Can we NOT have stars during daylight?

[PDCWolf]

[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: 

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:

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

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Snark
Explanatory comment added by moderator

[SOXBLOX]

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

no stars

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.

[PDCWolf]

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. 

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

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.

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.

[Deddly]

Interesting idea about fading out the skybox. But the difficulty of seeing stars in those situations has a lot to do with the limitation of camera technology. For example, night-time photographs that include anything relatively bright, like the moon or a lit-up building, do not show stars (with the exception of some more modern HDR cameras), but the human eye surely can see the stars in the same setting, as long as the viewer is not staring directly at the bright object. How will the game know which part of the screen the player is looking at? 

[AtomicTech]

34 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Interesting idea about fading out the skybox. But the difficulty of seeing stars in those situations has a lot to do with the limitation of camera technology. For example, night-time photographs that include anything relatively bright, like the moon or a lit-up building, do not show stars (with the exception of some more modern HDR cameras), but the human eye surely can see the stars in the same setting, as long as the viewer is not staring directly at the bright object. How will the game know which part of the screen the player is looking at? 

 

[t_v]

I looked at an article which seems to be reputable which confirms that during the “day time,” astronauts cannot see stars even with their eyes. However, with even a little shade, stars start appearing as the would at dusk here on earth. Behind that asteroid or by Pluto, the human eye would be able to see stars even though cameras with their low dynamic ranges are unable to do so. Stylistically, I would like to always be able to see some stars, because I like the way they look more than the realism of the game. 
(this is the article: https://www.universetoday.com/136802/can-astronauts-see-stars-space-station/)

[SOXBLOX]

13 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

[PDCWolf]

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

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.

Edited November 3, 2021 by PDCWolf

[Deddly]

33 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

.As per the detailed description of this image (https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329) there are no stars visible. 

I followed the link but was unable to find that in the description. Please could you be more precise? 

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, Deddly said:

I followed the link but was unable to find that in the description. Please could you be more precise? 

All the text describes what's visible in the image. It goes from Saturn itself, to its rings, and then extra details visible on the light/contrast/color enhanced version (which is the one where you can see stars).

[SOXBLOX]

6 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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.

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.

[PDCWolf]

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.

[SOXBLOX]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

in which you can't see stars at all.

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.

Edited November 4, 2021 by SOXBLOX
Detail, detail...

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The fact that you'd point out the orion belt on an alien sky is not just fantastic, but also very laughable

Um... No. 

Hint: what constellation is opposite Orion? 

Pick any star there and visit it - then look back at the Earth (Sol) ... What do you see in the background? 

[PDCWolf]

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.

[SOXBLOX]

59 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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.

I have primary sources, too, thanks. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I never said you could see stars right next to the Sun, while the Sun is still visible. This is something we agreed on already. I guess you missed that.  Although, I didn't see you mention the dark adaptation argument until now. I'll check to see if I missed it... (EDIT: I didn't.)

Glad we agree on the cameras, too. Now that we see we agree, why are we arguing?

Edited November 5, 2021 by SOXBLOX

[SOXBLOX]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:47 PM, PDCWolf said:

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.

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.

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:

On 11/3/2021 at 1:47 PM, PDCWolf said:

Astronauts on the Apollo were never able to see stars when on the daylit surface of the moon OR the daylit side during orbit

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.)

On 11/2/2021 at 4:11 PM, PDCWolf said:

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.

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.

 

*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.

Edited November 5, 2021 by SOXBLOX
Added footnote.

[PDCWolf]

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.

[SOXBLOX]

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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.

 

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"

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Edited November 5, 2021 by SOXBLOX

[PDCWolf]

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.

[Deddly]

28 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

... pictures downloaded from human eyes. I posted the closes thing which is non enhanced, natural exposure images.

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? 

[PDCWolf]

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.

 

[SOXBLOX]

10 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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.

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.

[PDCWolf]

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.

[SOXBLOX]

9 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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.

If you remove the atmosphere, the stars would be brighter by the same factor. Relative magnitude would be preserved.