| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xipe Totec
   |
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:05:00 -
[1]
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
|
Troy Knight
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:08:00 -
[2]
Funny, because I love the starfeild--a starfeild that seems to match up with the map.
Lovely idea really.
|
Fuujin
Hadean Drive Yards
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:08:00 -
[3]
No. Love it.
Hadean Drive Yards Tier 2 BC Pricing |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:09:00 -
[4]
Thats why I said, make it optional. I dont wanna take anything away. 
|
Chode Rizoum
Minmatar
Finite Horizon
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:11:00 -
[5]
ye plz make a on/off
|
Epidemis
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:12:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
I dont like it either, it's just a uniform ring of stars, there's no spots where there's less than the other parts of the ring, it's just unrealistic.
|
Detavi Kade
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:12:00 -
[7]
Quote:
The Magical Realist
Doesn't understand what a "game" is. Constantly makes arguments based on what would be "realistic," even if the game is set in a fantasy world run by wizards and pixies.
Sample Quote: "You can't tell me a Mondlagarian Tiger Warrior is stronger than a Swamp Troll. That just doesn't make sense!"
Punishment: Sent back to kindergarten for remedial make-believe classes.
link
This is fun!
|
Apollyon X
FIRMA
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:14:00 -
[8]
I love it, it gives you a sense of just how big the galaxy is especially when you see the stars in context with the seamless map, awsome...
|
Doragee
Minmatar
Unknown Society
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:14:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Detavi Kade
Quote:
The Magical Realist
Doesn't understand what a "game" is. Constantly makes arguments based on what would be "realistic," even if the game is set in a fantasy world run by wizards and pixies.
Sample Quote: "You can't tell me a Mondlagarian Tiger Warrior is stronger than a Swamp Troll. That just doesn't make sense!"
Punishment: Sent back to kindergarten for remedial make-believe classes.
link
This is fun!
 
--
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:14:00 -
[10]
I am not talking about the map ...
|
Isyel
Minmatar
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:15:00 -
[11]
And how exactly do the nebulas make any more sense? methinks you should check at www.nasa.gov yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Might
As well
Train
Another
Race
 |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
Cheers Restaurant and Bar
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:16:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Guillame Herschel on 29/11/2006 21:17:00
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars
Wrong. Photographs don't pick up stars because the camera is set for a daylight exposure of objects illuminated by the Sun. The human eye has a much larger dynamic range than film or CCDs, and can easily see stars in space, even when the Sun is also in the sky, even stars right up next to the Sun. The depiction of the sky in Revelations is accurate on that count, and would be even more realistic if the stars showed their actual colors, which can also be seen in space with the naked eye (behind a helmet visor, of course).
-- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
Romeda
Minmatar
Trojan industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:17:00 -
[13]
As an ametuer astronomer the reason why you don't see many stars in NASA images, is because either they are.
1> Short exposure targeting a brightly lit object like a moon.
2> Ones taken from orbit you will see no stars same reason why you don't see them in the daytime.
You can see many thousands of stars from earth at night and from space when there is no bright objects about to drown out the stars. But I do like the new stars, but an option to remove them would be nice for those who don't :)
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:17:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Epidemis
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
I dont like it either, it's just a uniform ring of stars, there's no spots where there's less than the other parts of the ring, it's just unrealistic.
Well, no. Maybe if you're sat in the middle of the galaxy, yah. Where I am (out at Deklein, on the edge of EVE) there are only stars in the direction of the rest of EVE, on the other side is emptiness. Which is really brilliant- give you much more immersion.
-----------------------------------------------
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:18:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Xipe Totec on 29/11/2006 21:23:16
Edited by: Xipe Totec on 29/11/2006 21:20:48
Yeah, I do concede that point, Isyel, to a cetain degree... , my wish however remains. The starfields made it less realistic even ...
(I didnt start a discussion on explosion/engine sounds in space, on purpose)
|
Detavi Kade
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:19:00 -
[16]
guys guys...lol nasa hasn't exactly peered thru the eve gate yet, yah know. It might be different on the other side..../wink
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
Cheers Restaurant and Bar
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:22:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Romeda
2> Ones taken from orbit you will see no stars same reason why you don't see them in the daytime.
Not exactly. Atmospheric scattering renders all but the brightest stars and planets invisible during the daytime from the surface. But in space, there is no atmosphere, no scattering, and you can see stars as clearly in the daylight as you can at night, when the Sun is behind the Earth. It's the camera that is not able to record both daylit objects, and stars in the same exposure. If you were to view a scene in orbit in person, you'd see stars all over the sky, with more brilliance even in daylight than you could see from the darkest sky on the Earth's surface.
-- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
Redpants
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:25:00 -
[18]
The new star field is excellent.
The problem is it needs to sit behind the nebulas and gas clouds, not in front of them. That's what looks so unnatural and out of place about it.
Otherwise it could stand to not be a uniform single pixel, single color star field. The star should be the cooresponding color of the sun in the system it represents.
________________________________________________________________________________
"My once immaculate white pants are now stained from the weak and innocent. I don't wear red." |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:25:00 -
[19]
If you are in direct sunlight, you have to heavily shield your eyes (see astro-helmets). I doubt that with these on, you will see any stars next to the sun
|
Troy Knight
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:27:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Troy Knight on 29/11/2006 21:28:03
Edited by: Troy Knight on 29/11/2006 21:27:43
Originally by: Xipe Totec
If you are in direct sunlight, you have to heavily shield your eyes (see astro-helmets). I doubt that with these on, you will see any stars next to the sun
Heh, ya, well, I'm sure the windows of your ship does some sort of sheilding from the sun ;)
cockpit is sensored? wow
|
Nials Corva
Gallente
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:27:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
just the nebulas.
The nebula that washes out the semi-transparent interface in 80% of systems so that you can never tell which modules are active unless you pan to a dark spot of sky?
I HATE the nebula.
|
Detavi Kade
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:27:00 -
[22]
well actually, you are not using your eyes to see the eve-verse. It's the cameras that pass the info to your pod. And those cameras are super duper, high falutin, infinite resolution, infinite spectrum cameras developed by the jovians. So there!
Oh god, did I just participate...
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:29:00 -
[23]
Quote:
Heh, ya, well, I'm sure the windows of your ship does some sort of sheilding from the sun ;)
cockpit is sensored? wow
That wont make the stars any more visible
|
PKlavins
Caldari
Total Mayhem.
Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:29:00 -
[24]
[Quote]Only has one complaint, but posts about it 15 times a day. This is because nobody else cares.
Sample Quote: "THE LAVENDER LACHESIS IS ACTUALLY PERIWINKLE!!!! WHY DON'T THEY FIX THIS??!!!?!"
Punishment: Lavender Lachesis changed to lilac. [/Quote]
yea this IS fun! :D :P
T3 Cakes for Mods in This Sig!
first -eris
|
foolers
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:30:00 -
[25]
hehe, its what makes the seamless zoom possible.
since its already rendering it, it doesnt have to load them into memory.
It just moves/scales them wich is much faster.
|
BillyBong2
Amarr
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:38:00 -
[26]
Love it! Leave it alone 
_______________________________________________
|
Devanesc
Disbelievers of Fate
The SUdden Death Squad
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:42:00 -
[27]
Let us choose. If some people like it they should be allowed to keep it. If some people don't like it, they should be allowed to get rid of it. Afterall, its not a game mechanic... its simply a graphic.
|
Romeda
Minmatar
Trojan industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:42:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Romeda
2> Ones taken from orbit you will see no stars same reason why you don't see them in the daytime.
Not exactly. Atmospheric scattering renders all but the brightest stars and planets invisible during the daytime from the surface. But in space, there is no atmosphere, no scattering, and you can see stars as clearly in the daylight as you can at night, when the Sun is behind the Earth. It's the camera that is not able to record both daylit objects, and stars in the same exposure. If you were to view a scene in orbit in person, you'd see stars all over the sky, with more brilliance even in daylight than you could see from the darkest sky on the Earth's surface.
/me sits corrected :), what if EVE became like Orbiter? Now that would be intresting
|
Phoenix Lonestar
Litanies of Hate
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:44:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Pham Sirge
Hi all,
I'd love the option to turn it off, Currently it just doesnt feel like good old eve  .
,
<VTIL> Pham Sirge
Agreed.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:45:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Arowe Telak
2. Dust clouds and nebulae. Have you noticed that every single system has some sort of colored dust cloud or nebulae? While they exist in real life you should't be seeing then in every single system. Particularly in outer laying regions you shouldn't see anthing but black space with stars.
Actually, I'd contest this one. Firstly, New Eden (the EVE Universe) isn't in the Milkyway- its another galaxy. Plenty of galaxies have been observed which have massively higher nebulae content than Milkyway- we can safely assume New Eden is one of these.
Secondly, the map as we see it isn't the galaxy- it's the teeniest tiniest explored fragment of the galaxy. Galaxy = several billion stars. EVE = several hundred. Add to that the fact CCP reserves the right to "discover" more stars at any time they like, and the fact that you can see in your standard space view loads and loads of twinkling stars that don't represent in-game locations. All we see is that tiny amount of this galaxy that have had jump gates built in them.
So nya 
-----------------------------------------------
|
Troy Knight
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:47:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Arowe Telak
2. Dust clouds and nebulae. Have you noticed that every single system has some sort of colored dust cloud or nebulae? While they exist in real life you should't be seeing then in every single system. Particularly in outer laying regions you shouldn't see anthing but black space with stars.
Actually, I'd contest this one. Firstly, New Eden (the EVE Universe) isn't in the Milkyway- its another galaxy. Plenty of galaxies have been observed which have massively higher nebulae content than Milkyway- we can safely assume New Eden is one of these.
Secondly, the map as we see it isn't the galaxy- it's the teeniest tiniest explored fragment of the galaxy. Galaxy = several billion stars. EVE = several hundred. Add to that the fact CCP reserves the right to "discover" more stars at any time they like, and the fact that you can see in your standard space view loads and loads of twinkling stars that don't represent in-game locations. All we see is that tiny amount of this galaxy that have had jump gates built in them.
So nya
Hehe, I actually noticed when closing down my map that those stars were representing actual known systems in the game :)
|
Epidemis
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:48:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Epidemis
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
I dont like it either, it's just a uniform ring of stars, there's no spots where there's less than the other parts of the ring, it's just unrealistic.
Well, no. Maybe if you're sat in the middle of the galaxy, yah. Where I am (out at Deklein, on the edge of EVE) there are only stars in the direction of the rest of EVE, on the other side is emptiness. Which is really brilliant- give you much more immersion.
Ok, I'l concede then, I guess it does reflect the EVE map better.
|
Derboff
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:59:00 -
[33]
ok I first hated the starfield in test, but now... I am kind of liking it....
I love playing spot the constellation and have already seen "Man hitting custard with a fish", "Bananas and Mash" and of course "Pig and Cow sitting in a tree"
Back to the op, as an option yes
|
Kim Chee
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:08:00 -
[34]
Love the starfield graphics. It's very cool to be able to see the galaxy "out the window". I hope they allow you to overlay the auto-pilot route and other data as well, one of these days.
An option to turn it off would be fine. I'd also like an option to turn off (or adjust the hover delay) the popup system info in the main star map. Right now, it's very hard to plot a route since those baloons pop up the instant you hit a star.
|
Dei
Crystaline Green
Order of the Khanid Crown
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:08:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Edited by: Xipe Totec on 29/11/2006 21:34:12
I said that the starfields are unrealistic, but I ALSO said that I didnt like them. I do like the unrealistic nebulas and sounds
Methinks you should read the very first short story for an explanation for the sounds.
|
Max Grief
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:22:00 -
[36]
i think its really cool and neat, but an on/off toggle would be nice for the sake of FPS issues.
Its like sound in eve, Its nice... but it isn't worth 10 fps drop to have it running
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
Cheers Restaurant and Bar
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kim Chee
I hope they allow you to overlay the auto-pilot route and other data as well, one of these days.
/signed and also the ability to get a system map view of nearby systems, not just the system you're in. You should be able to set course to a system, too.
-- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
Rainhailer
Gallente
Resurrection
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:28:00 -
[38]
An option would be great.
I'd also love an option to revert the backround color on the map to blue, I'm not a fan of the contrast with black.
|
Fuujin
Hadean Drive Yards
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:35:00 -
[39]
Seriously stop asking the devs to do silly thing slike this. Get used to it. Give it a few days and you wont even notice it.
Hadean Drive Yards Tier 2 BC Pricing |
Joshua Foiritain
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:38:00 -
[40]
I want the ugly spots to go away
-----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
keepiru
Supernova Security Systems
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:42:00 -
[41]
I like it. Please go away.
----------------
Kali ships worth flying left: Harbinger, Rokh. Only 2 left tux, you can make it! |
Phoenix Lonestar
Litanies of Hate
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:45:00 -
[42]
Options are great!
|
Karunel
Nuevos Horizontes
O X I D E
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:49:00 -
[43]
It's ugly. Please remove it. Forever.
Originally by: elbenito
The problem with large fleet engagements is that the hamsters stop to watch.
|
Gonada
Gallente
Cross Roads
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 22:50:00 -
[44]
love it!
those that dont like it , suck it up
-I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.-
-nerf Missles-
|
Del Narveux
Obsidian Angels Enterprises
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 23:30:00 -
[45]
I agree with making it an option you can disable. Nebulas are cool.
_________________
[SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus
Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Originally by: Wrangler
Well, at least we have forum PvP..
|
xaja
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 23:46:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
...I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas...
I fail to understand how you can like the nebulas... they're all so obviously all created from athmospheric photographs, and along with the sounds of guns thrusters, and the fact that there's drag on your ship (it slows down on its own like a car when you turn off the AB), it completely ruins the feeling of being in space...
pair that with the fact that very few of these wallpapers repeat over and over, I'd rather have them go more in the direction of seeing sparkling stars in the distance and either tone these wallpapers way down or at least make their wall papers from hubble photographs...
...
_____________________________________
I'm Paper; Rock's fine, nerf Scissors |
Admiral Pieg
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:02:00 -
[47]
i cant believe someone DOESNT like it? its beautiful imo, makes the game more visually pleasing.
______________
Pod from above. |
Asylum Seaker
Minmatar
The Blackwater Brigade
Blackwater Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:13:00 -
[48]
I love the new stars. And it is definatly not random stars, if you enter map mode and watch the stars as you zoom out you will see that the stars in the starfield are perfectly matched in position to the stars on the map.
It would be cool if they took it further and allowed us to view our route from ship view, or use all the rest of the map features like region display / sov display, etc.
Memento Mori.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:15:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Troy Knight
Hehe, I actually noticed when closing down my map that those stars were representing actual known systems in the game :)
I know that- I was talking about all the other stars, the ones that have always been there. The hundreds and hundreds of twinkly ones which DON'T correspond to the ones in game. 
-----------------------------------------------
|
Falcione
Mortis Angelus
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:18:00 -
[50]
Stars > Static backdrops
The starfields add uniqueness to each system due to the nature of their layout. I for one approve of the stars. Its a nice touch.
Although making it optional probably wouldn't hurt anythin. I don't see the reason to turn it off.
|
Oedus Caro
Caldari
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:30:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the well known SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you don't see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulae.
So to paraphrase, you would simultaneously like to see more "realism" in the form of sparser star fields, and to preserve the lesser realism of nebulae? Anyone else detect conflicting interests?
Has it occurred to you that the reason space frequently appears blank in NASA photographs lies in the fact that the foreground objects in those photographs are too strongly illuminated by the sun for the camera's exposure to catch the stars? The shiny metal of satellites, or the white tiles of the shuttle, are apt to be rather bright when lit directly by the sun, wouldn't you think?
On the other hand, have you perhaps noticed that the night sky does not glow with the candy-coloured hues of a giant nebula? Really, if you want to increase realism, drastically reduce the frequency of nebulae in EVE space.
As for a toggle option, however, that's just fine. It does, after all, cause a bit of extra processing lag. I just had to comment on what I see as a faulty argument. 
|
Miss Overlord
Gallente
Ferrum Pugnus
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:32:00 -
[52]
actually the story about the locked off systems being reactivated due to a self aware drone reactivating them is interesting and has furhter potential - but yes a regular discovery of new star systems would be good
These posts represent my personal views and not those of my corp or alliance. These do not reflect offical alliance or corp views
This is a disclaimer |
Mondo Banana
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 00:47:00 -
[53]
I greatly dislike the starfield. I like the idea but not the execution. It shines right through the "gas clouds" and looks like the stars are just little dots hanging on a curtain that is not far away. It completely removes the former sense of great depth that Eve had. Also they are slowly crawling along the screen one pixel at a time in a weird, rippling wave.
So now I feel like I'm flying in a fairly small sphere with stars sprinkled along the inside.
When warping the stars are pretty much fixed in place, and your ship is fixed in place and this takes away the sensation of speed and motion I used to feel. I came back to Eve primarily because I just love the feeling of flying through the beautiful Eve universe and this is an unpleasant change.
I find it ugly and immersion breaking. A good idea that was implemented in a way I think looks terrible.
|
Irashi
Caldari
Hunters Agency
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 01:24:00 -
[54]
They are quite distracting :/
And if we're getting the stars we should also get all the distant nebulas that seem to dominate the individual constellations of our galaxy
CCP must hate reading the forums sometimes, we only ever give them more to do
________________________________________
|
Rechal
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 01:48:00 -
[55]
Remember kids, Eve = Reality.
I'm getting my master's degree in Eve at Hedion University while hauling across the galaxy! |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
Cheers Restaurant and Bar
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 01:51:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Arowe Telak
2. Dust clouds and nebulae. Have you noticed that every single system has some sort of colored dust cloud or nebulae? While they exist in real life you should't be seeing then in every single system. Particularly in outer laying regions you shouldn't see anthing but black space with stars.
Gas in nebulae is excited to shine by ultraviolet and gamma radiation streaming from giant hot stars that are newly formed within them. Therefore: (a) not only would humans be killed by this intense radiation, planets, moons, asteroid would also be eroded away or unable to form, and (b) old red stars should have no surrouding nebulae since their solar winds long ago dispersed their dusty birth clouds away into space.
-- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
Oreh Anavrin
No Quarter.
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 01:58:00 -
[57]
I dont mind it, they are purty. But an option to turn it off for all you LAME WHINERS (just kidding:P) wouldn't hurt.
|
Irashi
Caldari
Hunters Agency
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 02:11:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Arowe Telak
2. Dust clouds and nebulae. Have you noticed that every single system has some sort of colored dust cloud or nebulae? While they exist in real life you should't be seeing then in every single system. Particularly in outer laying regions you shouldn't see anthing but black space with stars.
Gas in nebulae is excited to shine by ultraviolet and gamma radiation streaming from giant hot stars that are newly formed within them. Therefore: (a) not only would humans be killed by this intense radiation, planets, moons, asteroid would also be eroded away or unable to form, and (b) old red stars should have no surrouding nebulae since their solar winds long ago dispersed their dusty birth clouds away into space.
1. Eve isn't a full galaxy anyway. 5000 systems, no more than 150 LY across (according to capship jump calculators), you could spit across it. Real galaxies have billions of stars and are around 100,000 LY across. We're just playing in a dusty little star cluster.
2. It's a game and the publishers wanted it to look pretty and bright.
________________________________________
|
BoBoZoBo
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 02:34:00 -
[59]
Really.. in real space you dont see nebulas when you are in them either
=========================
Minister of Propaganda - Operator 9
|
Stitcher
Caldari
J.I.T. Enterprises
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 02:56:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Stitcher on 30/11/2006 02:56:52
Welcome to EVE, where even the Totally Cosmetic Little Features That Have no Bearing Whatsoever On Gameplay And Probably Took The Devs Ages To Get Right are actually Hugely Important And Controversial Issues Just Because 1% Of The Players Wouldn't Have Included It If They Were In Charge.
Guys, the starfield feature is so unbearably cosmetic that it amazes me that it's even an issue. I like it personally because it really reflects on the extreme lengths CCP will go to for the sake of making EVE as good as possible. It has no direct bearing whatsoever on the quality of the game, and the very idea that something like this could be irritating is, frankly, an alien concept to my mind. Please, go find a less trivial thing to be outraged about.
____________________________________________________________
MAY CONTAIN NUTS. |
Troy Knight
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 03:01:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Stitcher
Edited by: Stitcher on 30/11/2006 02:56:52
Welcome to EVE, where even the Totally Cosmetic Little Features That Have no Bearing Whatsoever On Gameplay And Probably Took The Devs Ages To Get Right are actually Hugely Important And Controversial Issues Just Because 1% Of The Players Wouldn't Have Included It If They Were In Charge.
Guys, the starfield feature is so unbearably cosmetic that it amazes me that it's even an issue. I like it personally because it really reflects on the extreme lengths CCP will go to for the sake of making EVE as good as possible. It has no direct bearing whatsoever on the quality of the game, and the very idea that something like this could be irritating is, frankly, an alien concept to my mind. Please, go find a less trivial thing to be outraged about.
/signed
Couldn't help it, everybody around here was doing that but me... ;)
|
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 06:24:00 -
[62]
I agree with the OP. It should be optional. I DO love it, is greeeaaat... but... Not all my PCs can keep up with so much imagery. In my older PCs the FPS drops too much. Please make it an option.
And while you are at it, if you can also make the nebulas an option, that would be great. I would like to turn those off for combat. The glare makes it difficult to see the status of my guns/modules. |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:13:00 -
[63]
Hi Folks
After reading all the overnight posts, I think everybody agrees that this topic is a polarizing issue. Like "2001 Odyssey in Space" you either like the new starfield graphics or you don't (I love the first and hate the latter). So maybe if the Devs do have some time on their hands, we do get an X-Mas present in form of an option to turn the starfields on and off, t'is the season ...
CHeers
|
Xendie
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:16:00 -
[64]
i love it, makes for a better atmosphere in the game.
Quote:
Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
|
Flag Bravo
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:18:00 -
[65]
I hate the star field looks sooo false and cheap, they could have done better.
|
Khyle
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:35:00 -
[66]
I hate the current star fields.
Uniformly grey wobbly pixels staggering around.
The idea is great, but can CCP please beautify them and put them BEHIND the clouds.
At the moment, like already posted by someone, it looks a bit like a cheap curtain hanging somewhere close.
|
Baske
Space-Bar
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:41:00 -
[67]
I would love to turn it off too...Just doesnt feel like "good ol' eve"
And while we are at it, please make an option to turn off BC's, AF's, HAC's, POS', Carriers, Dreads, Titans and so on.....it just doesnt feel like "good ol' eve" with them ingame.
|
mr passie
Minmatar
Purgatorial Janitors Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:42:00 -
[68]
I heard you can switch them off by pressing ctrl-q.
mind you, by doing this you will start a complex computer game that leaves "the sims" in a pale shadow. It is also a difficult and scary game as I have yet to discover where to install my clone.
I'm a reversed paranoid schizophrenic.
I have voices in my head I just think I don't hear them! |
VossKarr
Caldari
The 6th Directorate
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:44:00 -
[69]
Edited by: VossKarr on 30/11/2006 08:44:59
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov)
CHeers
Have YOU actually flown in space?
What's that I hear? No?
Now read what someone who has flown wrote about this and prepare to eat a lot of humble pie:
Quote:
But that is not the best part. The best part and by far my favorite view up here is the view of the universe at night. The stars up here are unbelievableà It looks like someone has spread diamond dust over a black velvet blanket. The Milky Way is easily visibleà like a rainbow of stars over the entire earthà I cannot keep my eyes off of them I put my head to the window and stay there until the coldness of the glass gives me a headacheà then I pull my head back a little and continue gazing out.
http://spaceblog.xprize.org/2006/09/26/watching-the-world-go-by/
The rarefied star field you see in Eve is actually the one that's unrealistic. I'm not even talking about the **** nebulae in every system and the stars blinking in absence of an atmosphere.
F'ing space experts! Sheesh!
|
Khyle
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:44:00 -
[70]
Nice tries but not funny
Just look directly up in space(where there are no known systems in most cases) and then to the side and tell me which stars are more beatiful, or which are and which are ugly.
|
Voculus
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:49:00 -
[71]
I rather like the new starfield, and atually, I wish they'd seriously tone down the garish-looking nebulae.
_________________________________________________________
|
Frug
Caldari
Tim Hortons Donuts
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:50:00 -
[72]
Love the stars. The way they blend into the map is simply awesome, gives a feeling as if I'm actually inside the galaxy.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:51:00 -
[73]
You can see the stars when your in the shadow of a planet, but not when you are in direct sunlight, which is what you mostly are in eve ...
|
Billy TwoMirrors
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:00:00 -
[74]
There is no variation in size or shade, looks like they just whacked them on the backgrounds with the spray tool in PSP, they are shat, Eve use to look quite pretty, but now its laughable. And how they move, well they don't move they sort of jerk around.
|
Baske
Space-Bar
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:03:00 -
[75]
/me loves running through the forums after a major patch. Gives a great laugh from all the whiners, who really have to learn to do what someone suggested above (ctrl-q).
Live with it :)
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:08:00 -
[76]
At least the original poster (moi) doesn't consider himself to be whining. I am merely suggesting to make the starfields optional, NOT remove them.
I have not mentioned any of the other post-patch topics, ie. i dont mind the way the wrecks work, i dont go on endlessly about 800'000 free skillpoints of newbies and I certainly dont WHINE about nerfings ...
I think the revelations patch a BIG achievement for EvE and CCP. Let me make that perfectly clear.
CHeers
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:13:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
What are you smoking? In space you see hundreds of thousands of stars. Waaaay more than you would see from Earth's surface. Of course if you're taking photographs there are situations where glare from your subject makes it impossible to see stars (as in Lunar photography, or pictures of the Earth in full sunlight) but the human eye will still see them.
I don't think it unreasonable to assume that whatever technology is giving us the view from outside our ship be also advanced enough to match the capabilities of the human eye.
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
Linux is only free if your time is worthless |
Khyle
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:14:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Khyle on 30/11/2006 09:14:55
Originally by: Baske
/me loves running through the forums after a major patch. Gives a great laugh from all the whiners, who really have to learn to do what someone suggested above (ctrl-q).
Live with it :)
So anytime the devs do something stupid, just live with it?
(like making cheap grey wobbly dots to cheapen the graphics)
I dont wanna live in your world, and you wouldnt want to either, i guess
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:15:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Epidemis
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
I dont like it either, it's just a uniform ring of stars, there's no spots where there's less than the other parts of the ring, it's just unrealistic.
No it isn't. I tested this on Sisi. If you fly to somewhere near the edge (I flew to the north west) you see a huge gap in the ring of stars. The stars are being rendered based on their actual location on the map. That's what's so cool about it. When you fly to the edge of the map you will actually see that there are no more stars.
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
Linux is only free if your time is worthless |
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:18:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Redpants
The new star field is excellent.
The problem is it needs to sit behind the nebulas and gas clouds, not in front of them. That's what looks so unnatural and out of place about it.
Otherwise it could stand to not be a uniform single pixel, single color star field. The star should be the cooresponding color of the sun in the system it represents.
I think it would also benefit from being rendered once on session change. That would eliminate the shuffling (and the fps drop) as the stars are constantly redrawn. I wonder if it would be possible to render the stars onto the canvas where the nebula is drawn then render the nebular then continue as before?
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
Linux is only free if your time is worthless |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 09:39:00 -
[81]
I have consulted a few astronomy (and moon-hoax-debunking) websites, from what I have read there it seems to be a fact that you can not see the stars in Space when standing in the sunlight - no matter if you take photographs or just use your eyes.
So if that all holds up, it would be (even for me ) acceptable to see the starfields, when in the shadow of a planet, in the shadow of a large station or when actually in the middle of nowhere were there is no or not too much direct light
|
Mephesto Nizal
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 10:06:00 -
[82]
One of the cool things in Independance War 2 was the background starfield. It was amazingly dense when you're in focus, but fly too fast or turn camera too quick, and the stars brightness fades to only a few strong illuminated ones.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
J.I.T. Enterprises
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 10:27:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Stitcher on 30/11/2006 10:32:36
Tell you what - seeing as your "vision" in EVE is actually an artificial creation derived from sensor data and an orbiting camera drone, those "stars" are in fact the product of the new navigation software's SNaPViRe (Significant Navigation Point Visual Rendering) system. This artificially illuminates all interstellar objects that are known to be either inhabited, or contain some kind of human presence.
Developed by Ishukone Interstellar Labs to improve your piloting experience, citizen.
(I came soooo close to saying "friend citizen", there...)
Now seriously, please, this is a non-issue.
____________________________________________________________
MAY CONTAIN NUTS. |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 10:28:00 -
[84]
... yet the graphics dont change when your in the pod ;-) outside youre ship.
|
Taurequis
Waylander 01
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 10:29:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Patch86
Originally by: Epidemis
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
I dont like it either, it's just a uniform ring of stars, there's no spots where there's less than the other parts of the ring, it's just unrealistic.
Well, no. Maybe if you're sat in the middle of the galaxy, yah. Where I am (out at Deklein, on the edge of EVE) there are only stars in the direction of the rest of EVE, on the other side is emptiness. Which is really brilliant- give you much more immersion.
REALLY!! Thats well cool.
Overal thou i think more should twinkle..
|
MailFan
Horizon.Inc
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 10:34:00 -
[86]
I like it, I just don't like the fps drop because of it. There an on/off option would be great.
--
Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war
|
Wild Rho
Amarr
Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 10:34:00 -
[87]
The star field thing is great, although it could use a little make over to get rid of that MS Paint spray can look it has.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 11:15:00 -
[88]
The stars fit nicely into the seamless map *cough*. Their positions are known to your ship computer. Unreachable and uncharted systems aren't shown.
The area of space where EVE takes place is probably in the center of a galaxy, the suns andsystems are really close to each other, and the nebulas hint at that too.
If you've ever been up in the mountains or in the desert far away from any cities and with a clean air, you actually see many more stars in the sky, even at day, compared to the empty sky close to the polluted and shiny human settlements.
--*=*=*--
The cause for this is not yet known, but we do have a possible fix in testing.
by Sharkbait | 2006.09.20 |
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 11:27:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
I have consulted a few astronomy (and moon-hoax-debunking) websites, from what I have read there it seems to be a fact that you can not see the stars in Space when standing in the sunlight - no matter if you take photographs or just use your eyes.
So if that all holds up, it would be (even for me ) acceptable to see the starfields, when in the shadow of a planet, in the shadow of a large station or when actually in the middle of nowhere were there is no or not too much direct light
Post some links please to clarify.
I will concede that if you are "standing" then you must be under the influence of a strong gravity well and that implies being surrounded by a surface which is probably brightly lit and that glare will cause your visor to darken which will obscure the stars.
OTOH it is technically impossible to "stand" in space. In space as long as you aren't looking directly at the sun (or some other brightly lit object) your visor would not darken and you would be treated to the full glory of hundreds of thousands of stars. You can even see a few thousand stars from the surface of the Earth if you're lucky enough to get far enough way from light polluting civilisation.
I had a chance last year to look at the night sky from near Mono Lake in California. The only problem I had was kneck pain and a tendency to shiver because it was November. First time in my life I've ever actually seen the Milkyway. If I can see that much from under 80 miles of polluted, dusty atmosphere then the view from space must be incredible.
I've also read astronaught interviews where they say that one of biggest problems on your first space walk is avoiding being distracted by the sheer beauty of the stellar light show.
Info 1
Info 2
"Astronauts have reported being surprised at how steady and clear the stars look"
Info 3
"In "Carrying the Fire" Collins writes of his solitude in lunar orbit in July 1969. As he disappeared on the backside of the Moon from Earth, he recalled, "I am alone now, truly alone, and absolutely isolated from any known life, I am it. If a count were taken, the score would be three billion plus two over on the other side of the moon, and one plus God only knows what on this side. I feel this powerfully-not as fear or loneliness-but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation. I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars-and that is all."
...so can be please drop this silly notion that stars are not visible from space now?
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
Linux is only free if your time is worthless |
Splokit
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 11:29:00 -
[90]
I like it, makes space less static.. more alive? (freelancer) And the stars are really systems? then its even more cool! :D
however the nebulas are so outdated and most systems looks the same, bring in some new baggrounds.. dark ones without nebulas.. bright ones.. flowercolered ones.. ect. ect.we need more than 4-8 we have now, no need for systems in the south looks the same(are the same) in the north.. ! not saying all systems has to be all diffient but more than we have now.
Wrong spelling/gramma? oh well.. all my english i can thank eve for ;)Before eve.. only the bad words was known to me :P
|
Demarcus
Project Gemini
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 11:31:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
null
What are you smoking? I see more stars than that from my house.
-------------------------------------
You are all worthless, and weak.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 11:49:00 -
[92]
It's not that you *cant* see the stars in space, but the visibility is tied to conditions (different than those on earth of course).
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 12:00:00 -
[93]
From: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.
Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.
The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.
Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.
.......
So you *can* see stars in space, but there *are* conditions.
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
The Nest
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 12:11:00 -
[94]
I like them tbh.
Team Minmatar
Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Emma Green
Caldari
Hammerfall Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 12:14:00 -
[95]
i hate them :( ... make a ON/OFF option so everybody would be happy!
|
Chimera Ur
Horizon.Inc
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 12:44:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Please make the new starfield graphics an option.
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov) and secondly I personally liked it better before, just the nebulas.
You can leave it in there if you must but make it an option. Thanx
As for the rest of the content patch: keep up the good work ccp!
CHeers
Just shows you know NOTHING about photography. Or space.
Ever had one of those cold moonless nights way outside civilisation where you thought "my god, never knew I could see that many stars"? Well, guess what, out in space you can see even more.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 12:55:00 -
[97]
IF you do see stars, the chances are that you will see many more stars than on earth. However if you can not see the stars for any of the reasons mentioned in my quote from the moon-hoax-debunking site, you will see less stars than on earth
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 13:04:00 -
[98]
To be honest, I do like the new star field graphics, but thy could do with bing tarted up. Maake them bigger than a single pixel, recolour them (so they're not uniform grey) and, if possible, put them behind the nebulae. That would make them look alot better.
-----------------------------------------------
|
Cato Fong
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 13:25:00 -
[99]
Well, I would like the option to switch betwenn "nebulae without stars" and "stars without nebulae".
Reasons:
1) I don't like the colorful universe. No feeling of endless space and emptiness. But i like the stars
2) The stars are in front of the nebulae. So, the nebulae are more distant than the stars. How can the color/type of the nebulae change, when I travel between places, that are closer than the nebulae? Logical error, CCP! With the stars in front of the nebulae, the nebulae in the backgraound has to be the same all time
|
Jessica May
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 13:32:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
First it's not realistic, in real space (in contrast to all the wellknown SF-movies, even the best and factually accurate ones) you dont see that many stars (check with www.nasa.gov)
So, when I'm in a totally dark Yorkshire moor and look up and see the Milky Way (not the chocolate bar) across the pitch black sky...What am I looking at exactly?
|
Skawl
GeoTech
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 13:41:00 -
[101]
I like them but as others have posted they look kinda out of place appearing in front of the nebula gasses when my brain is telling me they should be behind.
|
Arokan Manturi
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 14:36:00 -
[102]
Sure the stars look awesome, but ever since revalations and seamless map came, my fps been way to low.
------------------------------------------------
Starmaps - the ultimate way to end BM hell |
Xerxes X
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 14:53:00 -
[103]
Not too sure about the star fields myself, looks a bit un-nautural.
While we are talking about changes, how about changing the "warp drive active" etc. voice back to the original?
Xerxes X
|
Mondo Banana
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 16:20:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Mondo Banana on 30/11/2006 16:20:22
It pleases me to see that so many people agree with me about how bad the new starfield looks.
I completely understand why some people like it. Cheers to you. That's why an on/off option would be nice.
It's also nice to see that for the most part our joint dislike of the starfield was expressed simply and rationally. Those are the kinds of comments that get responses from the devs, and it makes the trolls just more obviously.... trolls.
So continue to speak out about what you like or don't like about EvE, that's where changes and improvements come from. Other players simply cannot silence you, no matter how many attempts they make to minimize you.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 08:05:00 -
[105]
I expected a Dev-Post at some point
|
Nikla Uthaan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 08:14:00 -
[106]
I like the starfield, unfortunately the transition effects etc lag me all to hell (got plenty of everything in my computer except a decent graphics card). I like the starfield, but yeah, can we turn it off to save my ass from insta-death gatecamp lagout stuff?
-----------------
One word,, emo,,,
The Mishing is an ethnic group in the districts of North Lakhimpur, Sonitput, Dhemaji, Dibrugarh, Sibsagar, Jorhat, Golaghat, Tinsukia of Assam. |
Ciphero
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 08:31:00 -
[107]
I like the stars, but it's a real shame they appear in a ring, rather than in a sphere. It makes the whole Eve-is-actually-2d-in-many-ways thing painfully obvious. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |