PDCWolf

I meant that it seemed fantastic and laughable to me, that someone would be quickly able to recognize a couple stars on a place that is not Earth, from a single, almost reference-less picture. It was relevant as a response to the user's post in that moment, since he was using his magic stargazer powers ("i saw this and that and that other constellation over there!") to justify being able to see, which he clearly wasn't since not a single one of his calls was right. You're looking at a reference-less sky from a place that is not even on your same world, no human has ever seen that sky directly, nor is a single human accustomed to search for stars there, nor do we know the FOV of the camera to justify how much sky is actually visible, or any other useful data. Whilst literally not being Earth makes it fit the extraterrestrial sky definition, what I just described makes it fit the idea that the picture shows an enough different sky (from what we see every day) that trying to play stargazer is, again, laughable and fantastic.

Ofxord does, also lists it. https://www.lexico.com/synonyms/alien

Works for the adjective as well, as Wiktionary would also repeatedly tell you.

Bro, I'm not the one that joined a thread to make a tangential post about a sub-topic, also, somehow you didn't realize extraterrestrial and alien are synonyms, pretty big oversight:

It falls under the definition of extraterrestrial sky, as much as you might wanna twist it any other way.

Funny cause it ended up being a totally wrong guess, as pointed out by

I think it's disingenuous to test on a system that's below the minimum specs of KSP1 specially when we're talking about KSP2 here. There's almost 10 years of evolution for the minimum spec the game could require. Also, it's not like we even know their performance target, we don't have anything for that outside of guesswork. And I never mentioned to know *exactly* how it works . However being in the software industry, and a modder, you'd easily be able to at least blackbox the thing.

You can both know the size of the skybox images (this is pretty much publicly accesible lmao) AND infer what GalaxyCubeControl does (specially thanks to the API docs & many other modders using it) without violating item 9. Now, you're suggesting DOE uses hacky code, and you'd know since you maintain it, yet use that same allegedly hacky code to argue that you'd require double the resources just to dim the skybox. Since we'd be dealing with a stock implementation, going as deep as shaders themselves rather than duplication and operation, we could do away with that argument easily. You can't have both sides.

Output from solar panels is programmatically changed with a mathematical formula, not by relative brightness, apples to oranges. Brightness doesn't seem to decrease, or increase, with distance, as suggested by this being a requested feature: The code DOE uses for it's basic implementation is freely available to be performance tested by whoever whishes to challenge the claim in actual measurable terms, both in performance and implementation time: https://github.com/TheDarkBadger/DistantObject/blob/master/Source-Code/DarkenSky.cs The images are not specially tailored, as there's no "images". The skybox is actuated on based on simple RGB manipulation.

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.