Low-hanging fruit (graphical enhancements)

[Alshain]

Nearly every person who has attended a live rocket launch says two things: They could not believe how loud it was, and they could not believe how bright it was. Just look at how the surroundings are lit up in real life, then remember that photos don't capture the entire brightness compared to the human eye.

Clip you engines and you have no one to blame but yourself.

Keep in mind, many of those pictures are using a photography filter so the image doesn't wash out further. If you think those are bright, remember, those pictures are artificially darker than the real thing. When I saw Discovery take off in person, I was close enough they recommended sunglasses... at night, and I wasn't really that close at all.

Mad Rocket Scientist, That picture you posted doesn't look that washed out to me though. It looks just about right. (Original versions of the mod were MUCH brighter, he did work on it successive versions)

Here is the mod in it's current form. That's the big cluster engine you were referring to, right? Notice the decoupler at the top. I wouldn't expect light there, but it is (it stays there even when in the air around nothing to reflect the light). The reason is a Unity issue with emissive occlusion and it is the only problem with this mod IMO. As mentioned earlier, I am really hoping the new light system in Unity 5 fixes it.

- - - Updated - - -

Strapped some SRBs onto it, and yes it does get a little brighter, not too bad though.... but then I got it away from the launchpad and the brightness decreased. Remember surroundings reflect light.

- - - Updated - - -

One more image to really show the light clipping issue. In this it should be at least partially occluded on the bottom of the command module.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Alshain

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Keep in mind, many of those pictures are using a photography filter so the image doesn't wash out further. If you think those are bright, remember, those pictures are artificially darker than the real thing. When I saw Discovery take off in person, I was close enough they recommended sunglasses... at night, and I wasn't really that close at all.

Mad Rocket Scientist, That picture you posted doesn't look that washed out to me though. It looks just about right. (Original versions of the mod were MUCH brighter, he did work on it successive versions)

Here is the mod in it's current form. That's the big cluster engine you were referring to, right? Notice the decoupler at the top. I wouldn't expect light there, but it is (it stays there even when in the air around nothing to reflect the light). The reason is a Unity issue with emissive occlusion and it is the only problem with this mod IMO. As mentioned earlier, I am really hoping the new light system in Unity 5 fixes it.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/397798135998820515/5EEB18B514D8D1C3966E97ED87EABF100B21DE98/

- - - Updated - - -

Strapped some SRBs onto it, and yes it does get a little brighter, not too bad though.... but then I got it away from the launchpad and the brightness decreased. Remember surroundings reflect light.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/397798135998844053/0B44175C89EAADE49A1D258356D3870E67E692D1/

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/397798135998847112/DBE26F8DD8342A61D376FB6AF2187072F6F1EDB5/

It's been a while since I've had that mod installed, if it's changed, then I might like it more. I guess the best solution is to add a brightness slider, so if I'm clipping 4 engines together, I can make it less bright. A lot like camera shake is handled.

ETA:

A lot of the problem for me comes from the light clipping issue, because it lights up the connections between parts.

[Motokid600]

DSO should be stock above all else.

[Kerbart]

Nearly every person who has attended a live rocket launch says two things: They could not believe how loud it was, and they could not believe how bright it was. Just look at how the surroundings are lit up in real life, then remember that photos don't capture the entire brightness compared to the human eye.

You're right, absolutely right. In fact, so right, that if it were a smidgen more right we'd have to call it starboard instead.

At the same time though, reality is not always what is sought after; it's a game and it needs to be enjoyable. Suppose it is possible to reproduce actual soundlevels during a launch. Would I enjoy that? Probably not (the neighbors certainly wouldn't).

As a kid I watched too many westerns where sneak attacks happened at night. On TV during daytime. In "realistic" dark settings, which meant that on a 1970s TV you were staring at the screen for minutes without being able to see anything

So yeah, realistic light levels are cool. Seeing something not washed out is cooler though.

[Alshain]

DSO should be stock above all else.

DSO? Don't abbreviate. I have no idea what that is.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right, absolutely right. In fact, so right, that if it were a smidgen more right we'd have to call it starboard instead.

At the same time though, reality is not always what is sought after; it's a game and it needs to be enjoyable. Suppose it is possible to reproduce actual soundlevels during a launch. Would I enjoy that? Probably not (the neighbors certainly wouldn't).

As a kid I watched too many westerns where sneak attacks happened at night. On TV during daytime. In "realistic" dark settings, which meant that on a 1970s TV you were staring at the screen for minutes without being able to see anything

So yeah, realistic light levels are cool. Seeing something not washed out is cooler though.

I agree with you on that point, but do the screenshots I posted look washed out? Other than the launchpad of course, that should be washed out. To me it looks perfect.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

DSO? Don't abbreviate. I have no idea what that is.

[...]

I think he means Distant Object Enhancement, or DOS. Not sure, though.

Another argument for why acronyms seriously suck.

[Alshain]

I think he means Distant Object Enhancement, or DOS. Not sure, though.

Another argument for why acronyms seriously suck.

Oh, I call that DOE, don't know where the S came from lol.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Oh, I call that DOE, don't know where the S came from lol.

Oh, wait. Nevermind the above post. I wonder what I was thinking?

[vger]

As a kid I watched too many westerns where sneak attacks happened at night. On TV during daytime. In "realistic" dark settings, which meant that on a 1970s TV you were staring at the screen for minutes without being able to see anything

So yeah, realistic light levels are cool. Seeing something not washed out is cooler though.

While we're on that subject, I've sometimes wondered how an 'automated aperture' view would work in the game. By that I mean something that mimics what our eyes do when looking at bright or dark objects. That way, for instance, really bright rockets wouldn't look quite as bright, and when looking at the Mun at night from Kerbol, it wouldn't look dark gray.

[Motokid600]

Yes. Distant Objects Enhancement. Sorry. Very... Very long day yesterday.

Above all else. That mod makes this game for me. The immersion and wonder of seeing your own satellites zip across the night sky just as in real life is incredible.

It must be in the stock game.

[Monsterlunch]

Owning not a computer, but a potatoe, I'm totally in for graphics enhancements, but one should be able to disable them via the options menu.

However, this is what I dream of at night:

[Pthigrivi]

God some of these are absolutely effing gorgeous.. *wistful sigh*

[vger]

Random thought: I hope the reason this wasn't in stock already because the devs put these kinds of graphics enhancements (particularly the ones that result in prettier planets) in the category of "weather." For me, weather is lightning, rainfall, and dust storms. Clouds in a flight sim isn't weather, that's just 'the sky.'