Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,660
# 11
08-15-2012, 07:48 AM
Ahh , it only just hit me!!! They sometimes uses different lights to capture an image, eg Radiowaves, or Gamma Rays or X-rays, so yeah maybe our screen sees them the way satalites do
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,066
# 12
08-15-2012, 08:55 AM
The fact is, black space, with a few visible stars, is rather boring.
Nebulae, asteroids, planets, etc. are added to maps for many reasons. They could be there because that's what that system is shown as in the show, or described as containing. However, yes, most of the time, those things are added as visual interest, to keep the background from being quite so dull. They can also serve as reference for motion.

Now, just because we don't want ALL of our maps to be black space with stars doesn't mean that more couldn't be. I wholeheartedly agree that the early work on STO involved way too many nebulae and other space effects. I would prefer to return to more 'realistic' space as we move forward. However there are plenty of instances from the show of non-black space, and plenty of times in the game where something will necessitate nebulae and the like.

As for lighting, it drives me nuts when there is a light coming from nowhere. However, it is well established canon as the enterprise was nearly always lit, and you rarely, saw a nearby star. Still, I prefer to make sure that any maps I make, do have a visibly significant star in them, that can be plausibly lighting the map/players.

I'm sure some of you have heard my sun rant before, but suffice it to say that I have tried to introduce some more realism to space maps through the use of more proper suns (yes, with lens flare), fewer nebulae, and making planets feel larger by putting them into the background (like was done for UPS). The last point means that you won't be able to approach the planet. It will always appear to be the same distance from you no matter where you go in the map, but it does give them a much more significant feel than in game geometry does. This won't be done for all planets, but when/where it makes sense.

Lt. Miller has picked up on my approaches to space, and has been following suit for some of his work on S7 already, so you'll be seeing this trend continue into the new sector, as well as a couple other places that we hope to get out to you at some point. . .

I can't say that space will be a perfect recreation of the reality, especially as artistic license does need to be taken in some cases, but we will endeavor to bring future space maps more in line with realism than previously.

ETA: As for performance, space in our game, even with nebulae etc. is very empty. There is little that will have much of an impact on your system's performance compared to say, ESD. That's not to say never, and there are instances where, when something breaks (like the recent white blobs) they do take a toll, but for the most part, space is not very performance intensive.
-The Artist formerly known as Tumerboy



Quote:
Originally Posted by mightybobcnc View Post
Tacofangs, what is your beef with where's Sulu?
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,908
# 13
08-15-2012, 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
(like the recent white blobs)
Speaking of those white blobs, do you know what the plans are to do with them?
Was named Trek17, but still an author.

Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh'.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 908
# 14
08-15-2012, 09:16 AM
Glad to hear we are going to get more variety in space maps. Something that I felt would be cool, but I don't know if its possible, but what about some real NASA, or NASA inspired backgrounds. Hubble has brought us some amazing images, and something familiar but space derived might be cool. Or even using nebula that are well known, like the Horse Head Nebula.

Trek21, in another thread He mentioned that the white blobs are being fixed as in removed.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 271
# 15
08-15-2012, 10:00 AM
That's exactly why all of my Foundry missions have black space. I made a few Borg planets in black space setting and very little light and I honestly believer they look great... and scary
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 190
# 16
08-15-2012, 10:18 AM
If you were outside in a spacesuit, you would only see stars and nebula in near darkness. Your eyes don't have the dynamic range to show a very faint nebula and, for example, a brilliant white surface like a starship's hull. If your followcam was an actual "eye", you would see the ship, the planet, the planet's star, and blackness. This is why the Apollo ground moon photos don't show any stars, the ground is simply way, way too bright.

All those beautiful pictures of nebula/milky way etc. require hours of capture under pristine dark skies.

You are standing inside a modern starship, who's to say what the viewscreen is showing is actually across many wavelengths, and enhanced brightness/artificial color.

Taco, any chance we might see light from suns that aren't white? Ie red, blue, orange, yellow?

Last edited by moronwmachinegun; 08-15-2012 at 10:26 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 891
# 17
08-15-2012, 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
The fact is, black space, with a few visible stars, is rather boring.
Nebulae, asteroids, planets, etc. are added to maps for many reasons. They could be there because that's what that system is shown as in the show, or described as containing. However, yes, most of the time, those things are added as visual interest, to keep the background from being quite so dull. They can also serve as reference for motion.

Now, just because we don't want ALL of our maps to be black space with stars doesn't mean that more couldn't be. I wholeheartedly agree that the early work on STO involved way too many nebulae and other space effects. I would prefer to return to more 'realistic' space as we move forward. However there are plenty of instances from the show of non-black space, and plenty of times in the game where something will necessitate nebulae and the like.

As for lighting, it drives me nuts when there is a light coming from nowhere. However, it is well established canon as the enterprise was nearly always lit, and you rarely, saw a nearby star. Still, I prefer to make sure that any maps I make, do have a visibly significant star in them, that can be plausibly lighting the map/players.

I'm sure some of you have heard my sun rant before, but suffice it to say that I have tried to introduce some more realism to space maps through the use of more proper suns (yes, with lens flare), fewer nebulae, and making planets feel larger by putting them into the background (like was done for UPS). The last point means that you won't be able to approach the planet. It will always appear to be the same distance from you no matter where you go in the map, but it does give them a much more significant feel than in game geometry does. This won't be done for all planets, but when/where it makes sense.

Lt. Miller has picked up on my approaches to space, and has been following suit for some of his work on S7 already, so you'll be seeing this trend continue into the new sector, as well as a couple other places that we hope to get out to you at some point. . .

I can't say that space will be a perfect recreation of the reality, especially as artistic license does need to be taken in some cases, but we will endeavor to bring future space maps more in line with realism than previously.

ETA: As for performance, space in our game, even with nebulae etc. is very empty. There is little that will have much of an impact on your system's performance compared to say, ESD. That's not to say never, and there are instances where, when something breaks (like the recent white blobs) they do take a toll, but for the most part, space is not very performance intensive.
Thats all great and all. Thanks. The real question I have is when are they going to put your splash and drip effects back into the SFA ponds?
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,660
# 18
08-16-2012, 08:20 AM
Well I am honoured by Tumberboys responce and yes , the early stars are far more blue, and what about HUGE HUGE Stars . and perhaps fly near too like voyager did, or the enterprise. Or maybe play hide and seek with enemies and dodge solar flares!! And on that subject, if you "kill" or injure your enemies ship, could they be dead in the water? Or like if you hit them in weapons, destory them completely, could you have to go to a dock to fix them. And Last thing : If our hull is burnt, KEEP IT BURNT, and to give it a nice paint job; go to ESD or something to heal those problems (eg the burnt ship and the damaged weapons and sheilds - which are unoperable - instead of injurys. Thanks for your time

Last edited by jumpingjs; 08-16-2012 at 08:22 AM. Reason: bad grammer and spelling mistakes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 19
08-16-2012, 09:24 AM
The thing I don't like is how the core fragments and nebula is still glowing out of a destroyed moon on "Klingon Scout Force." First of all, the core of a planet or moon is only hot due to pressure and friction. Once blasted into space it will cool off and harden, thus stop glowing. The glowing nebula coming from the destroyed moon should be a dim dust cloud because the moon didn't just now get destroyed. Besides, it slows down your computer a great deal when your ship flies into the stuff.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 20
08-16-2012, 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moronwmachinegun View Post
If you were outside in a spacesuit, you would only see stars and nebula in near darkness. Your eyes don't have the dynamic range to show a very faint nebula and, for example, a brilliant white surface like a starship's hull. If your followcam was an actual "eye", you would see the ship, the planet, the planet's star, and blackness. This is why the Apollo ground moon photos don't show any stars, the ground is simply way, way too bright.

All those beautiful pictures of nebula/milky way etc. require hours of capture under pristine dark skies.

You are standing inside a modern starship, who's to say what the viewscreen is showing is actually across many wavelengths, and enhanced brightness/artificial color.

Taco, any chance we might see light from suns that aren't white? Ie red, blue, orange, yellow?
Actually you can, if you lived in the country away from city lights, the sky is so filled with star, bright and dim. That just what you can see though light refracting Earth's atmosphere. Imagine what you can see if you were in space on the dark side of Earth?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 AM.