OHM Realistic background

[OrbitHangar]

Author: dagoo

This is a new texture for the celestial background on Orbiter 2010 P1.

For the most real settings, put the intensity to 0.05, and for the stars, 1 of magnitude, exponential.

Unzip, and enjoy !


DOWNLOAD

 

[Izack]

Cool! A nice, unobtrusive background for those long deep space flights. Also, no reflector-shaped artefacts or satellite streaks. :thumbup:

 

[Logifech]

looks fantastic great work

 

[ghostrunner01]

Looks awesome nice job.

 

[ryandtw]

I don't know if I should try it out...

 

[Keatah]

I don't know if I should try it out...

?? Why not ??

---------- Post added at 02:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------



This is how a space simulator is done!! at any rate it looks fantastic and moody! very ambient..

Can you be more specific what we set the magnitude at?

Apparent magnitude x.x mapped to max brightness 1
Apparent magnitude x.x mapped to min brightness x.x
And of course you said exponential..

 

[cslevine]

Magnifique DagoO
Très belle contribution réaliste !

si les maps données en exemples sont intéressantes point de vue base de donnée des couleurs de chaque star, et très belles aussi, la tienne est carrément réaliste !
et pour le 0.05 on est total d''accord !

 

[Xyon]

I don't know if I should try it out...

What've you got to lose?

 

[DagoO]

Can you be more specific what we set the magnitude at?

Apparent magnitude x.x mapped to max brightness 1
Apparent magnitude x.x mapped to min brightness x.x
And of course you said exponential..

In fact i didn't touch the others settings, but if you want, mines are :

Apparent magnitude 1.0 mapped to max brightness 1
Apparent magnitude 6.5 mapped to min brightness 0.10

Thanks to everyone :tiphat:

 

[othoudt]

I installed it and I see no difference. No Milky Way, at least as it appears in the .bmp.

 

[Izack]

I installed it and I see no difference. No Milky Way, at least as it appears in the .bmp.

Did you pick "Realistic sky" in the Celestial Sphere segment of the Visual Effects tab? Is the intensity set to higher than 0.0?

 

[statickid]

also did you turn on the "background" checkbox?

well thanks! I was immediately put-off by the pack in background, though i felt it was quite "dramatic" not really my cup of tea.

I was hoping for something like this and then BOOM!

This one is exactly what I would imagine a background to look like. The sky is very monochromatic to the human eye.

THANKS!!

 

[DagoO]

This one is exactly what I would imagine a background to look like. The sky is very monochromatic to the human eye.

THANKS!!

That's what I wanted to get, because every backgrounds by Martin are too bright or too colourfull (they are not bad either !).

Thank you anyway

 

[cinder1992]

for all intents and purposes, I'd use DagO's settings. I'd also recommend that you double the intensity of the background, E.G. 0.1

 

[NukeET]

That's what I wanted to get, because every backgrounds by Martin are too bright or too colourfull (they are not bad either !).

Thank you anyway

True...but they would make excellent screen shots!

 

[Stevodoran]

no offence but i prefer visible (DSS2/Wikisky) but still this is nice

 

[Wally]

Is this background realistic? I mean, this is the way astronauts are actually seeing the sky when looking trough a window?

 

[Thundersnook]

Is this background realistic? I mean, this is the way astronauts are actually seeing the sky when looking trough a window?

Well ... I think this could only be answered if a real astronaut reads this thread How should we know how the "sky" looks in Orbit? Even photographs couldnt reproduce everything what we can see with our eyes.

 

[DagoO]

Is this background realistic? I mean, this is the way astronauts are actually seeing the sky when looking trough a window?

Well in fact this is not real. I just saw the sky by a black night, and see how it is. We can see stars, and the milky way, not with her "clouds", but only a lot of stars in it.

So i delet the colours that Martin put in the texture, and i also delet the milky way's clouds (not totally).

I can't say that's 100% realistic, it's only the best result i have done compared to the real sky.

 

[statickid]

If I remember correctly, I think there are accounts that say that for the most part, the stars, when visible, look much more tiny and more point-like in orbit. Also, without the "twinkle" they seem much more still or "silent." Whatever that means. I also read that when on the light side of a planet they are usually not even noticeable because the surface is so bright that the eye adjusts to the extent that the stars disappear. Although just thinking about the eye, you could probably just look away for a spell and start to see them again when all the retinal after images go away.

Well, I don't remember where these things were written, but it's just my vague recollection of astronaut's accounts of their experience. It seems like this is one of the more popular questions for people to ask astronauts.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

Well in fact this is not real. I just saw the sky by a black night, and see how it is. We can see stars, and the milky way, not with her "clouds", but only a lot of stars in it.

So i delet the colours that Martin put in the texture, and i also delet the milky way's clouds (not totally).

I can't say that's 100% realistic, it's only the best result i have done compared to the real sky.

out in the high desert or on the ocean, and knowing what they are, I felt that the dust lanes obscuring the milky way were quite clear, IMO

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

I also imagine that the filters in a space viewing glass probably block quite a bit of light, but i have no real basis for this except that I (perhaps ignorantly) imagine them to be somewhat sunglass-like in function.