Just a minor issue, but I’ve noticed that when the game is set to nighttime with celestial bodies enabled, the moon tends to rotate with the camera upon setting the roll to something different. This can be seen in the video below.
[video width=425 height=344 type=youtube]S5a1fH2GTyI
it’s amazing you actually found that 0_o
“That’s no moon…”
Related bug: moon, sun, and stars change size based on FieldOfView
…
Which doesn’t make any sense. They’re way too far in space to even be affect by that, lol. A house and mountains, sure.
Related: the sun doesn’t appear to be drawn on the same field of view as the rest of the sky. Move your camera around and watch the sun change its position relative to the sky texture.
Since no one else has pointed this out: amazing spacecraft handling you have there!
[quote] “That’s no moon…”
Related bug: moon, sun, and stars change size based on FieldOfView
…
Which doesn’t make any sense. They’re way too far in space to even be affect by that, lol. A house and mountains, sure. [/quote]
umm, unless they appear the same size at various FoV, then the behavior is normal. A small FoV will yield a larger image of the sun or moon because FoV is basically the “crop and expand to frame” feature of cameras.
[quote] “That’s no moon…”
Related bug: moon, sun, and stars change size based on FieldOfView
…
Which doesn’t make any sense. They’re way too far in space to even be affect by that, lol. A house and mountains, sure. [/quote]
umm, unless they appear the same size at various FoV, then the behavior is normal. A small FoV will yield a larger image of the sun or moon because FoV is basically the “crop and expand to frame” feature of cameras.[/quote]
Realistically though, regardless of the FoV, the sun will always remain the same size when rendered. It’s simply too far away to make a difference.
[quote] [quote=“Maelstronomer” post=103149]“That’s no moon…”
Related bug: moon, sun, and stars change size based on FieldOfView
…
Which doesn’t make any sense. They’re way too far in space to even be affect by that, lol. A house and mountains, sure. [/quote]
umm, unless they appear the same size at various FoV, then the behavior is normal. A small FoV will yield a larger image of the sun or moon because FoV is basically the “crop and expand to frame” feature of cameras.[/quote]
Realistically though, regardless of the FoV, the sun will always remain the same size when rendered. It’s simply too far away to make a difference.[/quote]
Realistically though, that isn’t how cameras work. The amount of screen the sun takes up IS dependant on the FoV, which this NASA publication explains in the first table at the top: download PDF.
A small FoV makes objects take up more room on the screen. Do you think that just being far away is enough to short-circuit that? If it was, then telescopes would not exist at all.
[quote] [quote=“Spacek531” post=103159][quote=“Maelstronomer” post=103149]“That’s no moon…”
Related bug: moon, sun, and stars change size based on FieldOfView
…
Which doesn’t make any sense. They’re way too far in space to even be affect by that, lol. A house and mountains, sure. [/quote]
umm, unless they appear the same size at various FoV, then the behavior is normal. A small FoV will yield a larger image of the sun or moon because FoV is basically the “crop and expand to frame” feature of cameras.[/quote]
Realistically though, regardless of the FoV, the sun will always remain the same size when rendered. It’s simply too far away to make a difference.[/quote]
Realistically though, that isn’t how cameras work. The amount of screen the sun takes up IS dependant on the FoV, which this NASA publication explains in the first table at the top: download PDF.
A small FoV makes objects take up more room on the screen. Do you think that just being far away is enough to short-circuit that? If it was, then telescopes would not exist at all.[/quote]
Telescopes work differently to cameras. Telescopes rely on mirrors to focus light on one point.
Cameras work using lenses to alter the focus - achieving the same effect as a telescope.
clearly you have a very limited view (heh) of what telescopes actually are. Take this telescope for example:
There is not a single mirror in that telescope.
…which means that celetial objects take up a larger amount of the view when seen with a small FoV.
Depends really. For observing stars and distant planets telescopes indeed do not depend on the FOV. Angular size of distant stars is so insignificant that no amount of magnification can help. Instead, telescopes ‘work’ by merely collecting and concentrating the incoming light, much more than a naked eye can collect, that’s why the bigger the lenses or reflectors (aperture size) the better. Most distant objects (e.g. various asteroids and smaller planets, like Centaurs, SDOs and KBOs) are measured by apparent magnitude and their dimensions are inferred from that.
The Moon and the Sun, on the other hand, are close enough and thus have significant angular dimensions, you can go to any observatory and take a look at, for instance, sunspots.
Max, if you wish to abstract it that far, then FoV doesn’t even exist, as your eye’s lens just works by ‘merely collecting and concentrating the incoming light’, the lens of your eye, and a lens such as is in a telescope are exactly the same, they alter the magnification of rays of light, which ‘change’ the FoV, by sending different rays to wider, or narrower areas than they would normally travel, it’s absurd to think that FoV wouldn’t affect the sun, as FoV is dependant on angles (computer camera isn’t exactly like a human eye, as the angled rays(in theory, in practice polygons) are projected onto a flat view plane, and then transfered to the render buffer).
tl;dr, telescopes change ‘FoV’, if there is such a thing.
Let’s get back OT
Can we fix the sugar-rushed celestial bodies? :DDD
A surprising number of replies >_>
Cheers 
