PDCWolf

I'd say, based on the pale blue dot image (below) that even when further away than Pluto, the sun still overpowers most stuff. I'll also base myself on the balanced image of Pluto (also below), that when that far away from the sun, this phenomena still applies. However, no, I don't think they consider it, BUT considering the solar system in KSP1 is magnitudes smaller than our own, I'd think there shouldn't be much of a difference. Full Pale Blue Dot composite: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00450 (Sun still overpowers all, explained in text) Pluto from the front: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA20291 Pluto from the back, even the haze overpowers stars: (and the exposure is blown up, look at that banding on the atmosphere): https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA20727

I don't think anyone along the entire thread has treated the feature as make or break, but rather a very obvious, easy to implement, missed opportunity when going for realism. Neither has the claim for the feature been unanimous, otherwise there'd be no pages of discussion.

Gravity: First Man: Yeah, that's why DOE has so little downloads, and so do almost all other visual mods that make things right. As for evidence and argumentation on why respecting this in KSP2 is the right way to go, it's all over the thread, and provided not only by me.

Not if they're... eyes as we know them. They might have better low light vision, but their eyes would still submit to the same processes in ours. What would be required is "HDR" eyes that can selectively tone up and down exposure on a per-receptor basis, and some heavy brain processing power.

Which is nothing related to what you were talking about in your last post, where you jumped to a conclusion based on a misidentified source (enhanced image), I wanted to clear that up. Plus, to be clear, you have to shield yourself from all light that might reach your eyes, not just the sun, which I did point out back then too.

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

Only grasping at straws if you ignore every other bit of argument in the entire thread. Not to mention your gross overgeneralization of where realistic vs artistic (which is also a very intellectually dishonest fallacy to compare) end up. As for the MK/SF comparison, all the games you named are dead and look dated. Funny you'd say that when modern day space epics have gone for a realistic look because that's exactly what sets them apart from simple hollywood flicks. Because we've had spaceships and rockets in a lot of colors. And we have the capability of painting them on any color, it's just cheaper to not paint them, or useful to paint them in reflective colors, or to easily visualize rotation.

Realism is not bad game design, specially on a "simulcade". On top of this, your video refers to mechanical gameplay decisions, not visual, which are two very different aspects, specially once you include artistic view as part of the second. At the moment, it is not clear (since the lighting on screenshots sucks on most cases) whether they've arrived to this stage by "artistic choice" or just because they haven't considered this particular phenomenon. This discussion is: "Stars dim in real life if there's a stronger source of light in your view, and I can prove it, can we have that in the game", and you can refer to the first post for the initial statement, and subsequent posts for the proof. People have tried to peg a myriad misconceptions and assumptions in an attempt to "defend" their personal tastes or their misconceptions/ignorance about how stuff actually works to this discussion. As to shove the "KSP is not a simulator" (or "this is too realistic for KSP") argument away, something that has had to be done time and time again since the first public versions of KSP1, the KSP2 development team has demonstrated their focus on realism through atmosphere visuals like sun scattering, realistic interplanetary lighting like eclipses, different lighting from different stars, engine exhaust lighting, reflections and shading of parts, all that work for water shading, etc. So, don't come at me saying this particular effect falls outside how realistic an image they're trying to achieve, because they've clearly gone further distances already working to bring in on other realistic aspects in lighting tech.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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: Other, stronger light sources, directly and/or scattered by the atmosphere as light pollution. 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 Atmospheric extinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy) 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: https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars https://www.wired.com/2007/11/why-cant-stars/ https://ourplnt.com/why-there-are-no-stars-in-space-photos/ For the human, naked eye: https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=40208 https://www.quora.com/Can-you-see-stars-in-the-daytime-when-youre-in-space 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. I'm not confident because

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Moon closer, effect of reflected sunlight bigger, more light, stars not visible. 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. My bad for assuming how much people would understand or dig through that statement. 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.

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.

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.