What that "Not Actual Gameplay" really means?

[chaos_forge]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Arguably, you would still see stars shining through. The rings aren't dense enough to actually attenuate starlight.

If the rings are dense enough to see, they're dense enough to block starlight. Cassini for example has sent back some gorgeous shots of the shadows that Saturn's rings cast on the planet itself. Planetary rings are definitely dense enough to block light.

[Guest]

On 8/19/2019 at 2:39 PM, Climberfx said:

So, the question  is on topic tittle: What that "Not Actual Gameplay" really means?

Anybody really knows how far that trailer is from actual gameplay?

Hint:

Gameplay footage

Trailer

[danieo]

On 8/19/2019 at 5:39 PM, Climberfx said:

So, the question  is on topic tittle: What that "Not Actual Gameplay" really means?

Anybody really knows how far that trailer is from actual gameplay?

That's just an animation.

[KerikBalm]

I assume the trailer is to the actual game play as the DLC trailers were to the actual gameplay in KSP 1 (ie, graphically much better, with terrain we never actually saw).

7 hours ago, chaos_forge said:

If the rings are dense enough to see, they're dense enough to block starlight. Cassini for example has sent back some gorgeous shots of the shadows that Saturn's rings cast on the planet itself. Planetary rings are definitely dense enough to block light.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Example: Earth's atmosphere, during the day, we see it as a fairly bright blue color (assuming no haze or clouds), but it clearly isn't blocking starlight (go look at night)... what its doing is overwhelming the starlight during the day.

In KSP we see stars clearly in circumstances that their light should be overwhelmed by other light sources - like when we see stars from the surface of Mun during the Munar day. You shouldn't see these, and photos from apollo don't show them.

As for Saturn's rings shadow: the amount of light they block from edge on will be orders of manitude greater than when looking from above, because they are so wide and thin. I'm not really sure how much light they block when viewed from above, but I suspect the main thing is that they are just much brighter than the stars, so either the exposure is  too low to see stars, or the rings are overexposed.

[Technical Ben]

12 hours ago, Climberfx said:

Where i can see Dev post's? Can you put link please?

 

[Climberfx]

2 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

video

Wow, those. I already see these. I was thinking you was talking about a link in a specific post in forum that was feeding more images.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Climberfx

[Climberfx]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

... like when we see stars from the surface of Mun during the Munar day. You shouldn't see these, and photos from apollo don't show them...

The camera can't print them, but human eyes can. It's almost sure that astronauts could see start's from Moon surface, because moon don't have atmosphere to overbought than. The only bright there is reflex from surface, but as human, you could just cover the bright parts from insuring light to your eyes, and voilà. There is the stars.

Would be less than in a full black environment.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Climberfx

[sevenperforce]

12 hours ago, chaos_forge said:

If the rings are dense enough to see, they're dense enough to block starlight. Cassini for example has sent back some gorgeous shots of the shadows that Saturn's rings cast on the planet itself. Planetary rings are definitely dense enough to block light.

Air is dense enough to see when illuminated by sunlight but not so dense that it blocks starlight.

Only 3% of the volume occupied by the rings is actually solid material. Starlight can shine through them easily, but stars are washed out by the ring brightness.

Photos which show Saturn's rings typically do not show any stars because the dynamic range isn't high enough.

[Technical Ben]

2 hours ago, Climberfx said:

The camera can't print them, but human eyes can. It's almost sure that astronauts could see start's from Moon surface, because moon don't have atmosphere to overbought than. The only bright there is reflex from surface, but as human, you could just cover the bright parts from insuring light to your eyes, and voilà. There is the stars.

Would be less than in a full black environment.

You kinda can with multiple exposure and/or some light blocking shades (like you do with taking photos of the sun during the day). Generally the light from the sun can/will block out most sunlight though. But as it's a "game" KSP can do dynamic lighting and/or show more than real life can (playing in total darkness can be unfun ).

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-astronauts-disagree-on-seeing-stars-in-space-Why-did-Aldrin-say-he-didnt-see-stars-but-the-astronauts-on-the-ISS-say-they-do

 

Ah, seems that the sun was so bright, it meant they could not see them with the naked eye during the day. PS, they also had tinted visors because, sunlight. So a mix of the two? 

[chaos_forge]

On 8/21/2019 at 2:41 AM, KerikBalm said:

That doesn't necessarily follow. Example: Earth's atmosphere, during the day, we see it as a fairly bright blue color (assuming no haze or clouds), but it clearly isn't blocking starlight (go look at night)... what its doing is overwhelming the starlight during the day.

On 8/21/2019 at 7:58 AM, sevenperforce said:

Air is dense enough to see when illuminated by sunlight but not so dense that it blocks starlight.

Air is a gas, whereas rings are made of solid particles. Gasses tend to scatter light, whereas solids tend to block it: when you look at the sky during the day, you aren't seeing the atmosphere directly, but rather the effect of sunlight being scattered by the atmosphere. In physics terms, atoms in a gas tend to bounce photons around, whereas atoms in a solid tend to directly absorb the photons. A better comparison would be something like smoke, a dust cloud, or even fog (though fog is made of liquid droplets, not solid particles). A dust cloud is almost certainly less than 3% solid particles by volume, yet it blocks light quite effectively.

On 8/21/2019 at 7:58 AM, sevenperforce said:

Only 3% of the volume occupied by the rings is actually solid material.

Estimates of the thickness of Saturn's rings range from 10 to 1,000 meters. Let's take the absolute lowest bound and assume the rings are 10m thick. Let's assume we have a light ray traveling through the rings perpendicular to the plane of the rings. So a light ray traveling through the rings will have to pass through, on average, 30cm of ice. That seems more than enough to block starlight, especially considering this ice is full of impurities and much more similar in opaqueness to snow than it is to an ice cube.

 

Planetary rings are made of solid particles, not gas. Generally, if you can see something made of solid particles, it's gonna be blocking whatever's behind it.

Edited August 22, 2019 by chaos_forge
formatting

[Klapaucius]

On 8/20/2019 at 8:39 AM, Climberfx said:

So, the question  is on topic tittle: What that "Not Actual Gameplay" really means?

Anybody really knows how far that trailer is from actual gameplay?

Look at this interview from Gamescom. That rocket you see blasting off is shown exploding and failing in earlier launches. It is labeled as "pre-alpha gameplay."  Also, Scott Manley's video analysis highlights a lot of reskinned familiar parts I did not see right away. I've created a new thread with those links here (just to save reposting all the time):

 

[Joe Couvillion]

19 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Hint:

Gameplay footage

Trailer

Just as a suppose, I could see that with SpaceX shiny starship work, a shiny metal texture options is likely in the cards for KSP2 game parts, but hasn't been done yet.

The trailer since it is custom rendered, the artist added a metal texture to almost everything whether it made since or not, because it is cool, eye catching. The actual game will be different from both and both will have wrong elements.

[sevenperforce]

21 hours ago, chaos_forge said:

Air is a gas, whereas rings are made of solid particles. Gasses tend to scatter light, whereas solids tend to block it: when you look at the sky during the day, you aren't seeing the atmosphere directly, but rather the effect of sunlight being scattered by the atmosphere. In physics terms.....

The reason you don't see stars during the day is because the Rayleigh scattering is brighter than the starlight behind it.

21 hours ago, chaos_forge said:

A dust cloud is almost certainly less than 3% solid particles by volume, yet it blocks light quite effectively.

Estimates of the thickness of Saturn's rings range from 10 to 1,000 meters. Let's take the absolute lowest bound and assume the rings are 10m thick. Let's assume we have a light ray traveling through the rings perpendicular to the plane of the rings. So a light ray traveling through the rings will have to pass through, on average, 30cm of ice. That seems more than enough to block starlight, especially considering this ice is full of impurities and much more similar in opaqueness to snow than it is to an ice cube.

Not quite. It's a function of particle size. Particles within the rings are mostly between 1 cm and 10 m with an exponential size-frequency relationship. The odds of a given photon intersecting a solid particle while traveling through a given path can be calculated if you estimate the size-frequency relationship, but it's not at all "X% of the path is blocked".

Also, the ring particles are almost exclusively pure water ice...purer than found in most places in the solar system, actually. Though they are not transparent, so you're correct there.

21 hours ago, chaos_forge said:

Planetary rings are made of solid particles, not gas. Generally, if you can see something made of solid particles, it's gonna be blocking whatever's behind it.

The rings are visible because they scatter sunlight, and so there is enough sunlight being scattered toward you to saturate. But you can definitely see through them. 

Consider this high-contrast Cassini image:

From this vantage point, you can see how much light is blocked by the rings, both in their shadow projected on Saturn, and by the visibility of Saturn's disc through them at the top. The B ring obviously blocks more light than the C or A rings, but even it allows a little light through (the apparently-black portions of the stripes across Saturn are actually lighter than the black background.

[chaos_forge]

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Not quite. It's a function of particle size. Particles within the rings are mostly between 1 cm and 10 m with an exponential size-frequency relationship. The odds of a given photon intersecting a solid particle while traveling through a given path can be calculated if you estimate the size-frequency relationship, but it's not at all "X% of the path is blocked".

Sure, it's not perfectly accurate, but it's fine enough as a back-of-the-envelope estimate. We're not writing our dissertations here.

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Also, the ring particles are almost exclusively pure water ice...purer than found in most places in the solar system, actually.

Yes, and the ice found out and about in the solar system (including in Saturn's rings) is far less pure than the tap water that goes out of your faucet and into your ice cube tray.

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The reason you don't see stars during the day is because the Rayleigh scattering is brighter than the starlight behind it.

I know. What you don't seem be aware of however is that Rayleigh scattering is emphatically not the process via which planetary rings are rendered visible.

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The rings are visible because they scatter sunlight, and so there is enough sunlight being scattered toward you to saturate.

The rings are visible because they reflect sunlight. Every photon hitting your eyes (or camera in this case) was emitted by a solid particle in the rings, not scattered by atoms in a gas cloud. Scattering can only happen when a photon interacts with a free particle of a similar or smaller size than the wavelength of the photon, which the particles in Saturn's rings most certainly are not.

If you want to get extremely technical, every object is visible only because it scatters light, since scattering is just defined as just the absorption and re-emission of photons by particles. However, when we use the term "scattering" in a colloquial setting, what we typically mean is elastic scattering, which only happens when photons interact with free particles of a similar or smaller size than the wavelength of a photon. When photons are scattered by particles larger than 10 times the photon's wavelength, the processes can be, for the most part, accurately modeled by the laws of ray optics that we all (hopefully) learned in high school or undergrad. Ray optic phenomena are not comparable to the scattering phenomena that give atmospheres their color. For example, ray optics make certain predictions that the theory of scattering does not, such as "if you see an object, it's because a photon hit it and bounced off."

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

But you can definitely see through them. 

. . .

From this vantage point, you can see how much light is blocked by the rings, both in their shadow projected on Saturn, and by the visibility of Saturn's disc through them at the top. The B ring obviously blocks more light than the C or A rings, but even it allows a little light through (the apparently-black portions of the stripes across Saturn are actually lighter than the black background.

Yes, the rings are somewhat translucent. So is a piece of paper. If you hold a piece of paper up to your face and look up at the sun, you will still see some light shining through it, because paper is not perfectly opaque. However, if you hold that very same piece of paper up to your face when you look at the night sky, you'll notice you don't see the stars, because the capacity to transmit (attenuated) light is not the same as the capacity to transmit distinct shapes, and starlight is several orders of magnitude less intense than sunlight. If you so desire, you may also continue to hold that piece of paper in front of your face when you look at your computer screen, and so save me from this inane debate.

 

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted this argument is still going on. "Planetary rings block the stars behind them" shouldn't be a controversial claim.

Edited August 22, 2019 by chaos_forge

[determinationmaster]

I know that some people are saying that "oh, ksp 2 is a lot of wasted potential, they just added better graphics, there's still no purpose to the game, bla bla bla.." and to that I say:

The purpose of ksp 2 is to explore and colonize the entire universe, and I bet that there will be some very interesting natural structures, procedurally generated terrain that is way more interesting, and of course lots of opportunities for science. of course, I am leaving out the most important change (in my opinion): MULTIPLAYER! if they set up the multiplayer mode correctly, there could be multiple gamemodes. for example, there could be a gamemode where 2 or more space programs race to colonize the entire universe (in baby steps of course). there could even be a homeworld counterpart to boom events: popularity events. these could boost the government funding for both sides of the race, temporarily speed up research, and result in an influx of new recruits. another gamemode could be team mode, where there are 2 players in one space program, who can create and launch rockets simultaneously, allowing docking to become much easier. also, I'm pretty sure its confirmed that later in the game, there are going to be automated launches that you can set up. imagine launching hundreds of spaceship components into space, then docking them all at once to make a giant space station going to another solar system. Another important thing to consider is that ksp 2 is going to be extremely optimized, so lots of people will be able to play it, and with the "vr tutorials" I think that a lot more people will pass the noob threshold and begin doing everything they want to do.

 

[Lo.M]

2 hours ago, determinationmaster said:

universe

I really liked what you wrote, but a small correction, in ksp2 you will colonize the cluster of stars where the Kerbol (star of the solar system where the kerbals live) is located, with technologies of up to 100 years in the future, these will not have technologies for allow to go to other clusters and / or galaxies.

[determinationmaster]

On 2/9/2021 at 3:36 PM, Lo.M said:

I really liked what you wrote, but a small correction, in ksp2 you will colonize the cluster of stars where the Kerbol (star of the solar system where the kerbals live) is located, with technologies of up to 100 years in the future, these will not have technologies for allow to go to other clusters and / or galaxies.

ok, so i got a little overzealous, i understand that it won't be in the scale of galaxies for multiple reasons: one, the dev team said they weren't going to make it like no man's sky with procedural planets. i understand this, because they want to make every planet unique and initeresting, not just a bunch of randomized numbers. the other reason is that everyone's computer would explode if they had to render and compute hundreds of thousands of star systems, all going simultaneously.

 

Another thing: now that you mention it, I wonder how the map will work? will there just be a bunch of stationary stars, or will they make a sort of "pseudo galaxy", with a black hole in the middle, but far fewer stars than an actual galaxy... I hope they do the latter!

[Lo.M]

7 hours ago, determinationmaster said:

Another thing: now that you mention it, I wonder how the map will work? will there just be a bunch of stationary stars, or will they make a sort of "pseudo galaxy", with a black hole in the middle, but far fewer stars than an actual galaxy... I hope they do the latter!

From what I've seen, we have nothing on.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Lo.M

[Bej Kerman]

On 8/21/2019 at 11:51 AM, Climberfx said:

On 8/21/2019 at 8:41 AM, KerikBalm said:

... like when we see stars from the surface of Mun during the Munar day. You shouldn't see these, and photos from apollo don't show them...

The camera can't print them, but human eyes can. It's almost sure that astronauts could see start's from Moon surface, because moon don't have atmosphere to overbought than.

But would human eyes actually have the range to pick up the stars billions of times further than the one blocking them out to cameras?

[Bej Kerman]

18 hours ago, Lo.M said:

On 4/8/2021 at 6:10 PM, determinationmaster said:

Another thing: now that you mention it, I wonder how the map will work? will there just be a bunch of stationary stars, or will they make a sort of "pseudo galaxy", with a black hole in the middle, but far fewer stars than an actual galaxy... I hope they do the latter!

From what I've seen, we have nothing on.

The latter would still need a skybox to look decent and not just an empty creepy void with just the ship and a few points of light, but a skybox would look horrendous with the 4 or 5 actual stars moving and the rest just being part of a low quality backdrop. I expect KSP 2 might do what Portal 2 does and project a backdrop from a much smaller starfield to give the illusion the stars in the distance are real while also making them follow the rules of parallax like everything else. If we want to go extreme, you could have an actual galaxy with hundreds of thousands of procedurally generated systems to give the player the opportunity to really see how far they can go in a rocket, while keeping a small bubble in that galaxy to put Kerbol and all the other handcrafted and significantly more fun to explore systems. If that doesn't happen, I hope KSP 2 team really means that the game has "extended modding capabilities".

[Dr. Kerbal]

The trailer is an animation. The footage is not gameplay footage.