldn't the sunlight hitting the craft do the same thing? Are we only ever going to see the skybox when the sun is eclipsed from our viewpoint? 

    Don't tell me panning around a craft and have all the stars explode into view and come alive when the craft eclipses the Sun wouldn't look cool as all heck.

     

  17. 5 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    The first half sentence of your first paragraph is correct. The stars have to be brighter than the apparent background of the moonlit atmosphere to be seen. That's self-evident. Not even sure what the rest means. Could you please clarify?

    Moon closer, effect of reflected sunlight bigger, more light, stars not visible.

    Quote

    Next, your response to my footnote. Does the statement "atmospheric scattering and haze would not occur in space" need citation? There is no atmosphere in space, so of course views are clearer and crisper (better resolution). That's why we build space telescopes. There's no haze for the stars to be washed out by.

    The statement "The view would be clearer" needs citation, or at least context. There's atmospheric extinction, and it affects all light sources, so even though the Moon's light gets scattered by the atmosphere, it's not made brighter by said scattering, which is something removing the atmosphere would actually do, as you'd remove atmospheric extinction.

    Quote

    Next, your original point. It literally says that if something bright is present, there should be no visible stars. Period. This is obviously untrue, since I can see the Moon and stars at the same time from here on Earth (even with the atmosphere in the way). You need a caveat.

    My bad for assuming how much people would understand or dig through that statement.

    Quote

    For the pictures, part of the discussion on HDR was that human eyes don't see the same way a single camera exposure does. Our eyes don't stop moving over a scene, and what we "see" in our heads is a heavily processed composite of many instantaneous views. So, the closest thing isn't actually a natural exposure view.

    Except cameras have been specifically engineered to mimic the mechanisms by which we see, minus the heavy brain processing power. Whilst vision is a composite of many images, it is not a composite of many exposures. Your eyes adapt to a single brightness level the same way you open or close the aperture on a lens. The difference with cameras is you can leave the shutter open for a cumulative exposure effect, something our eyes only do to a certain point (enough for after images, but those are very short in duration). The best way to imitate what we see is a still, non composite image, and if it wasn't, there'd be no reason for natural photography to be as widespread as it is.

  18. 27 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    Now that I look back, I see I should have called this. This is actually false. Does the Moon obscure some stars? Yep. But average eyes can pick out stars very near the limb of the Moon*, both unaided and in binoculars or small telescopes. We call these conjunctions or occultations, and amateur astronomers observe them all the time.

    Only stars above certain apparent magnitude are visible near the Moon, and they have to be bright enough to puncture through scattered moonlight from almost 400000 kilometers away, which isn't much. This effect should be greatly diminished when you're closer to the moon, and we see that clearly on the Apollo astronaut's accounts.

     

    Quote

    After re-reading the discussion, I think the debate was a result of wording. I think a few of us thought you meant that if the Sun is overhead, the stars aren't visible. i.e. When you said:

    I guess you actually mean that they couldn't see stars when there was bright light shining in their eyes/when their eyes weren't dark-adapted. I was trying to point out the fact that dark-adapted eyes standing in shadow, even on the sunlit side of the Moon, could still see stars perfectly well. (Like those articles I linked said. They had citations which you can follow.)

    They could see stars whilst looking away from the Moon and hiding in the shadow. Again, my original point being: "Even in space itself, if there's a planet, or moon, or even a small body like an asteroid reflecting the sunlight, or the sun is on the scene, there should be no stars"

    Quote

    Also, there's this in your first post here. The wording suggests that there should be no stars at all, even if there's "a moon" in the sky. This is how we got on to the topic of cameras vs. human eyes. You presented camera images (no stars b/c of exposure settings), and confused these with the view a human eye would see (stars still visible if the eyes are dark-adapted and shielded OR if they are looking at a different part of the sky). Deddly addressed that part at the top of this page.

    I'm sorry for not being able to embed pictures downloaded from human eyes. I posted the closes thing which is non enhanced, natural exposure images.

    Quote

    *There's also another effect in play in this particular scenario (the Moon seen from Earth). It's atmospheric scattering and haze. That makes a large patch of the sky appear bright, which washes out stars. This wouldn't occur in space, so the view would be much clearer, and stars near the Moon could be resolved much more easily than on Earth.

    The first bit, explaining the effect, I agree. The claim you derive from that requires at least some citation.

  19. 23 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    Correct. The original visual-wavelengths exposure was not intended to pick up the stars. They only appeared when that exposure was aggregated with other ones. This is like the HDR setting on modern smartphone cameras.

    From this article: "It is a common misconception that the Apollo astronauts didn't see any stars....Apollo astronauts reported they could see the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module, and also they saw stars while orbiting the far side of the Moon. Al Worden from Apollo 15 has said the sky was 'awash with stars' in the view from the far side of the Moon that was not in daylight."

    Also, from another article: "The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space." But, "Even in space, the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly."

    So why did Neil say he couldn't see stars when on the Moon? It's because he was looking at the bright surface of the Moon just seconds before, in sunlight stronger than that on a clear noon on Earth. He'd lost his dark adaptation. It can take thirty minutes to get full dark adaptation, but only seconds of bright light to destroy it. Even at night on Earth, with no bright objects in the sky, I can step out of a well lit room onto my very dark porch, and not be able to see a single star.

    We're dealing with two separate effects here, one with cameras, and the other with the human eye. I think this is the source of the confusion. Cameras wash out stars when A) their exposure isn't calculated to capture them, or B) when their optics aren't able to because of design choices. The human eye cannot distinguish them when it has A) lost dark adaptation because of bright light, or B) they're actively looking at something bright.

    So, should these effects play into KSP2? Well, is the viewpoint we see the stars from intended to be an in-game camera or human eye? Probably neither. So these effects shouldn't really occur. If it is supposed to be a camera, the devs should probably include other camera artifacts like lens flare.

    And anyways, if it's simple to implement (and I already knew it was, thanks) then it will be an easy mod to make. And I see no benefits personally, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

    Funny you'd answer only to that bit ignoring the primary sources (transcripts and pictures) whilst quoting a secondary, and even tertiary sources. He mentions not being able to see stars in multiple occasions (daylit surface, daylit orbit), yet journalists are quick to jump to explain the man himself, whilst not sourcing their own claims on the same and other documents. Lastly, you end up giving me the right as I've been saying this entire time that if there's something bright on the scene, stars shouldn't be visible, too bad it took you like 5 posts to get to the adaptation argument when it's the same thing I've been mentioning all this time.

    As for cameras, it's a no brainer that they can only capture stars by compositing multiple exposures or by specifically overexposing anything else in the scene to get stars to be visible. Cameras shouldn't be the discussion because there's no discussion to be had there.

  20. 36 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    It's not fantastic or laughable at all. Do you have a star atlas? I'm using my copy of Norton's (20th ed.) You could also use any other good one that goes to at least 6th magnitude. Check out the dots in the image (which are stars) and compare them to the charts (numbers 5 & 6 in Norton's). They match perfectly. I wasn't saying anything off the top of my head; I checked before I posted.

    As for the rest, I think we're vehemently agreeing, but with different words. You and I both say stars are washed out by bright light sources, especially for short exposures, and doubly especially for purpose-built camera optics not even designed to pick up stars. Both your articles and the one I linked say the same things, too.

    So, should KSP2 implement that sort of stuff? I still say no, unless the devs add in other camera artifacts, like lens flare, too. It would still look fine, and since the view perspective isn't a camera, it makes sense to leave out things that result from optical systems.

    Sorry, no. My sources include eyewitness accounts. Cameras can see and not see stars in a lot of situations depending on their settings and lenses, which yes, most commonly would result in no stars during daylight or with any strong enough light source present. In fact, if you read the article I linked when responding to another poster, you'd see that Saturn image is a light enhanced version of the original, in which you can't see stars at all.  As fas as eyes, the principle remains the same, except we're locked to not seeing stars when enough light is present, made clear on the Apollo transcripts.

    I also think you greatly overestimate the effort required for such a simple feature, whilst underestimating the benefits.

  21. 1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

    I see many stars in that one. There's the Belt of Orion at the uppermost left edge of the outer halo. Sirius is below and left of that, I believe. Cetus' head is on the right side of the image. Heck, I can see the Hyades in the glow of the rings.

    With the two others, it's really due to the cameras. If I step outside at night with my smartphone and take a picture, I won't see any stars. I might still see Jupiter or something, though. But that's not because Jupiter was so bright that it washed them out. It's because the exposure wasn't long enough or in high enough detail.

    I agree that if the Sun is in the image, you don't see stars nearby. But that's mainly a camera issue. I could point a telescope right next to the Sun, and ignoring the corona, I could see stars. Space is pretty transparent.

    Here's some further reading that might help: https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars

    Wrong. As per the detailed description of this image (https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329) there are no stars visible. The fact that you'd point out the orion belt on an alien sky is not just fantastic, but also very laughable.

    Astronauts on the Apollo were never able to see stars when on the daylit surface of the moon OR the daylit side during orbit: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12256/what-did-the-sky-actually-look-like-from-the-moon Apart from explanations, here's the direct link to the conference where they explain this phenomena https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html

    qx3Lafb.png

    There's also two transcripts from EVA  16 and 17 on the moon that also reflect this.

    On top of that, it is literally a visible effect, it's not camera science or anything of the sort. If the moon is out, there is no stars near it, even the smallest sliver of new moon is enough to hide at least a couple stars. Same thing if you just plainly go outside and turn on any sort of household-power light, it'll wash out a lot of stars. Now the sun, and the sunlight reflected by celestial bodies, is enough to make stars not visible in most conditions.

    Edit to add the fact that this same conversation has been used as hoax material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Hoax_claims_and_rebuttals In this article, absence of stars is a topic in itself, citing how astronauts themselves couldn't see stars as well.

  22. 1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

    These examples are all from next to bright, reflective bodies. How would it be in deep space? The little star trackers used for navigation on interplanetary spacecraft see the stars just fine, and they never experience a "night". They just look away from the Sun. You can see stars just fine as long as you're not looking at something bright. IMO, I don't think the devs should bother with this. It seems like too much work for something trivial.

    A Saturn "eclipse", sun blocked by the planet, no stars. newrings_cassini_big.jpg

    Very last twilight on Mars, before complete nightfall, Earth is visible, but no stars. 

    SbE7F2qtUkUNCmeMmJN4fN.jpg

    Wide field from "Pale Blue Dot" image, sun visible from 5 Billion miles. No stars, Earth is barely visible. Squares in high detail, rest in low detail and blown up in exposure (should make stars easier to see, but the sun still washes them.

    776px-View_of_the_Sun,_Earth_and_Venus_f

    Quote

     It seems like too much work for something trivial.

    It's something every basic mod for KSP 1 does in literally 2 lines of code, changing the opacity of the skybox inversely proportional to light sources.

  23. [Moderator's note:  This post, and its ensuing discussion, were originally split off from another thread.  It's an interesting KSP2 suggestion, but didn't really fit the topic of the other thread, which is why the moderators have split it into a topic of its own.]

    I left this comment on YouTube, but I believe it'll held a higher value (and bring some REAL discussion here). So I'll just copypaste:

    Quote

    Can we NOT have stars during daylight? Even in space itself, if there's a planet, or moon, or even a small body like an asteroid reflecting the sunlight, or the sun is on the scene, there should be no stars. It's an incredibly small detail, which should be super easy to do as well, and it goes MILES into immersion.

    Another thing I can do here is leave evidence.

    67P blown up in exposure to bring out the very dim comma, yet it still obscures stars: bursting-comet20200921-1041.gif?itok=Tis

    Pluto. A dim object VERY far from the Sun, also brought up in exposure because it lives in perpetual twilight (get's less sun than 67P, almost 10 times as far away from the Sun). Still no stars:

    Fly by Pluto with the New Horizons probe | New Scientist

    Apollo command module orbiting the Moon during it's daylight, no stars.

    Módulo de mando y servicio - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

     

×
×
  • Create New...