Feedback: Driving in the Scale of Planets

[Alkan2]

Yes, atmospheric haze, but more dynamically processed. That is, the layer stays pretty close to the ground, seemed like about 3-5000 feet the other day, with a strong difference between 3000 and 5000. The brain processes massive things with atmospheric perspective.

The thing is, if you’re trying to elicit a sense of scale with this engine, and it already is full scale, why would you opt to make everything look smaller with a thin atmosphere, when if you use a really dense, hazy layer close to the ground, it’ll look like it’s normally scaled? Then you’ll get all the realistic effects that you’re looking for, like huge mountains poking up to high altitudes where the air is clear so that the peaks can be seen from a long ways away on the ground. The air at high altitude IS clearer because it does have fewer particles.

So, they need to add in a particulate layer close to the ground to add in that next level of detail that makes it feel larger.

[cybercritic]

Atmosphere thickness, density at altitude and haze is very much dependent on the planet. Making a replica of Earth would convey some scale to us, but the reality is that a lot of planets are different and will have different parameters for those properties. There might be some benefit for mimicking Earth in IBS as there are only a handful of planets present, embedding static Earth-like properties into the core of the engine that needs to be capable of rendering countless variations might not be the best idea.

[Parisbre56]

I agree.

Besides, scale is also understood by making comparisons to things whose scale we know, so having things like trees and windows will also help. The atmosphere is probably the last thing our brain takes into account.

[Alkan2]

@Parisbre56

When I see that image, my brain goes “Mother of God, is that real?”

If one totally removed the atmospheric perspective, I’d have no clue as to how to process it, other than the clouds (the next big step). Furthermore, what drives in the scale isn’t just atmospheric perspective by itself, but the fact that it’s a very clear day out and the mountain is still faded. I had to pay attention to that - it didn’t just intuitively make sense that it’s the reason that it feels so big in this picture. The foreground, even quite far away, still looks clear. And, you just see it fading slowly away into this massive, massive mountain.

This about making that emotional connection that makes someone fall in love with the game immediately, as nit-picky as this might initially seem. I personally don’t give a shit for my own enjoyment - this is for creating impact on perception for people seeing the engine for the first time so that they make that split second decision to find it amazing, instead of “oh, whatever, its not like its to scale.”

Also, a video where one does a planetary landing, but does so with another person in view in front of them to show scale would also really help, so that you see this person at this fixed distance, perhaps even going slightly faster and just disappearing into the planet’s surface.

[Parisbre56]

I don’t know, maybe my brain works differently. Because my first thought was to look at the animals to judge how far away they are. Maybe it’s like that thing where only part of the human population actually uses binocular vision. But yeah, you’re right, better atmospheric effects would definitely help.

[satanfreze]

I play apprx. 3 weeks Elite: Dangerous now and also tried out their planetary landing (which is not even 10% as good as the planetary landing in I:B prototype…) BUT I have to admit: their planets/moons don’t have any atmosphere at all. Regardless I noticed a true feeling of scale AFTER I visited a moon the 3rd or 4th time because I was used to the craters and valleys on that particular planet.

In my opinion scale is all about comparing visible objects to known ones (which look similar) to get a feeling of the size in front of me, but I think maybe you want to achieve that feeling on the very first discovery of a planet.

[Alkan2]

Exactly. My own sense of scale is pretty good overall - which is why I was able to process it by paying attention to details. I’m convinced that it’s to scale - I want to make sure that others are convinced immediately.

[satanfreze]

That’s the reason why I like the idea of starting a new (space) game and you (as a player) begin on the planet’s surface. You get familiar to the scale on the ground and as soon as you fly into space you notice how large the planet really is (first impression)

[Alkan2]

Perhaps I:B should start on the surface instead of in a station, and on a structure that looks like it’s massive that also makes the ship look tiny.

[Naiba]

So I ‘think’ this is what’s been happening to my brain a couple times with videos from the prototype when close to the ground.

Top down, shows what’s really happening (above) and what my brain tells me is happening (below):

[satanfreze]

A very good example how to drive the scale in a good way is Dark Souls. Well, it doesn’t have anything in common with I:B but I like how they transport a real feeling of “hugeness”. Just take a look at this boss cutscene:

In the beginning you may think: “well, this is only a small crocodile”. Since you know which size a crocodile has you get a good feeling right after, how BIG the real monster is.

I like the psychology behind this cut scene. In terms of planetary scale something could be learned from this.

[FBS]

i think one of the biggest factors are the land details, and i don’t mean trees or such, but shadows/light areas, if you see them from far away (ie: the moon), no matter the planet or celestial body, they are very thin, but in the prototype, even from far away, they are thick, it gives the sense that those details are not that far away, in the other hand more details would have an impact, idk if it’s possible to do this for certain distances where only shadows/light ares would be thin, but the color maps would remain the same, just an idea.

Everything about athmosphere thickness, trees, seas, or clouds are pretty much athmosphere-only planets, most of these features earth-only.

Take a look at this:

you can barely see the shadow areas (ignore the clouds and the sea), now try this on the engine and give me a feedback.

EDIT:
well found a “feedback”

this is from very far away, yet those details are very thick, you can see the mountains popping up clearly, even if they are everest-sized, they look too big and thick for a mountain, so your brain takes the easier option (and the most realistic one). This is a small planet with some nice mountains.

The other size problems are pretty much related to us not being used to high heights, even people who takes a flight have problems with the sense of size, since at very high heights you can’t see a forest, just a green patch that you know it’s a forest, that’s cause light scattering back to you from the surface, just like it happens on the horizon, distance issues

[ThornEel]

Something else may be that all those mountains are in one-mountain-thick lines. Even the thick zone in the middle of the image above is constituted of multiple lines.
AFAICT, most mountain ranges are thicker, at least several mountains thick. When you are at the top of one of those, you will often see more mountains in all directions, instead of a clear horizon.

I remember a film about a a downed pilot in the Andes, where after climbing the first height (with no climbing gear or adequate outfit), he looks all around … and see nothing but endless snow-covered, towering mountains. With pre-CGI 3D, the feeling of crushing immensity it created is now one of the reasons I’m so often disappointed with today’s theatre 3D.
But I digress.

With all-around thicker mountain ranges, it may work better at giving a sense of scale: shadows would be less pronounced and ranges would more look like what we are accustomed to.

[Naiba]

Would be nice to see a whole ice and mountain covered world at some point, so you could get that ‘the mountains go on forever’ look to it.

[FBS]

let’s take something that is done, very well done, ED planet generator, while ED is not my cup of tea , i find I:B superior in everything else, but when it comes to generating a planet, ED takes the win.

very well done (problem is when we approach and LAND on it, but let’s skip that, it’s not what gather us here today). I know they have been busy with this part and that to do the same on the inovae engine would take some time, but let’s concentrate in the main issue here: light vs shadow areas. Here, as in the real life pic, you can barely see the shadows, and i can see some mountains, but at the same time i can tell they are either small or the planet is not small, at least my brain can’t decide and is willing to explore for more info. Maybe I:B mountains are too tall and the feet are too low, at sea lvl maybe, but that doesn’t happen in real life, mountain’s feet usually are already at a high height, and the mountain itself is barely 500m-1km above it’s feet, maybe in I:B case, that elevation is needed so mountains don’t look too tall and thick

[Naiba]

Welp, we’ll see what sort of planets and moons end up getting generated by the Inovae engine down the road. Elite has a hell of a lot for people to cherry pick from right now, some a lot better looking than others.

*Would be interesting to know just how long the devs spent tweaking the generator’s variables to come up with the planet and moons in the current prototype.

[Naiba]

So this is how it looks when you trip the HDR into not making everything extra dark to counteract the white of the snow peaks:

Vs how it looks when you don’t:

Yep, that’s a good part of the issue I think. ^^

[INovaeKeith]

Yeah we have a bit of work left to do on our HDR. It’s a very hard problem because, for performance reasons, we’re using a global tonemapping operator like pretty much everybody else. Unfortunately, unlike everybody else, we’re also using entirely realistic quantities of light and the difference between the luminosity of lit and unlit areas in I:B is tremendous. The human eye is a remarkable machine and, through local tonemapping, handles this scenario magnificently. We, however, aren’t quite so magnificent at the moment and local tonemapping has serious performance implications.