Trailer jump-cuts into the rings, and then the flight out of the rings is facing away from them. You don’t show a single full transition relating to the rings making the whole video entirely pointless.
The trailer didn’t bother showing off the scale of individual large rocks either, makes everything feel smaller than it is/should look, but that pales in comparison, honestly.
I won’t be showing anyone this video that I end up trying to get to look at the kickstarter, that’s for sure.
If this was a promotional video, I would be quite critical for the reasons JB sums up. However, as a demonstration video for the ring implementation, it is fine.
There is obviously still work to do, like the rocks instantly popping in view, but that’s normal as the engine is still in development.
So it’s great to have a new video and see things continuing to progress.
Bon courage pour la suite!
Also, am I the only one who thought : “Here’s Eve, and here’s Gilly orbiting it. Wait, what is Kerbin doing there?”
I think the hype plane is in freefall…
When you look at shadows on gas giants you have to keep in mind two facts. They are huge compared to rocky planets and you look at them from a long distance. Therefore their atmospheres appear much more dense and flat, and this is the reason you don’t see regions of the armosphere disappear when a shadow is cast on them. Just google out images of Jupiter’s red spot taken from a relatively low orbit to convince yourself that gas giants atmospheres are much more structured than most people think. ( Image -> Jupiter’s Red Spot Image; Storm on Saturn’s North Pole). I’m sure that the atmosphere near the penumbra of Jupiter would be one of the most beautiful places in the solar system, because the Sun would be lower over the horizon of Jupiter, and clouds would cast spectacular shadows. Incidentally, as far as I know, no game (Infinity included) has ever rendered such details of gas giants clouds. They all show gas giants almost flat, even from a short distance.
Planets like Earth and Mars, on the other hand, have very thin, almost transparent air. This allow us to actually see the surface under the atmosphere and volumes of air that seem to disappear when a huge shadow is cast on them. It is the opposite to what you see when there’s a hole in a cloud layer that lets light pass through. ( As you can see in this image, a thick volume of air is enlighted -> Light through cloud hole).
I hope to have convinced you that the “hole” seen in the video is very realistic. 
Speaking about the video.
What a disappointment! I am constrained to quote what JB47394 said before me. I was expecting much much more astonishment after an entire year of patient waiting.
Moreover, for all these many years (I follow you since 2007) I believed that the aim of inovae engine was to reach the most realistic rendering of our universe, and what you showed in the last videos is just the opposite. Firstly: the colours of planets are really unbelievable. Secondly: what’s that fog!? I agree that the ring around a small rocky planet must be smaller and, proportionally to the ring of a gas giant, it would appear much more spread in height, but that fog looks too much unrealistic! Am I wrong? I disliked that fog since the very moment I saw it. It just seems to me a trick to hide the sudden appearance of asteroids from nothing. I hope this is not the case because it just doesn’t hide anything. As the engine is still in developement (obviously) I strongly suggest you to change that! Moreover, why didn’t you showed the rings from the surface of the rocky planet at night? Maybe with a little moon just a little beyond them? What a great sight it would have been! In general, the video could have showed much much more. Why the camera didn’t stop by near an asteroid to make the viewer see the details of it, just like in tech video from 2010? And so on…
Ok, I should not have written this. It makes people just not writing their oppinion on the video, but rather writing their oppinion on mine.
Both of these items were meant related to the video editing. The editing looks as if it simply didn’t happen. Its also funny, because cutting on beat is not hard.
In this post long time before the video I already mentioned that cutting on beat is important
I still remain at my position here. The colors of the planets in our solar system are not that pink. Furthermore, the ratio between distanceBetweenPlanets and planetDiameter is different: The planets appear too close to each other. This again makes the grip in the paint pot even more annoying.
Yes, I know what a shadow is.
Ok. To me this looks odd! I took quite some time googling images. Many images from solar eclipses, but I realized that these are not really good examples because the shadow of the moon on earth seems to bee too small to darken the full atmosphere at a long distance. Also there are only very few photos of this event in the correct angle.
If I would tag this like a mythbuster, I’d call it plausible 
Looks like the Kickstarter is coming up next (and a new blog post). Hopefully the actual game will look more realistic.
Got to wonder, does I-novae still have that 10-15 seconds of footage (Timing based on the 2010 demo vid) of going from ‘not inside the rings’ to ‘inside the rings’ ? That’s honestly the only thing I wanted to see in this video, and it was cut.
On the old ring video when the light angle are good you could see the particles in the ring from big distance.
3:40
your new rings seems not have this feature anymore. does it even scientifically correct? i mean in old video. to be able to see this rocks from that long distance they should be really huge.
Lovely Well done INS!
How does it look unrealistic? I mean, sure, my gut reaction is that its a bit too patchy - maybe the height could be scaled down a bit? - but my gut reaction isn’t worth crap on this, as I’ve never flown through a planetary ring before. Plus, there’s no way to tell how thick the rings actually are! Those cloudy clumps could be 3 or 4 meters tall, in which case I see no issue.
Planetary rings don’t have to be smooth or perfectly flat. Saturn’s are, but Saturn’s ring system is huge, and it’s regulated by a large number of shepherd moons and moonlets. The planet in the video isn’t large enough to have such a family of governing satellites, so a floculent ring system isn’t unrealistic. Some variety in rings - from sharp and smooth and thin, to patchy, to thick and diffuse would be nice, but strictly speaking there’s nothing wrong with that “fog”.
You’re views on reality are simply being constrained by your past artificial experiences.
@hrobertson What are you really meaning to say?
@inoX @Naiba I realize you’re being constructively critical but at least try to be respectful.
Welp, I’m Hyped 
.
Really, the engine looks amazing ! I love the last part where you show the “glowing” (is it the right term?) atmosphere at the end. Passing through the rings is wonderful too: the “cloudy” dust feels right and I’m not surprised about asteroids “popping” : human eye has certainly better color perception than small scale perception unless really focused on it. I think passing through the ring IRL would give you the sensation of asteroids coming out of nowhere.
About the colors: I’d rather have it slightly too colorful than not enough. Then again, it’s my opinion.
I would have imagined the following as end video : camera turning to the star, when appearing, the brightness of the star starts to engulf the whole screen until it becomes fully white (1 sec for that transition max), end with i-novae logo.
However, I do hope this video is not the one intended for the kickstarter. There would be plenty of missing features not shown.
It’s it obvious? From most of the comments it looks like many people’s hype level is rather diminished.
I don’t blame them… for a tech demo supposed to show off the rings, there was a lot of popping in of 'roids and it seems that the camera angles/path could have been better considered to showcase the engine’s capabilities in a better light.
I can’t speak for everyone but I think the general sense of disappointment is not to be mistaken for a feeling of entitlement or of being let down. It is simply a reflection of the fact that we have come to expect very high standards from INS, and we feel they can do better than this.
this is… less than the 2010 video.
I really want to emphasize that throwing out community contributions for “quality” when you were already losing the visuals race was a really bad idea. You won’t win there… at some point you need to step back and think about your goal, are you trying to make a game with gameplay, or some sort of graphics demo? You will lose the graphics demo, other studios have too many resources. Whats left is gameplay and the few remaining unique features of your engine that will allow better gameplay.
the hype is dead
I think you lost sight of what the idea is with the engine.
The idea is: unprecedented scale, with seamless interaction in real-time (and heavy dose of realism). This is basically taken from the home page. Not making stuff up here, except with the realism. I sort-of picked that up following this project ;).
So in your opinion, on which of these does the video fail? Certainly, the case could be made that the asteroids or what not are not individually as eye-popping pretty as other games (?), but on which standard could that claim be made? Other games? Star citizen may have there pros, but realism is not one of them. The same can be said with other games: They’ve gone the route of “Flashy = Cool > Realz”. And that’s okay. However, to have the standard on those games or even the ideals seems to be unjustified in my opinion when comparing the two. Also, the engine for those games would cry themselves apart trying to render all those asteroids.
Maybe your hype is dead, but I can’t see the reason why.
Two questions -
I’ve only watched it twice, so maybe I’m missing something, but what is the size of the asteroids? I’m guessing pretty huge, but it’s hard without a reference point.
Second, what was the FPS?
I don’t get why people think that this was supposed to show off more than the 2010 tech demo. This video was supposed to show off the planetary rings, and all I can say is that I really like what I saw. The planets look awesome, and the scale is still unbelievable, even after years of following Infinity.
I also don’t understand the mentality of asking the devs to show stuff, then complaining that what they are showing is not impressive enough. You are actually encouraging them not to show stuff unless it’s really really polised and hype. (Which is the exact opposite of what we were trying to talk the Inovae team into for the last two years :P) I’m happy for whatever update we get, be it a single screen shot, or a tweet. The project is still going in a direction I like and I want to see more of it. If that wasn’t the case I wouldn’t be following it in the first place. 
Now I’ve seen the clip fore times. The collier (spelling?) of the gas giant was pink yesterday, today it’s more of wine and a bit different between the blog and Twitter. The other planets or being as close as they seemed, moons, looked realistic today. It looked a bit cartoonie yesterday and not today. Did you do something to it? If yes then good it worked, if not I must remember to take my shots on time.
Suggestion: put a little penumbra on the rings it will soften the look of it being broken.
It’s still a great video. It’s just our precise criticism that we voice out of our hopes to make the Kickstarter the best possible success.
I don’t know about the future plans. I just wish for Flavien to work full time on this baby again. Just looked at it again and the new rings are definitely fundamentally different then the ones we saw from 2010. Performance look good. That fast fly trough didn’t hamper a bit. But there is definitely some drawback when it comes to the medium range … up close and from far they look great (small rocks missing like others said but somewhere needs to be the border). Here’s what I’m talking about:
Though it’s four year old tech … and the planet looks a lot smaller.
And most importantly. Andres date wasn’t overshot! I know most people would say that should be standard but that was the first time since a year or something that a given date wasn’t meaningless.
Comments look pretty promising … people have a opinion and voice it, that’s good sign:
I know, that was almost as amazing as the content! That’s why I’m curious to know just how high that FPS was, @INovaeKeith
