Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16515
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 12:25:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:also...go do the experiment. like for real. and then come back and tell me all about how an LED cant illuminate a room. Not on its own, no. Put two side-by-side and they have better chance. Cluster ten of them together and they start being really good at it.
What you're saying is effectively that two of those LEDs don't provide better illumination than one does. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1322
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 14:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
Leto Hallick wrote:This has been the one visual oddity driving me nuts since I started playing. The size/brightness of the stars based on the distance travelled never seems to change (unless you warp directly to the star).
Our Sun from Neptune (~30 AU), for example, is practically a small dot in the sky.
Yet anywhere you seem to warp within a system in EVE, the star is always the same. It would add such a tremendous sense of scope/distance to warp away from a star and see it shrink to just a burning dot in the sky.
(And for that matter, where are the double binary systems and red-colored stars and brown dwarfs and other fun stuff? Screw the science I want to feel like I'm zipping through exotic solar systems of all types and colors.)
Eve physics, best physics. This is not a signature. |
Elric Cole
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 15:21:00 -
[63] - Quote
Samoth Egnoled wrote:It only remains a visual aspect because we arent adding mechanics to it (while i agree it is mainly for the purdy lights) Think of the matter is made from the death throws of a dying star, this is how actual minerals and gases are formed. That dying star could be forming some rare t2 material that is only supplied for a limited time and amount. but noone can put a pos on it and control it, disturbing alliances hold over such items.
Or pulsars that everytime they rotate they deal damage to your ship/pos making living there a hazard and maybe increasing the rewards in such areas?
Black holes that severly limit your ships systems, reduced damage/falloff/optimal/missile flight/ Warpspeed etc.
Some systems might even give bonuses to ships like a Magnetar could increase your ships resistance to Em damage, but mess with something else on your ship.
There are so many things that they could add to mix things up a little. you never know it may something they are thinking of already...
Some good ideas. I especially like the correlation between minerals and comics entities mechanics - might be a nice way to connect how the minerals a made, instead of just spawning...
And yep, I too am hoping that they're thinking of implementing these type of ideas/mechanics... |
Ken 1138
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 15:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
Leto Hallick wrote:This has been the one visual oddity driving me nuts since I started playing. The size/brightness of the stars based on the distance travelled never seems to change (unless you warp directly to the star).
Our Sun from Neptune (~30 AU), for example, is practically a small dot in the sky.
Yet anywhere you seem to warp within a system in EVE, the star is always the same. It would add such a tremendous sense of scope/distance to warp away from a star and see it shrink to just a burning dot in the sky.
(And for that matter, where are the double binary systems and red-colored stars and brown dwarfs and other fun stuff? Screw the science I want to feel like I'm zipping through exotic solar systems of all types and colors.)
Don't forget EVE has very few star types, like brown and red dwarfs, yet most stars look about the same except for colour. EVE has no binary or trinary systems either. The closest star to our own is Rigel Kentaurus which is binary. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 16:59:00 -
[65] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:also...go do the experiment. like for real. and then come back and tell me all about how an LED cant illuminate a room. Not on its own, no. Put two side-by-side and they have better chance. Cluster ten of them together and they start being really good at it. What you're saying is effectively that two of those LEDs don't provide better illumination than one does.
no thats not what im saying at all. two LEDs produce more light. Hence they are brighter. Im saying that if you increase the size of one LED it will not directly impact the amount of light it produces. Not a hard concept folks. Go look at regular bulbs, why are the 40w and 160w bulbs both the same size? yet one produces more light. crazy, i know, but you will figure it out eventually. If you actually did my experiment you wouldn't have this misconception.
seriously go get a single LED and turn it on in a darkened room. it will let you see, i promise lol. |
Steve Spooner
Mordu's Military Industrial Command Circle-Of-Two
126
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:14:00 -
[66] - Quote
I like how people are trying to argue EVE physics and technicalities when it is all within the palms of the CCP overlords. What they whim the workings of EVE it is what we have to accept. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4657
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:23:00 -
[67] - Quote
Quote:Why do the stars remain unchanging in size even as you travel away?
Because most stars (with the exception of Roseanne Barr, Whoopi Goldberg, and Oprah Winfrey) keep themselves on a fairly strict dietary plan specifically designed to keep their fan base from distancing themselves. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 19:10:00 -
[68] - Quote
Steve Spooner wrote:I like how people are trying to argue EVE physics and technicalities when it is all within the palms of the CCP overlords. What they whim the workings of EVE it is what we have to accept.
no one here as been arguing over EVE physics. we have been arguing over real physics. just fyi :) |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
2623
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 20:38:00 -
[69] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:dude you were wrong. just let it go. starting to look pathetic now.
also...go do the experiment. like for real. and then come back and tell me all about how an LED cant illuminate a room. Dude... you don't know anything about it.
Light spreads out to fill a sphere, and the surface area of a sphere goes up as the SQUARE of the distance. So a planet at twice our distance gets about 1/4 the light per unit area. So Pluto at about 40 AU so it gets about 1/1,600th the light we do. On Earth we get about 1,200 watts per square meter from the sun, so at Pluto sunlight is under one watt per square meter. Less than that of a moonlit night... as a rough estimate.
You can google this. It's not hard.
Anyway, I think I'm done with your trolling. You don't know how magnitude is calculated or what that even means. You don't know what the words I'm using mean in the context of astrophysics. If you want to live in arrogant ignorance that's your call. I think it's in pretty poor taste that you are so willfully scientifically illiterate and yet would talk smack about what others know.
|
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:15:00 -
[70] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:dude you were wrong. just let it go. starting to look pathetic now.
also...go do the experiment. like for real. and then come back and tell me all about how an LED cant illuminate a room. Dude... you don't know anything about it. Light spreads out to fill a sphere, and the surface area of a sphere goes up as the SQUARE of the distance. So a planet at twice our distance gets about 1/4 the light per unit area. So Pluto at about 40 AU so it gets about 1/1,600th the light we do. On Earth we get about 1,200 watts per square meter from the sun, so at Pluto sunlight is under one watt per square meter. Less than that of a moonlit night... as a rough estimate. You can google this. It's not hard. Anyway, I think I'm done with your trolling. You don't know how magnitude is calculated or what that even means. You don't know what the words I'm using mean in the context of astrophysics. If you want to live in arrogant ignorance that's your call. I think it's in pretty poor taste that you are so willfully scientifically illiterate and yet would talk smack about what others know.
yes we have all heard your frantic attempts to make sense, you keep just repeating yourself. i am enjoying your tenacity though. did you try that LED yet? or did you forget about how you told us an LED doesnt produce enough light to see by?
again another source for you cause you are just not getting it. also your math is wrong. http://www.projectpluto.com/pluto.htm
direct quote from the above link:
"The sun would be a tiny point in the sky, 1/30 as big and 1/900 as bright as what we see from Earth. Despite being so small, though, it would still be much brighter than a full moon. It would move very slowly across the sky. The earth turns once a day, so you see the sun rise and set once a day. Pluto turns about six times more slowly, so the sun rises and sets about once a week."
and here is some more for you, note the use of the inverse square law you are so terribly convinced proves you right:
"I'm simply using the principle that illuminance obeys the inverse square law: an object twice as far away as another from a light source will be four times as dim. Looking up the distances of the planets from the sun and applying the inverse square law, I arrive at the following illuminances in lux:
Mercury 650,000 Venus 190,000 Earth 100,000 Mars 45,000 Jupiter 3,500 Saturn 1,100 Uranus 270 Neptune 110 Pluto 60
Bear in mind we're not thinking about looking at light sources, but at a surface illuminated by them.
Mercury: 6 times as bright as direct sunlight on Earth. Sounds very very bright, doesn't it? But given that the difference between broad daylight and direct sunlight is a factor of ten, such a difference at this level of brightness isn't going to be off the charts. I know of no Earthly light source capable of brightness in this order, however.
Venus: Twice as bright as direct sunlight on Earth: see above.
Earth: You're familiar.
Mars: Still a bright bright Summer's day, but whispy cloud is taking the edge off. An overcast day will give you 10,000 lux (so will a doctor's examination lamp at close range) on Earth, and you're still at 4 times that.
Jupiter: You're into artificial lighting levels, now; but still very bright. The problem now is that artificial light levels create a very different impression and possibly a sense that things are brighter than in fact they are. Imagine a small white room with sunshine streaming through the window, giving the room a bright lively appearance.
Saturn: Imagine your local supermarket. Look down at the floor beneath your feet. Saturn is this bright, but without the warmer glow of artificial lighting.
Uranus: You've bought your lunch from the supermarket and go back to work in your office. Yoy again decide to look at the floor. This is how bright Uranus is.
Neptune: A windowless stair well (again, don't be tempted to think about looking into the bright fluorescent light sources... they'll dazzle)... look at the walls and the floor. Neptune is something like this.
Pluto: You're still well within the limits of being able to see comfortably. Imagine a boiler room with a couple of broken light fittings, or a dimly but comfortably lit bar you frequent."
do i really have to keep going?
edit:ask yourself this question "can i see pluto with a telescope?" if you answered "yes" than you must concede that enough light reaches its surface to see. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16540
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:35:00 -
[71] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:no thats not what im saying at all. Yes it is, because you're dismissing the difference between a point source and a diffuse source.
Quote:two LEDs produce more light. GǪand something with the surface area of a lightbulb emits more light than a single point-like LED, even though the LED is much brighter.
Quote:Hence they are brighter together than they are as individuals. GǪbut individually, they're not, and that's the whole point. You can't look at just the brightness of a point source and then declare it to light things up better than diffuse source that is less bright because it's the total light that matters.
Quote:seriously go get a single LED and turn it on in a darkened room. it will let you see, i promise lol. No, it won't, because you keep missing the core point of the example: that we have picked a LED that is too weak to do that, and that even though it's brighter than the lightbulb, it will produce less total light. So the bright LED will not light up the room whereas the dim bulb will.
So if the Sun is 450+ù incidentally brighter on the surface of Pluto than the Moon is on the surface of Earth, you have to start asking yourself how many times larger is the Moon in the Earth sky compared the Sun in the Pluto sky. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:42:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:no thats not what im saying at all. Yes it is, because you're dismissing the difference between a point source and a diffuse source. Quote:two LEDs produce more light. GǪand something with the surface area of a lightbulb emits more light than a single point-like LED, even though the LED is much brighter. Quote:Hence they are brighter together than they are as individuals. GǪbut individually, they're not, and that's the whole point. You can't look at just the brightness of a point source and then declare it to light things up better than diffuse source that is less bright because it's the total light that matters. Quote:seriously go get a single LED and turn it on in a darkened room. it will let you see, i promise lol. No, it won't, because you keep missing the core point of the example: that we have picked a LED that is too weak to do that, and that even though it's brighter than the lightbulb, it will produce less total light. So the bright LED will not light up the room whereas the dim bulb will. So if the Sun is 450+ù incidentally brighter on the surface of Pluto than the Moon is on the surface of Earth, you have to start asking yourself how many times larger is the Moon in the Earth sky compared the Sun in the Pluto sky.
what you just said to me:
"a brighter light is brighter than a dimmer light"
i agree.
what i dont agree witht:
"a larger bulb is defacto brighter than a smaller one"
you keep talking about the perceived size of the light source, whats important is the amount of light arriving on pluto's surface, not how big that source appears to be in the sky. that light is enough to see by. end. of. story.
mind you the sun size is never changing, just its perceived size in the sky. that perception does not influence the amount of light you are getting on the surface. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16540
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:what you just said to me:
"a brighter light is brighter than a dimmer light" No. What I said was that a dimmer, but bigger light emits more light than a brighter, but smaller one. The trick is that the dimmer light is more diffused so it isn't perceived as bright as the point light.
Quote:what i dont agree witht:
"a larger bulb is defacto brighter than a smaller one" GǪwhich I didn't say.
Quote:mind you the sun size is never changing, just its perceived size in the sky. that perception does not influence the amount of light you are getting on the surface. The perceived size in the sky changes if the distance changes. The distance influences the amount of light you are getting on the surface. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Captain Tardbar
Sons of Sam
522
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
Are not binary stars more common in our galaxy that lone stars? I remember reading somewhere they were really common. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16540
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:59:00 -
[75] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Are not binary stars more common in our galaxy that lone stars? I remember reading somewhere they were really common. They're common, but not that common GÇö Gàô by reasonably recent observations. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Captain Tardbar
Sons of Sam
522
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 22:29:00 -
[76] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Are not binary stars more common in our galaxy that lone stars? I remember reading somewhere they were really common. They're common, but not that common GÇö Gàô by reasonably recent observations.
Well that is still pretty common. Be nice if there were binaries in EVE as long as it doesn't take too much time or effort. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 22:32:00 -
[77] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:what you just said to me:
"a brighter light is brighter than a dimmer light" No. What I said was that a dimmer, but bigger light emits more light than a brighter, but smaller one. The trick is that the dimmer light is more diffused so it isn't perceived as bright as the point light. Quote:what i dont agree witht:
"a larger bulb is defacto brighter than a smaller one" GǪwhich I didn't say. Quote:mind you the sun size is never changing, just its perceived size in the sky. that perception does not influence the amount of light you are getting on the surface. The perceived size in the sky changes if the distance changes. The distance influences the amount of light you are getting on the surface.
again this is easily disproved by going to your local hardware store and looking at light bulbs. size doesnt matter in this instance :)
also, you are really hung up on the star in the sky. whats important here is the light hitting pluto, not where or what its coming from. the sun's size doesnt change, the distance does. we are not interested in how bright that point is when looking at it. we are interested in the light it gives off to the rest of the solar system! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16543
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 22:44:00 -
[78] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:again this is easily disproved by going to your local hardware store and looking at light bulbs. size doesnt matter in this instance Size matters a lot in how bright they appear. That's why there's such a plethora of photography equipment that lets you pour silly amounts of light onto a subject without blinding them with their brightness.
Quote:also, you are really hung up on the star in the sky. whats important here is the light hitting pluto, not where or what its coming from. Actually, what we're discussing is the difference between the brightness of a point source and the illumination it provides.
Quote:the sun's size doesnt change, the distance does. we are not interested in how bright that point is when looking at it. we are interested in the light it gives off to the rest of the solar system! GǪand that light changes as the distance changes (and this coincides with the apparent size of the light source). And since you brought up an article mentioning how bright the Sun would be when looking at it from very far away, it is very much part of what we're interested in.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
148
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 23:14:00 -
[79] - Quote
...Are people seriously arguing that a star should take up the same solid angle as seen from an observer at 1 AU and 40 AU?
On a slightly diffirent note... here's a link for the people that think that illumination shouldn't get dimmer as you move away from a star (or any light source): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 23:42:00 -
[80] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:...Are people seriously arguing that a star should take up the same solid angle as seen from an observer at 1 AU and 40 AU? On a slightly diffirent note... here's a link for the people that think that illumination shouldn't get dimmer as you move away from a star (or any light source): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_lawEdit: Keep in mind that the outermost planet in our system, Pluto (**** what the IAU says), is only 48 AU away at Aphelion. There are systems in eve that have celestials out past 200 AU. Depending on the star, it should be rather dark at those distances.
"Rather" is a quantity we can find out. turns out that its "rather" bright on the surface of pluto. which is what this thread has become about. |
|
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 23:45:00 -
[81] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:again this is easily disproved by going to your local hardware store and looking at light bulbs. size doesnt matter in this instance Size matters a lot in how bright they appear. That's why there's such a plethora of photography equipment that lets you pour silly amounts of light onto a subject without blinding them with their brightness. Quote:also, you are really hung up on the star in the sky. whats important here is the light hitting pluto, not where or what its coming from. Actually, what we're discussing is the difference between the brightness of a point source and the illumination it provides. Quote:the sun's size doesnt change, the distance does. we are not interested in how bright that point is when looking at it. we are interested in the light it gives off to the rest of the solar system! GǪand that light changes as the distance changes (and this coincides with the apparent size of the light source). And since you brought up an article mentioning how bright the Sun would be when looking at it from very far away, it is very much part of what we're interested in.
ok again, take a 40w bulb that is the exact same size as a 160w bulb. which one is brighter? which one is bigger? seriously answer some of these questions instead of glossing over them.
did you read any of my source material? did you read the calculations showing the amount of photons hitting your eye on pluto? did you read the article that says clearly one could easily read a book on the surface of pluto?
this has changed from being fun to feeling like work. i am not a teacher people!!
google the following "what is the light level on pluto?" its not hard. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4086
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 23:49:00 -
[82] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:oh i totally got your reference and appreciated it. what i did not appreciate was this:
"That is to say that I expect the constant illumination regardless of distance from the primary is a stylistic choice intended to prevent people getting lost when they can't see their un-illuminated ship in a dark environment"
its misleading and as ive shown....like 6 times now....an incorrect assumption.
As you have stated over and over again, the illumination (basically, energy per spare metre) drops off according to the inverse square law. As you get further and further away from the luminary your ship becomes less and less visible. The visibility of an object depends on many factors: in our case we are perceiving an image on a display that has a limited range of illumination. If we were to scale the brightness of objects in space (a ratio of many thousands across the range) to the range possible for our monitors, objects in deep space would become indiscernible from the surrounding black sky.
How do we translate the actual lighting into something that can be displayed on a computer monitor? You will find that for practical purposes you must at least scale the brightness by an order of magnitude to simply fit into the display's gamut. Then you find that things are still too bright at the bright end (everything will be "blown out," not just the highlights), and too dark at the dark end (the contrast between #000000 black and #010101 is far too small to be meaningful), so you find out that it's actually better in terms of UI to simply represent illumination in space as being at a constant, comfortable level. Keep in mind that the maximum contrast between #000000 and #FFFFFF is in the order of 768, assuming each colour provides equal illumination on a linear scale and we don't mind distorting colour to enhance contrast. You can safely ignore claims of million-to-one contrast ratios achieved by turning a display off then comparing that to all-white at maximum backlight intensity since you can't display any information on an all-white monitor or a monitor that is turned off. The difference in brightness between 400k lux at the luminary versus 60 lux at Pluto is too great to be displayed on a normal monitor.
So I also stand by my comment about ships being invisible in dark environments, should someone be foolish enough to attempt to display images of ships in space using realistic lighting models where the only luminary is the local star.
One improvement suggested by CCP some time back when they started the V3 project was the ability to illuminate an environment based on the nebula in the skybox (which is why ships are currently so "dark"). Since this luminary is necessarily very distant and very bright, it will achieve the same effect as the current unscaled illumination, and we will even be able to see ships and stations that are in the local-star-shadow of a planet. Thus CCP will be adding ambient/atmospheric lighting into the space scenes such that shadows are not absolute blackness.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 23:53:00 -
[83] - Quote
Mara, as far as i know, there is no place in the EVE universe that is far enough away from a star for it to be totally pitch black. that is of course assuming the star is as bright as our sun.
my interest in this thread isnt how the stars appear in eve. its with the very very wrong assumption that its dark on pluto. a celestial body that we can see with a telescope.
how the dummies in this thread think we can see pluto through a telescope, but cant see its surface if we were 10 feet from it really amazes me. |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
148
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:00:00 -
[84] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:...Are people seriously arguing that a star should take up the same solid angle as seen from an observer at 1 AU and 40 AU? On a slightly diffirent note... here's a link for the people that think that illumination shouldn't get dimmer as you move away from a star (or any light source): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_lawEdit: Keep in mind that the outermost planet in our system, Pluto (**** what the IAU says), is only 48 AU away at Aphelion. There are systems in eve that have celestials out past 200 AU. Depending on the star, it should be rather dark at those distances. "Rather" is a quantity we can find out. turns out that its "rather" bright on the surface of pluto. which is what this thread has become about. Well, isn't it grand that the inverse square law I linked gives us a method of calculating that?
For simplicity, lets assume Pluto is 50 AU away. And according to your post, it has an illumination of 60 Lux. Quite a few systems in eve extend past 200 Au. So lets take a hypothetical celestial at 200 Au. Our hypothetical celestial is 4 times further away from our light source, so by the inverse square law it recieves 1/16th the illumination.
So, (60 Lux)/16 = 3.75 Lux. According to Wikipedia, this corresponds to the dark limit of "civil twilight."
Lets take a look at one of those provided images. In this photo we see people and some indiscernible constructions against the backdrop of the sky. Those people are under an illumination of around 3.75 Lux.
Note how you can't see ****. So, in a system with celestials/stargates past 200 AU (and a quick google search will reveal quite a few), your ship should be nothing but a dark silhouette against the backdrop of the skybox. Bbarring other sources of illumination, of course. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:20:00 -
[85] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:...Are people seriously arguing that a star should take up the same solid angle as seen from an observer at 1 AU and 40 AU? On a slightly diffirent note... here's a link for the people that think that illumination shouldn't get dimmer as you move away from a star (or any light source): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_lawEdit: Keep in mind that the outermost planet in our system, Pluto (**** what the IAU says), is only 48 AU away at Aphelion. There are systems in eve that have celestials out past 200 AU. Depending on the star, it should be rather dark at those distances. "Rather" is a quantity we can find out. turns out that its "rather" bright on the surface of pluto. which is what this thread has become about. Well, isn't it grand that the inverse square law I linked gives us a method of calculating that? For simplicity, lets assume Pluto is 50 AU away. And according to your post, it has an illumination of 60 Lux. Quite a few systems in eve extend past 200 Au. So lets take a hypothetical celestial at 200 Au. Our hypothetical celestial is 4 times further away from our light source, so by the inverse square law it recieves 1/16th the illumination. So, (60 Lux)/16 = 3.75 Lux. According to Wikipedia, this corresponds to the dark limit of " civil twilight." Lets take a look at one of those provided images. In this photo we see people and some indiscernible constructions against the backdrop of the sky. Those people are under an illumination of around 3.75 Lux. Note how you can't see ****. So, in a system with celestials/stargates past 200 AU (and a quick google search will reveal quite a few), your ship should be nothing but a dark silhouette against the backdrop of the skybox. Bbarring other sources of illumination, of course.
first off:
thank you so incredibly much for actually reading and comprehending my posts!
second:
i am totally willing to admit that at the distances you mention (200+AU) it would be very difficult to see, although not pitch black, like you have said. that has revealed my ignorance as to the size of systems in eve.
finally:
this discussion is largely about the light levels on pluto. if you can admit that its bright enough to see on pluto clearly, i can admit that there are systems in eve that could be very very dark on the edges. dont forget, though, if the conditions on pluto are on avg 250 times brighter than a full-moon night on earth like the OP i linked claims, the math doesnt really work out the same way you have shown here. so if at 50AU (roughly i know) the levels are 250x the full moon, then at 200AU the levels are...what 15 times brighter than the full moon? doesnt really jive with the 3.75 lux figure you gave me. then again the 60 lux on pluto we both started with came from a different source than the one that claimed the "250 times" figure.
either way, thank you for actually being constructive, and again thank you for reading my posts instead of skimming over them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16544
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:37:00 -
[86] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:ok again, take a 40w bulb that is the exact same size as a 160w bulb. No, because that would be a completely different case.
Instead, take a a 62cm-¦ bulb emitting 1000 lux. Then compare it with a 1cm-¦ diode emitting 2000 lux. Which one will illuminate more? Which one will be more intense? Now take a 62cm-¦ bulb with an intensity of 2 candela. Then compare it with a 1cm-¦ with an intensity of 1 candela. Which one will illuminate more? Which one will be more intense?
Quote:did you read any of my source material? did you read the calculations showing the amount of photons hitting your eye on pluto? Did you notice that this means we're interested in how bright that point is when looking at it?
Quote:can you see pluto? if you answer "yes" then you need to accept the fact that light hits it. GǪa fact no-one has disputed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
148
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:37:00 -
[87] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:
first off:
thank you so incredibly much for actually reading and comprehending my posts!
second:
i am totally willing to admit that at the distances you mention (200+AU) it would be very difficult to see, although not pitch black, like you have said. that has revealed my ignorance as to the size of systems in eve.
finally:
this discussion is largely about the light levels on pluto. if you can admit that its bright enough to see on pluto clearly, i can admit that there are systems in eve that could be very very dark on the edges. dont forget, though, if the conditions on pluto are on avg 250 times brighter than a full-moon night on earth like the OP i linked claims, the math doesnt really work out the same way you have shown here. so if at 50AU (roughly i know) the levels are 250x the full moon, then at 200AU the levels are...what 15 times brighter than the full moon? doesnt really jive with the 3.75 lux figure you gave me. then again the 60 lux on pluto we both started with came from a different source than the one that claimed the "250 times" figure.
either way, thank you for actually being constructive, and again thank you for reading my posts instead of skimming over them.
All of the figures and equations I used except the 60 Lux figure you provided, I sourced in my post. In my post, I took an extreme case of a 200 Au from a main sequence yellow star, such as our sun.
Lets take a more common example from Eve, a 100 Au White Dwarf system of which there are probably hundreds in eve. A typical white dwarf is an order of magnitude (10x) dimmer than our sun.
Now, let us assume that the illumination on Pluto is not 60 Lux like you originally posited, but 100 Lux. So we need to do: (Illumination on Pluto)*(scale down 10x for white dwarf)/(100Au / 50Au)^2. so: (100 Lux)*(0.1)/4 = 2.5 Lux.
2.5 Lux is notably darker than the civillian twilight image I linked, and this was calculated by nearly doubling the original posited illumination on Pluto.
So: In hundreds of systems in eve, on the outer celestials, your ship would be nothing but a dark Silhouette against the background nebula Skybox. (Ignoring other light sources.) |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:57:00 -
[88] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:
first off:
thank you so incredibly much for actually reading and comprehending my posts!
second:
i am totally willing to admit that at the distances you mention (200+AU) it would be very difficult to see, although not pitch black, like you have said. that has revealed my ignorance as to the size of systems in eve.
finally:
this discussion is largely about the light levels on pluto. if you can admit that its bright enough to see on pluto clearly, i can admit that there are systems in eve that could be very very dark on the edges. dont forget, though, if the conditions on pluto are on avg 250 times brighter than a full-moon night on earth like the OP i linked claims, the math doesnt really work out the same way you have shown here. so if at 50AU (roughly i know) the levels are 250x the full moon, then at 200AU the levels are...what 15 times brighter than the full moon? doesnt really jive with the 3.75 lux figure you gave me. then again the 60 lux on pluto we both started with came from a different source than the one that claimed the "250 times" figure.
either way, thank you for actually being constructive, and again thank you for reading my posts instead of skimming over them.
All of the figures and equations I used except the 60 Lux figure you provided, I sourced in my post. In my post, I took an extreme case of a 200 Au from a main sequence yellow star, such as our sun. Lets take a more common example from Eve, a 100 Au White Dwarf system of which there are probably hundreds in eve. A typical white dwarf is an order of magnitude (10x) dimmer than our sun. Now, let us assume that the illumination on Pluto is not 60 Lux like you originally posited, but 100 Lux. So we need to do: (Illumination on Pluto)*(scale down 10x for white dwarf)/(100Au / 50Au)^2. so: (100 Lux)*(0.1)/4 = 2.5 Lux. 2.5 Lux is notably darker than the civillian twilight image I linked, and this was calculated by nearly doubling the original posited illumination on Pluto. So: In hundreds of systems in eve, on the outer celestials, your ship would be nothing but a dark Silhouette against the background nebula Skybox. (Ignoring other light sources.) Edit: Upon further reading of the linked article and its source material, it turns out that 10x dimmer is the upper bound for typical white dwarves, with the lower bound being 50x dimmer.
cant argue with that! i never made any assumptions about stars that weren't our sun. so anything you wanna talk about in-game with in-game stars is fine with me. my interest is in our own system, with our sun. never intended to talk about anything else :)
do you see my point with the twilight photo though? how its the placement of the light source that is making you see the foreground as darker than it really is? |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:00:00 -
[89] - Quote
"Instead, take a a 62cm-¦ bulb emitting 1000 lux. Then compare it with a 1cm-¦ diode emitting 2000 lux. Which one will illuminate more? "
the diode. all day. next question?
|
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
149
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:04:00 -
[90] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:
cant argue with that! i never made any assumptions about stars that weren't our sun. so anything you wanna talk about in-game with in-game stars is fine with me. my interest is in our own system, with our sun. never intended to talk about anything else :)
do you see my point with the twilight photo though? how its the placement of the light source that is making you see the foreground as darker than it really is?
With regards to the photo, that could well be the case.
I've actually done a bit more digging, turns out my numbers were a bit off [source]. White dwarves are upperbound at 1% of Sol illumination and lowerbound at 0.1% Illumination. So at best, a 100 Au white dwarf system would have an illumination of 0.25 Lux on the outer celestials. and at worst 0.025 Lux, which may as well be pitch black, and we definitely wouldn't see our hulls without additional illumination.
So, space in eve should be much darker than it is in a great many systems. Cases where we wouldn't see our hulls would actually be somewhat plentiful. Mildly interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |