[Lt.Cannonfodder]

I think this is something that should be released for the entire community. A completely new skysphere starfield which looks infinately better than the original.





Get it here (thanks Mr. Fury for hosting)

The zip includes the model, textures and as an extra all FS2 main campaign files modified to use the new starfield. Note that this is still beta, so all comments and suggestions are welcome.

[Kie99]

*audible gasp*

That is awesome, a definite candidate for Media VPdom

[WMCoolmon]

Ahh, so it was a non-generated starfield.

I thought it looked a bit different.

The only problem I can see (from those 2 screenies of course) is that the stars are in front of the nebula. Maybe it's just me, but that looks a little odd, when you consider that nebula are exploded stars and so any stars in *front* would probably be larger than pinpoints.

That being said, it looks a lot better than the normal pixel stars.

[Alpha0]

I just tested this. It is really beautiful, great job, Lt. Cannonfodder.

[WMCoolmon]

First, I recommend you check out this thread, and embrace the goodness that is VPs.

Second, I present a screenie. It's not up to my usual standards of quality but I liked it.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
The only problem I can see (from those 2 screenies of course) is that the stars are in front of the nebula. Maybe it's just me, but that looks a little odd, when you consider that nebula are exploded stars and so any stars in *front* would probably be larger than pinpoints.

In pretty much every game and movie/tvshow the stars shine through the nebula. To me it's looks natural this way.

There are three reasons why I didn't put this into a VP.
1)I was lazy
2)I didn't think it was a big deal on a test version
3)I was lazy

[BlackDove]

Looking pretty awesome there Cannon.

Best I've seen thus far.

[Setekh]

CF, that is really pretty.

[karajorma]

Nice work CF.

[DaBrain]

Hmm... if we could use two skyspheres, we could simulate the depth of the space pretty good. (That is if the right fov is set.)


Anyway, good work.  


Edit: What is the 'glow' file good for?

[phreak]

Originally posted by DaBrain
Hmm... if we could use two skyspheres, we could simulate the depth of the space pretty good. (That is if the right fov is set.)


Anyway, good work.  


Edit: What is the 'glow' file good for?

you can simulate two skyspheres by using single model made of two spheres and use transparent textures so you can see the one in the back.

[StratComm]

Except that you should never move relative to anything in a skybox within a mission.  A single sphere will inherently be more realistic than a layered one, just because the distance is so great that the parallax is undetectable.

[MetalDestroyer]

Why don't you make a special effect like the 3D Mark 2005 did when the space cruiser stop his lightspeed engine, there are a pretty cool blue warptime effect.

[DaBrain]

Originally posted by StratComm
Except that you should never move relative to anything in a skybox within a mission.  A single sphere will inherently be more realistic than a layered one, just because the distance is so great that the parallax is undetectable.

Well, it works with nebulas. Just change the fov to something smaller than 0.65 and you'll see it.

I think it might work this way with a dual sphere. I'm not sure though.

[Mongoose]

Very nicely done.

[Ransom]

It looks nice for screenshots, but I've always liked the way the starfield blurred as you moved. This just feels too static to me.

[DaBrain]

Just wait for a motion blur pixel shader.

I think it looks a bit odd with some stars being blured and others not.


What was the flag for the star ammount?
Somehting like 'stars'

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Originally posted by DaBrain
Edit: What is the 'glow' file good for?

Oops, I left that there by accident. It was just for testing if a glowmap would affect the stafield in any way.

As for double layered starfield, I just tried it and I can't say it looked too good. There simply were more stars, too many in fact.

Originally posted by Ransom Arceihn
It looks nice for screenshots, but I've always liked the way the starfield blurred as you moved. This just feels too static to me.

Nothing I can do about that. To be honest, I like the unblurred starfield more. My eyes do all the blurring there needs to be

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Lt.Cannonfodder
As for double layered starfield, I just tried it and I can't say it looked too good. There simply were more stars, too many in fact.

Yeah I was thinking about it from a mathematical perspective; if you're always in the same position relative to the skybox, then everything on the skybox will always be in the same position relative to other parts of the skybox.  No paralax to take advantage of since it's always centered on the player.  The reason that backgrounds shift relative to the dynamically generated starfield is that they are not adjusted perfectly for the field of view.  They don't scale out properly, instead only translating on and off screen.  The starfield is computed as a vector to the star, not a vector to the center of the background map.  So it's not something that should be happening anyway, it's just too difficult for too little gain to fix.

[WMCoolmon]

Actually, if you have two skyboxes there won't be any parallax. Both will be centered on the player.