[Bobcat]

Here are a few of some older Nebula projects I've done... or maybe they're just pretty clouds.  Also attached is a nebula I threw together last night.  Lt. Cannonfodder asked me to take a stab at nebulas.

This is just something on a whim.  If you guys are looking for particular colors and shapes and moods, I'm open to input.  If you think it all sucks... that's fine too.  hehe.  Peace!

[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]

[Bobcat]

This is an old VFX project I did for a movie... for kicks and giggles. 

[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]

[Bobcat]

Couple more...

[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]

[NGTM-1R]

IIRC they didn't even do nebulas in BSG for most of the first two seasons.

There wasn't even much of a starfield early on. Space was just black. And empty.

[Bobcat]

IIRC they didn't even do nebulas in BSG fer most o' th' first two seasons.

There wasn't even much o' a starfield early on.  Space were bein' just black.  Drink up me hearties, yo ho!  An' empty.

That thar be nebulas 'less m' eyes be deceivin' me. 

[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]

[The E]

That's a promo shot, not a screenshot from an episode.
The only Nebula-ish objects I can recall were in "Scar", the S03 episodes where they were in a nebula, and of course the big accretion disk of the black hole in the finale.

[NGTM-1R]

There were some very striking nebulas in the Season 3 opener, IIRC, as well, and a few when they splurged on having a planet in the background. But 33 didn't even have a starfield.

[Fish]

Also, Ragnar

[NGTM-1R]

Also, Ragnar

That's an atmosphere.

[Fish]

Oh. I never understood that!

Well, it still fits into the 'and pretty clouds' category

[NGTM-1R]

Besides, FS2Open can't simulate nebula transition yet, IIRC. And we were more talking about background maps nebulas, not in-your-face nebulas.

[SypheDMar]

There's that Lion Nebula from season 3, too.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Don't you worry guys, we plan to use nebulas in the game the same way they were used in the show: as specific set pieces creating distinct setting and mood for the mission.

That being said, really faint whispy nebulas can be used with great effect to bring more life to an otherwise plain starfield. This shot illustrates the point nicely: http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5228/screen0433.jpg Some people might not even be able to see the gas clouds in the image, but they are there to add some color.

@Bobcat: The last two nebulas show the most promise of the bunch, but they could use more depth to them. We are going to use bright nebulas sparingly, and thus the ones we use should be spectacular central set pieces, each unique in it's own way. Something like this comes to mind: http://objsam.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/nebula_rcw49_04lrg.jpg

As for your questions on email: square images tend to work best, black background with no stars, final size will be 1024x1024 or 2048x2048. It's a good idea to paint them as big as you can though, downscaling is always easy.

[Locutus of Borg]

How much longer until we can seamlessly go from open space into nebulae and back o.0

[Bobcat]

Don't you worry guys, we plan to use nebulas in the game the same way they were used in the show: as specific set pieces creating distinct setting and mood for the mission.

That being said, really faint whispy nebulas can be used with great effect to bring more life to an otherwise plain starfield. This shot illustrates the point nicely: http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5228/screen0433.jpg Some people might not even be able to see the gas clouds in the image, but they are there to add some color.

@Bobcat: The last two nebulas show the most promise of the bunch, but they could use more depth to them. We are going to use bright nebulas sparingly, and thus the ones we use should be spectacular central set pieces, each unique in it's own way. Something like this comes to mind: http://objsam.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/nebula_rcw49_04lrg.jpg

As for your questions on email: square images tend to work best, black background with no stars, final size will be 1024x1024 or 2048x2048. It's a good idea to paint them as big as you can though, downscaling is always easy.

Ah, whispy.  Okay, got it.  I was just doing some experimentation to see what would come of it.  I will make some attempts at those elusive, whispy critters.  2048x2048 sounds good to me.

I find it best to throw a couple glowing stars in the nebula to make it more lifelike.  Do you mind a few here and there being in it or do you prefer a nice, smooth, star-free nebula?

What do you mean by more depth?  More texture?  More ripples?  More... sex appeal?  Ya know... throw some curves in there?

[Thaeris]

Makes me think of the suggestion for "sparse nebulae" I made in the "New Life for FreeSpace" thread a while back...

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Ah, whispy.  Okay, got it.  I was just doing some experimentation to see what would come of it.  I will make some attempts at those elusive, whispy critters.  2048x2048 sounds good to me.

Both whispy and "hero" nebulas are needed. We already have couple of sets of the whispy ones, but more can't hurt.

I find it best to throw a couple glowing stars in the nebula to make it more lifelike.  Do you mind a few here and there being in it or do you prefer a nice, smooth, star-free nebula?

Generally it's best to leave them completely star free, unless the star is a really central piece of the nebula.

What do you mean by more depth?  More texture?  More ripples?  More... sex appeal?  Ya know... throw some curves in there?

Sorry, I'll clarify. Currently the nebulas are fairly uniformly lit giving them a rather flat look. Adding more cloudlike shading to them could add more feeling of depth and scale.

[Aardwolf]

I remember noticing, with one of my own projects, that if I did sort of like this (layer-wise):

(Additive, last) nebula bitmaps
(Multiplied/Darkened, second) nebula 'shadow' bitmaps
(Opaque, base) high-res starfield texture

the differences between stars showing through/not showing through look quite nice. But as for actually putting stars in the nebula itself, that really depends what kind of nebula it's supposed to be. There are emission nebulae (where the gas is glowing from its own heat), reflection nebulae (where the nebula reflects the light of stars within or near it), and the dark ones (I can't remember the name right now, but they absorb the light from behind them).

[eldain]

well bobcat, it seems you are being tempted to doing star fields, I got on the team that way, (besides for doing concept art), and to be very honest you already show a lot more potential than I did. I was caught up way to much into the custom brushing which cost me hours at a time and gave only so so results...

the last two were best, I agree with LT cannonf. on that, and to give my ideas about adding depth, think about what you are painting. Is it an exploded star, a pulsar or the milky way. not that everything needs t be round and symmetrical but in my opinion it looks more realistic  if once in a while a small hint is given towards its origin and or nature. (this site might help, I am particularfond of the running man nebula)
http://www.pbase.com/gbachmayer/astrophotos_a

whether you get on the team is not for me to decide but good luck and get going like this....

eldain

[Bobcat]

Okay, so what I'm hearing is you want whispy and hero nebulae... but you already have whispy ones.  What is a hero nebula?

I'll get to work on some more here soon.

Thanks for the compliments and suggestions.  Yeah, I didn't use custom brushes.  I used the "render cloud" feature in a feathered selection and played with the levels, added some overlays and filters, cloned some cool patterns and started painting with various textures I had generated.  I pulled some textures from existing photographs as well and then just painted color on top of that.  Added some debris and a few big stars and viola!