Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 7 of 61«12567896061»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress 0.97
Work progress 0.97
smjjamesDate: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 18:06 | Message # 91
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
I think the problem lies in auto-exposure not actually changing the exposure, but the magnitude-limit.


Maybe this is it because in order to make the hot jupiters (and other worlds close enough in to be blindingly white on the lit face) not so bright, just lower the exposure.





 
SalvoDate: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 19:20 | Message # 92
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
I always use RPB, because I think it should make SE more realistic, is impossible that make SE less realistic, because the algorithm should be right, but I'm not sure about that, because pluto (that in SE is so darks), in photos looks very bright, neptune and uranus too...

Anyway, I like the idea of deactivate it on System Browser biggrin





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...)


Edited by Salvo - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 19:21
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 19:41 | Message # 93
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (Salvo)
I always use RPB, because I think it should make SE more realistic, is impossible that make SE less realistic

Not only is it possible, but it in fact does make it less realistic (see below), this is why I am critical of it, because many people have this idea that worlds really look like this and lighting conditions really behave like this, when in fact they don't, so people get the wrong idea. Exactly the wrong thing for an educational program. If RPB was renamed to "Compare Planet Brightness" then it would be fine, because that's exactly what it currently does.

Quote (Salvo)
but I'm not sure about that, because pluto (that in SE is so darks), in photos looks very bright, neptune and uranus too...

Exactly, this is what I have been saying... unless the brightness of the planet is less than the brightness of the background stars (which is not the case for any planet in our Solar system) then RPB should not make the planet dimmer. Yet it does. This is because it is not to make things "realistic" but just to compare the relative illumination of different planets at the same time.

Quote (apenpaap)
Neptune isn't nearly as brightly lit as Earth, after all. I think the problem lies in auto-exposure not actually changing the exposure, but the magnitude-limit.

Autoexposure only adjusting the mag limit of the sprites makes perfect sense, but to be perfect it would also need to adjust the exposure of any planets in addition to that. Exactly as I outlined in my proposal.

Quote (apenpaap)
Personally, I couldn't disagree more; I think the real planet brightness is gorgeous, and much more realistic than having bright blue sky ice worlds, fierce orange titans, and hot Jupiters looking just as bright as normal gas giants.

With autoexposure on though it doesn't matter, since the brightness of the stars matches the brightness of the planet.

How can looking at a dim, barely visible Neptune when the background stars are shining brightly possibly be considered "realistic"? In reality that is not how it would look at all; just look at any picture taken by Voyager 2! Real data is far more important than an algorithm.





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 - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 19:46
 
apenpaapDate: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 19:42 | Message # 94
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
^Well, that is because those pictures are made with more exposure than you'd make a picture of Earth or the Moon. That's why I think auto-exposure should increase the brightness of poorly-lit planets.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 19:49 | Message # 95
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
That's why I think auto-exposure should increase the brightness of poorly-lit planets.

It does, in that it increases the mag limit of the background stars to match the appropriate brightness for the planet. It breaks down however when the planet is so dimly lit that the background stars are at full brightness (note: this is probably 1% or less of the worlds in SE). Otherwise autoexposure works fine as is. Refer to my earlier post on my ideas for autoexposure to see how it should best look in the future.

Also, I edited my previous post to respond to your earlier one smile





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
 
smjjamesDate: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 20:19 | Message # 96
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
SpaceEngineer, I don't know if you caught my reply back on http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/21-881-11526-16-1348158789 when asking about the axial tilts since I'm still wondering about that (and you did say in the thread I linked in that post that you were going to look into it).




 
AlessiaCristalloooDate: Thursday, 04.10.2012, 17:15 | Message # 97
Astronaut
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 44
Status: Offline
We want screenshots! We want screenshots! biggrin
 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 05.10.2012, 04:59 | Message # 98
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (AlessiaCristallooo)
We want screenshots! We want screenshots! biggrin


SpaceEngineer already posted screenshots of the new wiki style stuff and data entry some pages back.





 
n3xtDate: Friday, 05.10.2012, 16:29 | Message # 99
Explorer
Group: Users
Netherlands
Messages: 184
Status: Offline
@HarbingerDawn

I know you criticize the RPB mode, however I would like you to check this documentary video from YouTube.
I would like to know what you think about it. Anyway I really like RPB.

They say the Sun's light is roughly a 1000 times fainter when it hits Pluto... due to it's distance...
Oh well just check it out, and simply start at roughly 7:30 or 7:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elxdnh5vm54

I assume the reason why planets appear much brighter viewed from a distance is from my perspective due to their total reflection output. I could be wrong though...


Edited by n3xt - Friday, 05.10.2012, 16:33
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 05.10.2012, 16:45 | Message # 100
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (n3xt)
They say the Sun's light is roughly a 1000 times fainter when it hits Pluto... due to it's distance...

The apparent magnitude of the Sun as seen from Pluto varies from around -18.3 to -19.3. This is hundreds of times brighter than the full Moon, which is quite bright, more than bright enough to see and read by. The "dim streetlight" analogy is false. A camera set to expose the background stars would drastically overexpose Pluto (don't take my word for it, look at the New Horizons pictures when they arrive in July 2015). Ergo, RPB looks absurdly unrealistic. It only compares planet brightnesses to each other; that is its sole function.

This is precisely why I am critical of it. People gather the false impression that these worlds really would look so dim if you were there. This is just not the case. At night it is many many times darker than it would be on Pluto, yet you can see perfectly fine. Features with an albedo similar to Pluto appear quite bright. At times just before sunrise, when the lighting is similar to Pluto, would you say that the world is too dim to see? Of course not.

I don't know what the point of contention is.

RPB allows planet illumination levels to be compared: fact.
RPB is visually unrealistic: fact.
Using RPB all the time looks absurd: opinion which stems from fact.





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 - Friday, 05.10.2012, 16:46
 
smjjamesDate: Saturday, 06.10.2012, 21:56 | Message # 101
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
The apparent magnitude of the Sun as seen from Pluto varies from around -18.3 to -19.3. This is hundreds of times brighter than the full Moon, which is quite bright, more than bright enough to see and read by. The "dim streetlight" analogy is false. A camera set to expose the background stars would drastically overexpose Pluto (don't take my word for it, look at the New Horizons pictures when they arrive in July 2015). Ergo, RPB looks absurdly unrealistic. It only compares planet brightnesses to each other; that is its sole function.

This is precisely why I am critical of it. People gather the false impression that these worlds really would look so dim if you were there. This is just not the case. At night it is many many times darker than it would be on Pluto, yet you can see perfectly fine. Features with an albedo similar to Pluto appear quite bright. At times just before sunrise, when the lighting is similar to Pluto, would you say that the world is too dim to see? Of course not.

I don't know what the point of contention is.

RPB allows planet illumination levels to be compared: fact.
RPB is visually unrealistic: fact.
Using RPB all the time looks absurd: opinion which stems from fact.


Yeah, SE doesn't do night sides properly. It treats them as if there is absolutely NO light at all (oddly, the ambience still works since it would require light, but um, yea....), not even faint starlight.

Still though, the reason I like it is because it does the illumination, but I don't know how realistic it is (apparently not) and it treats planets a certain distance from their star as if the surface was 100% reflective.

So, yeah, while I like the fact that it does illumination, I do agree that the lighting system needs work still and reworked even.

All that said, how can we make the lighting system (not just the RPB) work so that it does illuminate planets correctly? I would certainly like to see what the real illumination is of objects out at Kupier Belt distances and further as well as have the night side not be pitch black (or infinite magnitude as SE puts it).

What about real star brightness? I think that works okay, and SE deals with reflected light from moons and nearby planets when it is nighttime on the object that you are at.





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 06.10.2012, 22:01 | Message # 102
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (smjjames)
Yeah, SE doesn't do night sides properly. It treats them as if there is absolutely NO light at all (oddly, the ambience still works since it would require light, but um, yea....), not even faint starlight.

SE does a decent job of night lighting if lit by a moon or planet. But that is irrelevant to this conversation since it is about illumination by suns.





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 - Saturday, 06.10.2012, 23:06
 
VoekoevakaDate: Saturday, 06.10.2012, 23:00 | Message # 103
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
SE does a decent job of night lighting if lit by a moon or planet. But that is irrelevant to this conversation since it is about illumination by stars.

Totally agree !

Take a look at this black hole planet :


Attachments: 5284262.jpg(92Kb)





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 06.10.2012, 23:07 | Message # 104
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
I meant "suns" when I said "stars", just for clarification. (I edited my earlier post now to reflect that).




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
 
smjjamesDate: Sunday, 07.10.2012, 18:32 | Message # 105
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
For the sake of discussion and the fact that posting examples will probably help other people understand the difference between RPB and what it actually should be. I do understand what you're talking about as far as light levels and RPB, I'm just trying to see what it would look like. Since Harbinger mentioned Pluto, I'm using that as a frame of reference.

Pluto with real planet brightness on, which certainly doesn't look 100 times brighter than the full moon. For location reference, it's midday at that spot.


RPB off. Not sure how accurate a representation this would be.


RPB off and exposure at .500 to simulate lower light levels, would this one be more accurate?

Attachments: 4851073.jpg(103Kb) · 5575751.jpg(149Kb) · 8371620.jpg(134Kb)







Edited by smjjames - Sunday, 07.10.2012, 18:32
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress 0.97
Page 7 of 61«12567896061»
Search: