Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 16 of 61«1214151617186061»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress 0.97
Work progress 0.97
smjjamesDate: Thursday, 01.11.2012, 20:19 | Message # 226
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (Salvo)
(I founded a very nice forum for game developers: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/)


I think you mean found it rather than started (founded) it?





 
AaronDate: Thursday, 01.11.2012, 20:20 | Message # 227
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
It seems to me that the correct thing to do is figure out auto exposure. The earth would be so bright that you would never be able to see earthly aurora on the lit side. Also, if viewing the disc of earth through human eyes, you probably wouldn't see stars or the milky way either.

If there were a way to define the image sensor capabilities in some way like luminous emittance graph defning the range sensitivity, then the resultant rendering would render the image to your desires. A graph representing a regular photographic camera would be a fairly sharp peak, human eyes would be much more broad. Something that could capture faint galaxy and extremely bright planetary disc at the same time would be a very broad curve. These ideas begin to fall into the category of rendering HDR photos in the game engine, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_emittance

Think about the famous photos of apollo missions taking photos of the earth - there are no stars or backdrop, and no aurora at all. Conditions that reveal milky way, stars, and lit side of a near plantary disc would require an extremely compressed range of exposure, looking much like a tone mapped HDR image.

Many of the screenshots I see from SE are to my eyes far from realistic, because human eyes or a standard camera could not image both faint stars and gas clouds as well as bright sunlight and illuminated bodies in one view. Not that they aren't aesthetically awesome or look really good though!

When I'm thinking about the conditions that the sample image represents I make an assumption that the image is a 90 degree FOV. Humans are seeing approximately 90-95 degrees per eye with overlap, for nearly 180 degree full FOV. Of course the psychological effects of looking specifically at something reduce that somewhat.

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
I wonder what to do with aurora brightness. As long as SE don't have proper auto exposure, brightness of aurora should be exaggerated to make it visible in night. It's real brightness is comparable or greater than brightness of Milky Way. But Milky Way brightness is exaggerated a bit too. So problem appears at day side of the planet: aurora is too noticeable. I'm speaking of view from space, while viewing from surface aurora's brightness (together and Milky Way, stars and comets) is suppressed be fake day light attenuation effect.
 
smjjamesDate: Thursday, 01.11.2012, 20:29 | Message # 228
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (Aaron)
It seems to me that the correct thing to do is figure out auto exposure.


Yeah, I was going to add 'Other than get a proper auto exposure, thats all I could think of' on the previous post, but didn't want to be rude by accident.





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 01.11.2012, 21:30 | Message # 229
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (Aaron)
Humans are seeing approximately 90-95 degrees per eye with overlap, for nearly 180 degree full FOV.

Actually each eye has the 160-170° FOV; the FOVs are not added. This is because both eyes face the same direction. So the total FOV is the same as the FOV of each eye. It's just that your nose might get in the way of each eye in one direction tongue

Quote (Aaron)
It seems to me that the correct thing to do is figure out auto exposure.

Yes. I have stressed this time and again.

Quote (n3xt)
Does that mean that the weird square shaped massive stars will become more or less round?

It means he fixed it. The stars will be round.

Quote (n3xt)
Or perhaps an idea to use both as well for example

No, this is a bad idea and makes no sense.

Quote (smjjames)
Actually, I think you have a good idea there, similarily it could be 290K (62.33 °F) or 62.33 °F (290K) since it'd be cool to have both values, and perhaps have an option whether or not to show the default measurement?

No. You guys, space is already at a premium on the HUD as it is, that kind of thing should not be implemented. There's no room and it would look bad. SE has already said that he plans to make it something like being able to click on the units and have them cycle.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Thursday, 01.11.2012, 21:42
 
SalvoDate: Thursday, 01.11.2012, 23:05 | Message # 230
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote (Aaron)
Humans are seeing approximately 90-95 degrees per eye with overlap, for nearly 180 degree full FOV


Right, but most of the view is blurred by the mind, try lo look something without look it directly xD





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 01.11.2012, 23:39 | Message # 231
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (Salvo)
Right, but most of the view is blurred by the mind, try lo look something without look it directly

Yes I know that, there is a small FOV directly in front that is very sharp, then around that there is a larger FOV that is not as clear, then around that there is a larger FOV out to 170° that is indistinct but great at registering movement (this is called peripheral vision). My point was that each eye does not have a 90° FOV, but in fact has the full FOV.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
boyan3001Date: Friday, 02.11.2012, 01:31 | Message # 232
Astronaut
Group: Users
Serbia
Messages: 45
Status: Offline
Quote (Baleur)
But..... Why? I really don't understand the need to translate custom names that people give stars or planets...
I mean, names have no need to be translated.

That's why I wrote transcripted frist, not translated. wink





Realno...
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 06:35 | Message # 233
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Quote (n3xt)Or perhaps an idea to use both as well for example No, this is a bad idea and makes no sense.

I plan to make a new settings window where you will choose a measure unit and an optional secondary measure unit. For example:

Code

Quantity         Unit 1       Unit 2

Temperature      [°C]         [°F]
Small distances  [miles]      [kilometers]
Medium distances [AU]         [none]
Big distances    [parsecs]    [light years]
Planet radius    [kilometers] [none]
Planet mass      [MEarth]     [kilograms]


So an object's info would print as:

Code
Distance    21.6 pc (70.416 ly)


For Unit 2 you may simply choose "none" to not display it.

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
SE has already said that he plans to make it something like being able to click on the units and have them cycle.

Or this as an alternative.

*





 
n3xtDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 08:35 | Message # 234
Explorer
Group: Users
Netherlands
Messages: 184
Status: Offline
@SpaceEngineer

But what about Kelvin (K)?

Maybe it's a better option to keep K as basic... 2 examples:

Unit 1

Temperature: 273 K (??? °F) Sorry I'm unfamiliar with Fahrenheit and too lazy to calculate xD

Unit 2

Temperature: 273 K (0 °C) biggrin

Also I see that Unit 1 uses miles wich is used primarily in the English-speaking countries ofcourse with some exceptions and so does Fahrenheit, lets say according to the American measurement system

While Unit 2 uses kilometers and is more European based and so does Celcius, wich I use here in Holland xD

@HarbingerDawn's post below this one ---> Oh thanks for the quick answer. Always find °F a weird measurement. Funny how they say in the U.S.A. it's 100 degrees! o.O imagine that in °C xD

Oh glad to know that Vladimir fixed the sugar cube stars haha


Edited by n3xt - Friday, 02.11.2012, 08:44
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 08:36 | Message # 235
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (n3xt)
Sorry I'm unfamiliar with Fahrenheit and too lazy to calculate xD

273.15 K = 0 °C = 32 °F

And he will keep Kelvin as an option, he was just giving examples.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 08:44 | Message # 236
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (n3xt)
But what about Kelvin (K)?

I said that there will be a menu where you can choose any unit for every quantity, with an optional second unit.

Quote (n3xt)
Also I see that Unit 1 uses miles wich is used primarily in the English-speaking countries ofcourse with some exceptions and so does Fahrenheit, lets say according to the American measurement system

This is just a sample of how the menu may look! The square brackets are drop-down lists!

*
*





 
apenpaapDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 11:04 | Message # 237
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Quantity Unit 1 Unit 2

Temperature [°C] [°F]
Small distances [miles] [kilometers]
Medium distances [AU] [none]
Big distances [parsecs] [light years]
Planet radius [kilometers] [none]
Planet mass [MEarth] [kilograms]


What about Gigametres and Terametres for medium distances too and Peta metres, Exametres, Zettametres, and Yottametres for big distances? Especially on the medium distances, I'd prefer to use those.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 11:40 | Message # 238
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Quantity Unit 1 Unit 2

Temperature [°C] [°F]
Small distances [miles] [kilometers]
Medium distances [AU] [none]
Big distances [parsecs] [light years]
Planet radius [kilometers] [none]
Planet mass [MEarth] [kilograms]

What about Gigametres and Terametres for medium distances too and Peta metres, Exametres, Zettametres, and Yottametres for big distances? Especially on the medium distances, I'd prefer to use those.


Why not add all of the types of measurements, all the way from hogsheads to googolmeters? :P /sarcasm





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 12:17 | Message # 239
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (smjjames)
Why not add all of the types of measurements, all the way from hogsheads to googolmeters? :P /sarcasm

Apenpaap has a point, meters and metric prefixes for it would make for quite a reasonable option (and/or meters/kilometers with scientific notation).





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
BaleurDate: Friday, 02.11.2012, 15:42 | Message # 240
Observer
Group: Users
Sweden
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Fixed a bug with "suqre shaped stars" when Real Sun Brightness on


OH! MY GOD! biggrin

Can anyone provide some input as to wether this setting is actually more realistic or not?
I know it's incredibly overpoweringly bright in certain systems, i'm just curious as to if it's actually more realistic, given how insanely wide the difference in real stars luminosity can be.

(even to the point where, as before when we discussed the eyes and camera way of adjusting automatically, some stars are just so incredibly powerful that it'd make no difference how small our pupil was contracted)

Request: I would love a way to manually edit the Real Planet Brightness setting. I love that planets very close to stars get over-exposed, but i dislike the under-exposed far away planets. Is there anyway in any file somewhere that i can change the minimum and maximum values for RPB?


Edited by Baleur - Friday, 02.11.2012, 19:58
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress 0.97
Page 16 of 61«1214151617186061»
Search: