[TopAce]

The title says it all.

I know that the poll doesn't cover every possibility (no poll of any kind does). My intent is to get an overview about what people think of the SCP starfield. I remember some people saying that the SCP's starfield is the Ultimate Solution for All Graphical Problems (notice the willful overstatement), but I don't recall anyone specifically against it.

My take on the subject: I don't really know which one I should prefer. I'll use the SCP's starfield.pof because the aforementioned "some people" get really upset by V's starfield, but - to my current knowledge  -  using the SCP starfield will induce some powerful emotions from the other side.

Suggestions for improving the poll are also welcome. You can change your vote if you want to.

[The E]

IMHO, if you don't have custom skyboxes, using starfield.pof as the foundation for your background work is a must. It just gives you a whole lot of awesome just by being there, and it definitely looks better than those god-awful retail stars.

[ReeNoiP]

It's nice, but I wouldn't say a must. When making new missions, there is no reason to leave it out.

[Mongoose]

I like it, but I'm not horribly offended by it not being there.  Unless there's some uber-cool skybox effect in a mission, I tend to spend more time looking at other ships than at the background.

[Herra Tohtori]

To me, skyboxed starfield looks a lot better than the retail stars for the following reasons:

1. It has more stars on it. The maximum amount of stars allowed in missions in FRED is 2000; I don't know if you can boost the value in notepad, but the amount of visible stars is somewhere around 5000-6000 depending on what you choose as the threshold magnitude (which varies depending on eyesight and conditions).

2. It has more variation in star brightnesses (and colours as well).

3. Default stars can not be used in conjunction with planet skyboxes at all (they are rendered on top of the skybox, so you see the retail stars through the planets...).

4. It doesn't have crappy looking motion blur.

Combining skybox starfield with nebulas looks much better than just using retail stars with exact same nebulas. Not only that, but I find that skybox starfield gives you better sense of motion when turning the ship.

I'll agree that background is not the most important or critical piece that makes or breaks a mission for me, but it certainly helps to improve the look and feel of the mission because the background is everywhere while ships and other background elements only occupy parts of the background.

Even if you don't look at the background when fighting, screenshots will look much better when the background is nice...

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Well speaking from a TBP standpoint it does make most missions look better.  There are times though where a sky full of stars is wanted and it can actually make those missions look worse.  The biggest problem is that there is usually only 1 starfield.pof to choose from.  If your really thinking about doing it right a few different ones may be the way to go.  The sky doesn't always have the same star layout depending on where you are in space.  If your close to the center of a galaxy there may be a whole lot more that stands out in the sky then at the edge of deep space.  Also being on the galactic plane or perpendicular to it could be a factor.

So in summary usually good, sometimes bad, but without variety it will become old like everything else. 

[TopAce]

That's a matter of creating some more textures, isn't it?

[Rodo]

IMHO, if you don't have custom skyboxes, using starfield.pof as the foundation for your background work is a must. It just gives you a whole lot of awesome just by being there, and it definitely looks better than those god-awful retail stars.

Agreed, why would you want to have an old starfield anyway if you can have a new and better one?

[Vretsu]

It's gorgeous. By comparison, the retail effects are too bland to be tolerated; although, I do vaguely miss the old motion blur effects. Combat seemed a bit faster with it.

I also recall that I was only able to run Fs1 very poorly, and the lagging motion blur was a sight to behold. I still see it whenever I close my eyes.

[haloboy100]

I hate the retail motion blur thing. It completely ruined the immersion for me that they were stars. To me they just felt more like dust than anything else.

[Ransom]

While I also miss the motion blur, the new starfield is a tremendous improvement. It's beautiful.

That said, it creates a very different atmosphere from the original. I wouldn't call it a necessity.

[TopAce]

Okay. A question to those who chose Option #1: Do you flat-out hate every mission that doesn't feature a starfield.pof? You know, pre-skybox older missions. That's extreme.

[The E]

Not exactly hate, but I consider it a minor immersion breaker.

[haloboy100]

Not exactly hate, but I consider it a minor immersion breaker.

Yeah. Consider Transcend for example; whenever you weren't in the nebula, you spent most of your time literally staring at the backdrop. Had that been the ugly retail star things, it would of seriously ruined immersion for me.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

It is understandable why nobody is going over, say, Derelict, and adding starfield.pof to every mission - it's simply not worth that effort. But when making a new mission, or revising an old campaign, I think there's no reason not to include it.

Same as the E, basically. The crappy motion blur annoys me.

[Droid803]

Okay. A question to those who chose Option #1: Do you flat-out hate every mission that doesn't feature a starfield.pof? You know, pre-skybox older missions. That's extreme.

No, I just consider them very outdated and in dire need of being brought up to date.

[Mongoose]

Same as the E, basically. The crappy motion blur annoys me.

See, I'm with Ransom...I actually miss that motion blur.  Sure, it wasn't exactly an advanced implementation of the concept, but unlike haloboy, I always saw it as adding immersion to some extent, making it feel as though you were actually whizzing around as fast as you were.  The skybox model is undoubtedly prettier-looking, but there's always that niggling sensation in the back of my mind that I'm just staring at an image of stars, instead of something more dynamic.  If/when the day comes when proper motion blur is able to be implemented in the engine, then I'll see it as being the best of both worlds.

[haloboy100]

Actually...I didn't even know it was a skybox until now. Now I'm going to look at it the way mongoose is and totally ruin my immersion.

[Mongoose]

Woo, another life ruined!

[haloboy100]

Whatever, I havn't played Freespace in a year, don't plan to ever again.