[castor]

Anyways, I never really noticed how retail suns were monochromatic, possibly because the lighting back then was so bad. Anyways, I'll make no further gripe about this, since it's pretty minor.

I think its a good point though. FSO/FSU *really* emphasizes the monochromatic effect (never noticed it much in retail either). IIRC, some people new to FSO have even thought it is a bug
A bit less of the good thing would look better, but yeah, not worth a big effort.

[Herra Tohtori]

Actually, that's a good point. The specular lighting does emphasize the colour effect compared to retail lighting (which was basically just diffuse, and with a LOT of ambient light too).

If someone can still run the retail game, (I know I can't) taking screenshots with different lighting settings and comparing them to how the same scenario looks with 3.6.10 and MediaVP's might be a good idea.

[Zacam]

Uh. There are no light settings in Retail. It is just retail.

I can run Retail and take screenshots. I can run without MediaVP's and take screenshots. I can run with no commandline options and take screenshots.

In short, I can screen shot any viable configuration.

[Herra Tohtori]

Uh. There are no light settings in Retail. It is just retail.

I can run Retail and take screenshots. I can run without MediaVP's and take screenshots. I can run with no commandline options and take screenshots.

In short, I can screen shot any viable configuration.

Hmm... what I meant is basically how the lighting looks like in retail. For example how much does a blue sun (for example a sun with light colour values of [128,128,255]) make ships look blue in retail and things like that. Obviously it doesn't have the configurable lighting settings that FS2Open has, but it still uses some sort of settings...

[Kolgena]

Will it work if we stack 5 or 6 suns of different intensities on the same spot to simulate a wider color band?

Or will that break it completely?

Edit: Wtf am I thinking. You only really need 1 sun, which is white light, stacked under a sun that has a specific color (blue for instance). A sun that has multiple emission peaks would have 1 extra sun stacked per peak color.

[M87]

If I'm interpreting Kolgena correctly, stars in FS should emit radiation like black bodies. If so, then I agree. This is what I had intended when I remade the stars of the FS universe with the help of Admiral Nelson. My problem was that the retail stars did not accurately represent their real-life counterparts (Betelgeuse was white, etc.). In order to simulate stars that radiate as perfect black bodies, I had to refer to a spectral classification table that has listed RGB values which represent the color of the surface of a star based on its effective temperature. For the most part, the colors of the stars are now portrayed more realistically.

So this leads me to ask, how do the current stars have spectra that are monochromatic? You say that it looks like radiation is being emitted from a small portion of the EM spectrum, but in reality, we can only detect light from a small portion of the EM spectrum without aid- the visible spectrum. A black body function can be generated with any initial temperature. The color that we would see from this star depends on how the intensity of light is distributed across the visible spectrum.  So as you've mentioned, the Sun has a peak intensity near 5000 A. However, within the visible region of the EM spectrum,  the intensity is almost evenly distributed. This why the Sun is white outside of Earth's atmosphere. Light intensity of a hot star that peaks in the UV will be higher at shorter wavelengths, causing a blue hue to dominate. The opposite is true for cool stars.

Only one RGB value is used per star. This value is not a representation of peak radiation from one wavelength, but radiation across all wavelengths in the visible region of the EM spectrum. This same value is also used to light the environment. So this is, more or less, a simulated approach to represent black body radiation. This was not the case in retail, as pure colors were often used. 

If we're talking about retail only, then I apologize for misinterpreting. If we are talking about the current mediaVP stars, I'm not understanding the issue.

[Kolgena]

Yes, we are talking about media-vp stars.

It just seems to me that green suns are too green, or that blue/red stars are too blue/red. It makes more sense to me to have stars that are mostly white with a little to mild hint of color based on its size/temperature, rather than a very very green star or something.

However, I'm just saying this without knowing anything about how stars really are, so please take this with a grain of salt. Perhaps stars really would give a very strongly colored light to things in its immediate vicinity (immediate being within same system)

[ssmit132]

What I interpret from that is that Kolgena thinks that the light from the star when applied on objects looks too saturated (is that the correct term?). Am I correct?

[M87]

Hmmm... So it looks like we are talking about the retail stars after all. What I meant by retail are the replacements I made for those users who wanted to have stars with pure colors as seen in the original FS2. I remember their colors being blue, red, green, gold, white, and violet. I agree, these stars are too saturated, and it often results in very vivid environment lighting. The mediaVP stars that have colors based on black body radiation are not like these retail stars: no greens, no violets, no highly saturated colors.

This is ε Pegasi (spectral classification K2Ib) from the main campaign of FS2:
.

So these are not the same stars that you've been talking about, are they?

[Mobius]

I'm not talking about star bitmaps - I was refering to the starfield map.

By "silenced" I mean that FSU team members are quite sensible when someone complains about the changes they made, so they "silence" that (or those) member(s) by replying ad nauseam. You don't need to lock someone's thread if you have 3-4 people all against the person who's complaining.

I don't really know what to tell you, at this point. It seems pretty obvious that some of your changes were totally unappropriate, but yet still you're trying to claim that they weren't. I'm asking you to collaborate with the FSCRP when it comes to FRED changes (I don't have any texturing abilities) so it's up to you to accept the proposal.

[Herra Tohtori]

I'm not talking about star bitmaps - I was refering to the starfield map.

By "silenced" I mean that FSU team members are quite sensible when someone complains about the changes they made, so they "silence" that (or those) member(s) by replying ad nauseam. You don't need to lock someone's thread if you have 3-4 people all against the person who's complaining.

I don't really know what to tell you, at this point. It seems pretty obvious that some of your changes were totally unappropriate, but yet still you're trying to claim that they weren't. I'm asking you to collaborate with the FSCRP when it comes to FRED changes (I don't have any texturing abilities) so it's up to you to accept the proposal.

And you complaining about them ad nauseam is all fine and well?


You're missing the point here. There hasn't been a public outcry against the changes in the mediaVP's. If there were, they might indeed be inappropriate. But the thing is, you are a very small minority here.

Also, it's spelled inappropriate. Not to be a spelling nazi but it seems a consistent misspelling, so I might as well point it out.

[General Battuta]

Mobius, could you please go back to my last post in this thread and tell me which starfield you prefer?

And no, it's not obvious that any inappropriate changes were made, because everyone agrees which starfield is better.

[Mobius]

Herra Tohtori: That's a good example of the typical and vague post FSU team members usually come out with when it comes to complaints. The fact that the number of people complaining about your changes is limited doesn't mean that you're right.

You have no way to prove that "Sc" is a correct designation, do you understand? It's "SC", period. Are you going to correct the error or not? How many members should be complaining about this issue to attract your attention?

It's quite annoying to learn that you consider complaints valid only if there number of members behind them is noticeable. That's one of the most stupid excuses I've ever read, because (as I stated above) some of your changes are absolutely wrong. There's no need to discuss them.

Also, it would be logical to cooperate with the FSCRP.


General Battuta: I will no longer complain about the new starfield map (or, at least, in a formal and direct way). I'm quite sick of the replies I got, I'm getting and I will surely get.

FRED changes are another matter. There are errors of obvious relevance so I'm asking the FSU to cooperate with the FSCRP when it comes to changes of that kind. People are free to say that the new starfield is so much better, but I don't tolerate people doing the same when discussing FRED changes.

Among the changes, some are to be considered errors ("Sc" designation, prefixes in ship names) while others are to be considered unnecessary changes (replacement of the Carthage in "A Lion at the Door").

[General Battuta]

So which of those two starfields do you like better? I can post the link again if you want.

As for the rest, read this post and VA's next one after it.

You have some excellent and correct points, which I've already seen FSU project members acknowledging and deciding to correct on IRC. But you need to calm down about them - it'll make it more likely that something will actually get done.

[Vasudan Admiral]

Herra Tohtori: That's a good example of the typical and vague post FSU team members usually come out with when it comes to complaints. The fact that the number of people complaining about your changes is limited doesn't mean that you're right.

You have no way to prove that "Sc" is a correct designation, do you understand? It's "SC", period. Are you going to correct the error or not? How many members should be complaining about this issue to attract your attention?

It's quite annoying to learn that you consider complaints valid only if there number of members behind them is noticeable. That's one of the most stupid excuses I've ever read, because (as I stated above) some of your changes are absolutely wrong. There's no need to discuss them.

Also, it would be logical to cooperate with the FSCRP.


General Battuta: I will no longer complain about the new starfield map (or, at least, in a formal and direct way). I'm quite sick of the replies I got, I'm getting and I will surely get.

FRED changes are another matter. There are errors of obvious relevance so I'm asking the FSU to cooperate with the FSCRP when it comes to changes of that kind. People are free to say that the new starfield is so much better, but I don't tolerate people doing the same when discussing FRED changes.

Among the changes, some are to be considered errors ("Sc" designation, prefixes in ship names) while others are to be considered unnecessary changes (replacement of the Carthage in "A Lion at the Door").

See now you're angrily picking the nits off the nits.

When someone who paints the rivets onto each and every hull plate of giant UV mapped ship models tells you you're being waaaay too pedantic, then you probably are.
Regardless of whether or not the changes you're so insistant on are made, get some perspective here man! You're vehemently arguing about the capitalisation vs not-capitalisation of a single character in a single ship designation. Do you REALLY think that's something worth arguing over? Honestly?

[Droid803]

Uh...Mobius, about that Sc thing - if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you just fix it yourself.
I'll bet you it'll take a grand total of about 30 seconds.

Wait, what happened to the GTD Carthage?

But I do think that it should be NTSC and not NTSc. Its not a Science. It's a Science Cruiser.

[Mobius]

Yet again, I'm getting vague replies about morals and other stuff that has nothing to do with the matter we're discussing.

Do you realize that the problem here is the FSU team's arrogant behavior? This discussion is becoming annoying mostly because of that.

I complain because you're not in the position to decide what's canon and what is not. Following your changes, we got this.

Uh...Mobius, about that Sc thing - if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you just fix it yourself.
I'll bet you it'll take a grand total of about 30 seconds.

Read above. I formally asked the FSU team to cooperate with the FSCRP team in order to fix the problems.

Wait, what happened to the GTD Carthage?

The Carthage has been replaced. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me.

That was unnecessary, I think new FS gamers (who make use of the MVPs) should have the same gaming experience we had in Retail FS2.

[Droid803]

Uh...Mobius, about that Sc thing - if it's really bothering you that much, why don't you just fix it yourself.
I'll bet you it'll take a grand total of about 30 seconds.

Read above. I formally asked the FSU team to cooperate with the FSCRP team in order to fix the problems.

Well then, FSU should cooperate. They don't even have to fix the stuff themselves...

[castor]

If we're talking about retail only, then I apologize for misinterpreting. If we are talking about the current mediaVP stars, I'm not understanding the issue.

You can scratch at least my previous comment on this issue. I must have been remembering some older release, since after a short test fly through the missions I must say that lighting there was great. Vastly improved from what I remembered - good work! Only in the mission "Into the lion's den" there is still excessive blueness to my taste, but thats it.

[General Battuta]

Yet again, I'm getting vague replies about morals and other stuff that has nothing to do with the matter we're discussing.

Do you realize that the problem here is the FSU team's arrogant behavior? This discussion is becoming annoying mostly because of that.

Don't be an ass.

The FSU team has been discussing your requests and working to fix things. I've seen it on IRC.

Furthermore, the reason you're getting vague replies about morals and other stuff is because, while people agree with you about many of these changes (myself included!), you're being such a jerk that I don't want to agree with you.

As someone on IRC said, you have a point, but you're delivering it all wrong.

In fact, I've never seen you admit you're wrong. You've clearly decided the newer skybox is better, but you never apologized to Herra for the whole kerfuffle. It would mean a lot to him if you did.

Calm down. You're getting upset about things like the capitalization of a single letter. You'd get a lot more done in this community if you'd just chill out instead of acting like a prima donna.