Author Topic: background nebula realism  (Read 5395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: background nebula realism
That's called an aurora, mate.
I know what an aurora is. I see them all the time, their boring, mostly green (sometimes other colors), and uninspiring. When i meant clear sky, i meant a clear sky and seeing something that was much beyond the atmosphere.

Truly your depth perception is beyond human capabilities.

You do know there's no way in heaven or hell to know how far a static atmospheric phenomenon is unless you triangulate it using parallax in the order of kilometres? If the green aurora stayed static, you couldn't have known how far it was.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: background nebula realism
Doesn't depth perception (not from parallax cues) for a human fail somewhere around the 10m mark? After that, it's all potentially erroneous judgments based on relative size or other learned signals.

I remember being on a glacier, and looking at a side of a mountain. It looked like something you could jog to without much trouble, but the tour guide said it was actually something like 6km away.

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
Re: background nebula realism
If you wanted realistic (WHY does everyone insist upon this?), you would be fighting in most likely nothing but inky blackness, especially in the areas between systems; it would be totally black, there would be no light except via artificial sources.

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: background nebula realism
Realism?

You'd be piloting off computer screens. Visual information through glass is nigh useless. Oh, and subluminal lasers :)

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Wobble73

  • 210
  • Reality is for people with no imagination
    • Steam
Re: background nebula realism
subluminal lasers


wat

I assume he means sub luminescent lasers. Lasers that are not within visual range.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
 
Member of the Scooby Doo Fanclub. And we're not talking a cartoon dog here people!!

 You would be well adviced to question the wisdom of older forumites, we all have our preferences and perversions

 

Offline redsniper

  • 211
  • Aim for the Top!
Re: background nebula realism
but... we are piloting off a computer screen... :nervous:
"Think about nice things not unhappy things.
The future makes happy, if you make it yourself.
No war; think about happy things."   -WouterSmitssm

Hard Light Productions:
"...this conversation is pointlessly confrontational."

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: background nebula realism
subluminal lasers


wat

I assume he means sub luminescent lasers. Lasers that are not within visual range.

No, he doesn't. He's making fun of FreeSpace's subluminal lasers, lasers that don't move at lightspeed.

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: background nebula realism
subluminal lasers


wat

I assume he means sub luminescent lasers. Lasers that are not within visual range.

No, he doesn't. He's making fun of FreeSpace's subluminal lasers, lasers that don't move at lightspeed.

He got what I meant. I guess I was more vague than I meant to be on the irony.

 

Offline Aardwolf

  • 211
  • Posts: 16,384
    • Minecraft
Re: background nebula realism
Subluminal Lasers FTW.

 

Offline High Max

  • Permanently banned
  • 29
Re: background nebula realism
#.#
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 02:06:14 am by High Max »
;-)   #.#   *_*   ^^   ^-^   ^_^

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: background nebula realism
You see, there is no game if your fighter isn't controlled by you. That, and trying to dogfight at 8.3km/s is kinda... stupid?

 

Offline High Max

  • Permanently banned
  • 29
Re: background nebula realism
#.#
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 02:05:52 am by High Max »
;-)   #.#   *_*   ^^   ^-^   ^_^

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: background nebula realism
Yup. Seems we're on the same wagon of "Fun >> Realism"

 

Offline spzattk

  • 24
Re: background nebula realism
Aye, the sky doesn't look like that to human eyes.
If you go to TRUELY dark skies when there is no moon out and completly clear weather, the sky looks far more impressive than that.
Here's a map of light pollution in the US. If you havn't seen the sky from at least the grey areas...you haven't seen dark skies :p.
http://doubleyoutube.info/OAC/Light_Pollution_Road_America-USA-Del.gif
Nebulosity, to the naked eye, appears grey, without color, although some bright nebula in a telescope might appear slightly green/red.

I think that a sky background that was accurate to what would actually be seen in space would be far more beautiful than the current star backgrounds. However, when I'm playing this game I'm trying to shoot things, not just look at a pretty view. So, having lots of colorful nebula can make it a lot easier to see the ships against the sky. Still, I'd love to see accurate backgrounds and would prefer them over the current ones (although the current ones aren't  too bad).

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: background nebula realism
Aye, the sky doesn't look like that to human eyes.
If you go to TRUELY dark skies when there is no moon out and completly clear weather, the sky looks far more impressive than that.
Here's a map of light pollution in the US. If you havn't seen the sky from at least the grey areas...you haven't seen dark skies :p.
http://doubleyoutube.info/OAC/Light_Pollution_Road_America-USA-Del.gif
Nebulosity, to the naked eye, appears grey, without color, although some bright nebula in a telescope might appear slightly green/red.

I think that a sky background that was accurate to what would actually be seen in space would be far more beautiful than the current star backgrounds. However, when I'm playing this game I'm trying to shoot things, not just look at a pretty view. So, having lots of colorful nebula can make it a lot easier to see the ships against the sky. Still, I'd love to see accurate backgrounds and would prefer them over the current ones (although the current ones aren't  too bad).

The first few missions of Blue Planet have a 'realistic' Sol skybox background, if you want to check it out.

As for your 'truly dark skies' comment, thanks for the map, good stuff. Apparently light pollution these days is bad enough that even in Antarctica you can't see what would have been visible in ancient Rome.

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Re: background nebula realism
If you wanted realistic (WHY does everyone insist upon this?), you would be fighting in most likely nothing but inky blackness, especially in the areas between systems; it would be totally black, there would be no light except via artificial sources.


I'm not insisting on it, I was just curious.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key