Lighting whilst traveling between stars

[t_v]

And of course, remember that this can be configured if the devs just add an option. There is already a minimum ambient light option in KSP 1, so why not have one in KSP 2, to satisfy everyone? 

(also, I should start lighting my craft and not just the ground they are landing on)

[PDCWolf]

9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And? Gameplay over graphics. No pitch black.

Gameplay would be using the tools the game gives you: lights and floodlamps. Relying on a magical hardcoded solution like fake ambient light is not gameplay.

[darthgently]

52 minutes ago, t_v said:

(also, I should start lighting my craft and not just the ground they are landing on)

I like to have 2 separate lighting circuits.  One is for outward facing floodlights illuminating the ground and objects nearby the craft for docking/grabbing/landing and another for illuminating the ship itself (including internal lights of crewed parts).  I use kOS to control them separately but the same can be done with action groups

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

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

I imagine so. I would imagine KSP 2 will have a setting similar to KSP 1 that does the same thing.  I expect the defaults will be similar to KSP 1, with ambient light always showing your ship.

[Pthigrivi]

12 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I like to have 2 separate lighting circuits.  One is for outward facing floodlights illuminating the ground and objects nearby the craft for docking/grabbing/landing and another for illuminating the ship itself (including internal lights of crewed parts).  I use kOS to control them separately but the same can be done with action groups

At some point I just started putting RTGs on almost everything as backup power, and after that I started leaving all the lights on so I could see what I was doing, especially on dark side landing and docking maneuvers where orientation and distance both matter. That might change if RTGs require a precious resource like uranium, and I might have to get more disciplined about battery sizing and usage. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

At some point I just started putting RTGs on almost everything as backup power, and after that I just started leaving all the lights on so I could see what I was doing, especially on dark side landing and docking maneuvers. That might change if RTGs require a precious resource like uranium, and I might have to get more disciplined about battery sizing and usage. 

I usually wait until I have nuclear reactors for that "leave the lights on" phase, lol.  RTGs are too weak, expensive, and heavy to waste power like that in the early game.  Especially on ion probes and such where electrical power is too important for comms and engine power.  In the early game I might have 2 small lights and only have them on when needed.  The later game is much more extravagant.  Like Las Vegas, baby!

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah on probes I usually deal unless they're going out past Dres. Mainly crewed vessels always get RTGs. I don't need to run out of batteries and brick on descent. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

thought we had left this back on that other thread once all camera chicanery got debunked

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

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

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

[PDCWolf]

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

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

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

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

Thanks for the explication.

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

Quote

So if your starship is bright white, you should be able to discern it even in starlight. If it is not bright white however, you might be in trouble

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

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

for example:

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

Quote

 

In 1962, astrophysicist Lyman Spitzer described a method in which “a large occulting disk” could be placed far in front of a telescope to reduce the glare from a star and make it easier to see nearby planets. Today, scientific advancements have allowed astrophysicists to envision a star shade about 25 to 75 meters in diameter, which would fly some 50,000 miles in front of a telescope and unfold like origami into a circular “sunflower” shape—a central circle surrounded by petals. (Spitzer described such petals as “sharp spikes” that could be used to make the shadow behind the shade “much blacker.”)

The telescope sits right on the edge of the sunflower’s shadow, where the petals bend and diffract the few photons of light that get through. 

Flying tens of thousands of miles ahead of its main craft, a star shade positioned directly between a star and a telescope would create a shadow (or a “dry spot”) in this stream of light that blocks out nearly all the light from the star, yet captures the faint light reflecting off any exoplanets orbiting it. A telescope sitting directly on this spot, which is about a meter wider than the telescope, would see not a blob of starlight but a donut of blackness (the star shade’s shadow) surrounded by faint light (from the exozodiacal dust surrounding the star) and one or several bright dots orbiting the star—exoplanets at 10^-10 contrast.

 

 

[PDCWolf]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Thanks for the explication.

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

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

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

for example:

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

 

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

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

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

[Bej Kerman]

14 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

And? Gameplay over graphics. No pitch black.

Gameplay would be using the tools the game gives you: lights and floodlamps. Relying on a magical hardcoded solution like fake ambient light is not gameplay.

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

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

[PDCWolf]

50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

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

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

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

55 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

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

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

Lighting isn't a fun or engaging gameplay mechanic.

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

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Gameplay would be using the tools the game gives you: lights and floodlamps. Relying on a magical hardcoded solution like fake ambient light is not gameplay.

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

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

[PDCWolf]

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Lighting isn't a fun or engaging gameplay mechanic.

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

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

22 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

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

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

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

[SciMan]

IMO the specific implementation of the scene lighting engine in KSP 2 matters little to me. If things are too dark, I'll put lights on my ship. Unless the game artificially limits how many light sources you can have active on your ship at any one time (like KSP did, tho it was a setting), you don't need to install a mod to fix a problem that the vanilla game already has a solution to.

If that's "realistic" or not, matters not one iota to me.
This game could look like Minecraft as far as the graphics, and I'd still play it, so long as it still played the same.
I mean, go back and look at the game in it's 0.13.3 state (when they had just added Minmus, and the rest of the solar system outside Kerbin's SOI was just empty except for Kerbol). Compared to now, that game probably looks pretty ugly in comparison, and yet you can still reliably tell that it's the same game, especially if you go into the VAB (IIRC there was no SPH back then, or it had just been added, I forget because it's been so long).

What really matters to me are good framerates, and engaging gameplay. That's why I don't play Career mode, the "grind funding doing missions that you don't want to do that actually make money to pay for the rocket you actually want to fly that's too expensive to ever make money" part of the game is no fun, and shows a lack of knowledge in how to design a fun game. It's not bad for a first try at it (and literally everyone that worked on KSP back when Career was implemented was working on KSP as their first space game at least, and probably their first game in general on top of that, unless maybe they worked on the parts or buildings, but all the coders were inexperienced and boy it shows, despite KSP being a great game).

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Lighting isn't a fun or engaging gameplay mechanic.

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

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

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

Autonomous ships don't need human input or vigilance in the first place, that's what autonomy is there for.

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

 

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

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

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

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

You do not. You have instruments, a full UI providing lots of telemetry, and action groups and actually, for manned ships, Kerbals on EVA already have lights integrated into them.

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

[t_v]

One way this is aided is the highlight on parts when you hover over them. It shows the shape of the part clearly enough that you can tell what it is, and I have used it many times to activate my landing engine in the dark. It is a good way to have both pitch black craft and easy access to what parts are. 

[PDCWolf]

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

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

[EnderKid2]

would be nice to get some sort of augmented reality "utility overlay"/"night vision" which shows your ship(s) in fullbright and, if you have the relevant sensors, the ground and surrounding objects in wireframe/pointcloud

[Deddly]

Do we know yet how distant stars are from one another in KSP 2? Think about how close planets are compared with real life; if something similar has been done with stars, we can have both gameplay and realism reasons why starlight should be enough to make an interstellar craft somewhat visible mid journey.

[The Aziz]

13 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Do we know yet how distant stars are from one another in KSP 2? Think about how close planets are compared with real life; if something similar has been done with stars, we can have both gameplay and realism reasons why starlight should be enough to make an interstellar craft somewhat visible mid journey.

It would have to be constant across all places. If starlight is enough to shed some light on the craft in interstellar space, it should do the same on the dark side of every celestial body.