Lighting whilst traveling between stars

[ChubbyCat]

When you are traveling  through the deepest parts of space, lightyears from any stars, is there any real source of light? Besides maybe the light from an engines exhaust, will we really even be able to see our ship as it travels through the black void?  Does light ever dissipate through space? or can stars still light you up even when you are incomprehensible distances away from them? 

[Bej Kerman]

26 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

When you are traveling  through the deepest parts of space, lightyears from any stars, is there any real source of light?

Yes, depending on exposure.

26 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

Besides maybe the light from an engines exhaust, will we really even be able to see our ship as it travels through the black void?

Depends if the devs go photorealistic or stylised.

26 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

Does light ever dissipate through space?

Yes, that's why the Sun isn't turning you into plasma right now. It's why stars are dim. But light doesn't "dissipare", it spreads out. By asking if we can even see ships in interstellar space, you're answering your own question.

26 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

or can stars still light you up even when you are incomprehensible distances away from them? 

Refer to:  

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Yes, depending on exposure.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[PDCWolf]

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

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

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

Edited April 9, 2022 by PDCWolf

[MechBFP]

Gameplay first, realistic lighting second. 
 

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

[Minmus Taster]

A few screenshots from yesterday's video:

This is one of the ships from the video when it's near a star.

Spoiler

This is it supposedly during transit:

 

 

[darthgently]

Make sure to add lots of marker lights to your interstellar craft I suppose

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

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

It's hasty to call underexposing background stars an improvement. The skybox provides a reference frame to orient yourself, and when it's absent this can prove quite disorientating.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

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

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

[Bej Kerman]

13 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Admittedly, on Earth I'm being benefitted by atmospheric scattering and the amazing properties of the Mark 1 Eyeball.

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

[The Aziz]

I just want to point out that even if there's no or minimum ambient light in ingame interstellar space, it shouldn't bother anyone too much: the only thing you're most likely be doing mid flight is a flip and start of braking burn. Then you can leave the ship again for few more years. All of that is perfectly doable in complete darkness. And technically you're still going to see a ship silhouette in front of background full of stars.

[PDCWolf]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

Not what again?

[PDCWolf]

17 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Not what again?

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

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

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

8 hours ago, MechBFP said:

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

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

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

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

Edited April 10, 2022 by PDCWolf

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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

Yeah? Your point being?

[t_v]

For anyone wondering, this topic has been extensively discussed before.

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

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yeah? Your point being?

This is how things will work in real life, both for cameras and eyes and probably super eyes up to the point where you have incredible dynamic range (then you can see it), so any arguments cannot be based on what is really the case, and rather over whether gameplay is impeded and whether realism is worth the cost. 

[MechBFP]

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

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

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

[PDCWolf]

2 minutes ago, t_v said:

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

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

Just now, MechBFP said:

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

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

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

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

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

Gameplay over graphics.

[darthgently]

29 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

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

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

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

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

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

Edited April 10, 2022 by darthgently

[Minmus Taster]

45 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Minmus Taster said:

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

Yes, look on the workshop.

[PDCWolf]

18 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

Gameplay over graphics.

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

3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

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

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

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

5 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

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

Yes.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

Gameplay over graphics.

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

And? Gameplay over graphics. No pitch black.

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, darthgently said:

Make sure to add lots of marker lights to your interstellar craft I suppose

Floodlights too. I usually self-light my vessels so I can see them better in shadow anyway. 

[darthgently]

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

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

lol, why yes, I did do that.  I like to look at my craft and bathe in their engineering splendor before the kraken wipes them out