Jump to content

Can we NOT have stars during daylight?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

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

Yes, but stars are incredibly dim by default, save for a few. If it's proportional, there's much more room for the Moon to become brighter than for stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Yes, but stars are incredibly dim by default, save for a few. If it's proportional, there's much more room for the Moon to become brighter than for stars.

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

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

[Edit: I figure that Jool at noon is illuminated by 3000  lm/m², using the conversion 2 µlm/m² 10^(−Mv /2.5) for the illuminance of a star with apparent magnitude Mv, and assuming Kerbol as seen from Kerbin has the same, −26.7 magnitude as Sol seen from Earth, so Kerbol would have apparent magnitude −23.2 as seen from Jool.  In the photo the limb looks to have the sun 30° over the horizon, and if Jool is a Lambertian scatterer with albedo 0.5, the luminance on the limb seen from Vall would be 250 lm/m²/sr = 250 cd/m². Kerbol has luminance 40,000,000 lm/m²/sr, and many stars would have the same luminance, but neither eyes nor cameras on Vall can resolve them.  If the eye or camera blurs stars to a 0.03°-diameter disk (0.25 µsr) the blur-circle of a  star would show luminance 8 lm/m²/sr 10^(−Mv /2.5). So the brightest Mv=0 stars would be just 8/250 as bright as the limb of Jool.

The limb of a quarter moon is 2 500 lm/m²/sr, which is 300× more luminous than the brightest stars (seen with 0.03° human-eye resolution) but we can perceive them both when out walking at night.   

We need some high-dynamic-range-ish compression between luminance and pixel values to make the display look like we expect from experience, but that is normal.  In serious work, I generally use a gamma-correction of 0.5 to fit four orders of magnitude into a 0-255 brightness scale.]

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. 

On 11/5/2021 at 6:15 AM, PDCWolf said:

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

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

Edited by OHara
I can't help but work the numbers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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.

Even if you break everything into a set of numbers, the human perception would be different. You can setup the exact same environment to perform a test to see who would see a point of light first. The differences in each persons eyes is a factor you can't account for. The differences in how each persons brain reacts to the signals from the eyes would be different. So you can't take peoples descriptions as fact since you can't prove what they see, when they see it. So saying that this must happen because someone says that is what happened to them is so unscientific it's not even funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An earlier comment noted that having the skybox dim was disorienting, and I agree. Maybe this should just be an option with customisable aspects - the skybox for us isn't just a pretty decoration, but it also lets us tell where we're looking, and having it dim for foreground objects would be a bit confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I'm not confident because 

unknown.png

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.

Edited by Admiral Fluffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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. "Eyewitness" and "primary source" "facts" don't mean much when they're dependent on who's doing the observing.

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.)

Like I said earlier, trust the developers, and the scientists they consult, because they actually know what they're doing. Random people on the internet (myself included) do not. I've seen no evidence that they are incompetent, are massively behind schedule, or whatever, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Edited by SOXBLOX
whose != who's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just popping in to say that seeing familiar constellations "in an alien sky" is not ridiculous when that "alien sky" is another planet in our solar system. The stars are so far away from our solar system that the distance between Earth and Saturn is negligible except maybe for the finest measurements or the closest stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

Spoiler

I'd be inclined to say yes-- after all, the KSP forum exists because they set it up, and this particular subforum exists because they specifically wanted to give users a place to make suggestions about KSP2.  And my observation over the past few years has been that they do pay attention to what goes on in the forum.

That said, though, I can't promise that any given developer will or won't have time to read every suggestion in detail.  After all, there are a lot of suggestions here, and in any case, I'm not in a position to know firsthand.  (We moderators don't work for the company-- we're just forum users like yourself, who happen to volunteer to help keep the forum running smoothly, and we're not privy to internal company deliberations.)

What I can say is that if a forum user has an idea for the game that they want to share with the devs... then this subforum is the place that I think has the best chance of being seen.  It's what it's for;)

 

7 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

I trust the developers

Personally, this pretty much sums up my own take on the matter.  More wordy stuff below, but the TL;DR is that I think the most important factor in situations like this is, "who's working on it and what are their values".  And in this case, I think we're in good hands.

Spoiler

Like I said, I don't work for the company and am not privy to their internal discussions... but speaking from my own experience as a professional software developer for the past quarter-century, I can appreciate and sympathize with their position.

I know from firsthand experience that every design decision is a tradeoff, that it's almost never a no-brainer, and that it's never possible for a developer to please everyone.  I know that devs have to balance a lot of factors, many (perhaps most) of which are not apparent to outside observers such as the users.

Trying to find the "optimal" approach is highly vague and ambiguous, and inescapably comes down to a bunch of judgment calls.  Because of this... my experience has been that overwhelmingly the most important thing is the quality of the judgment.  It's not about this issue or that one, it's not about who wins this argument or that.  It boils down to who is making the judgment calls, and what are their values.

And in that sense, I get a strong sense that we're in good hands.  Time will tell and we won't really know for sure until KSP2 is in our grubby little hands, of course.  :)  But I have the strong impression that the right people are working on this game.  Most of them, I don't know firsthand.  But I have had a chance to communicate with one or two in the past, and I get the sense that these are good people who are passionate about what they do.

And the buck ultimately stops with Nate Simpson, whom I have had the good fortune to meet, and I can say that I can't imagine anyone else into whose hands I'd be more willing to entrust KSP.  The guy's been a rabid, slavering KSP fan since way before KSP2 was even an idea, back when it wasn't his job.  He's more of a KSP nerd than I am, which is saying something.  :)  He really cares about this game, to the extent that his passion for it is visible if you spend more than thirty seconds in a room with him, and he's been along for the ride (as a player and fan) since the very start of the game.

He's one of us, folks.  And of course I don't want to over-personalize this, because the game is the product of a big team with lots of creative input from many other people whom I haven't been fortunate enough to meet.... but the fact that the company would put someone like Nate in charge, tends to give me some confidence that they'll tend to get the right people for the many other roles in production, as well.  There's a lot I don't know (like anyone outside the company), so I'm working from a pretty small signal, here; but what signals I can see, seem awfully encouraging to me, as a KSP fan.

So, of course that doesn't mean that we're all going to like every single thing about KSP2.  (It's back to that "impossible to please everyone" thing.)  I'm sure that like every other piece of software, when it comes out, every one of us will be able to point at something in the game that we don't like, and say "they should have done it this way, not that way."

But I do think that in general, KSP2 is in the best hands that we can reasonably expect it to be.  So my general attitude is "I expect they got this", and therefore I'm reasonably optimistic.  Beyond that, will just have to wait and see what KSP2 delivers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

unless he looked away from any source of light, which isn't (and wasn't at any point) the point in discussion. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 6:47 AM, OHara said:

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

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.

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.

Which actually raises another question that I've been thinking about bringing up as a KSP2 discussion topic. Should Jool (and other objects that are increasingly distant from their star) be visibly dimmer? Is this how it is IRL? All the pictures we see of Sol's planets make them appear as bright as Earth does, but I've always wondered if that's actually the case.  Do they appear so bright just because of how big they are? Although, I suppose they look bright through a telescope.... I'm thinking out loud now. It seems like the movie Ad Astra makes Uranus or Neptune (I forget which it was now) look quite dim "in person". Which made sense to me because of how far from the Sun these objects are, but stock photos from NASA suggest otherwise. 

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.

Edited by Ahres
It'd be a 'Kerbinrise', not a 'Kerbolrise'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2021 at 6:33 AM, PDCWolf said:

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. 

Distant Object Enhancement mod, adds  what you want implement ASAP in ksp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...