Realistic Vs. Aesthetic Outer Space

[Master_Artificer]

64^3 sounds fascinating. Is there a way to change that in the config? And what did people say as far as why we need to stick to 16^3? (First guess: Too hard to find resources and other players? Second guess: Solar system too crowded in the y dimension, above and below the orbital plane?)

If I remember correctly, it messes up the perfect byte sized systems we have and increases the amount of memory saved and sent to users by a large amount in positioning data.
Also, the interface would be very unwieldly, trying to move your selection box around a lot in the 64^3 galaxy map would be a chore and something new would need to be done. Too much depth.

But yeah, it would be able to fit a VERY shrunken down scale if you used logarithmics so while it still wouldn't be accurate, it would be better. It was based off the fact that the radius would be 32 sectors and with that size I would be able to fit a representation of a kuiper belt and an oort cloud into the mix.
I'm on my phone but I will see later if I can find any of my notes.

 

[sayerulz]

I would say that we don't need a photo-realistic universe by any means, but that the backgrounds we have now could be a lot better. The colors are often a bit too bright for my taste, and I think that there should be shapes besides long strands. I think that the devs could take inspiration from homeworld: remastered, with lots of billowy clouds in more subtle shades with light shining through them, rather than from them.

 

[SomethingSlimy]

I thought we had abandoned realism around the time it was decided Star Made was a game where you build spaceships out of blocks. I already play Elite: Dangerous. That game fills my desire to fly around a realistic galaxy just fine, and it does it better than Star Made ever could.

However, it would be neat if seeing a nebula in the distance meant that there was actually a nebula to visit there, but for the sake of aesthetics, they should be common.

 

[Byamarro]

For ppl who never managed to fly away from spawn galaxy:

In game 1:1 resolution (for 1920x1080)

 

[Forsyth]

I would say that we don't need a photo-realistic universe by any means, but that the backgrounds we have now could be a lot better. The colors are often a bit too bright for my taste, and I think that there should be shapes besides long strands. I think that the devs could take inspiration from homeworld: remastered, with lots of billowy clouds in more subtle shades with light shining through them, rather than from them.

I really like the idea

 

[Xtremesonicboom]

I voted for photo-realistic universe because it's closer to what I want. But really, I don't want a 100% true to life StarMade universe. Don't get me wrong, I want StarMade to be more realistic, but I agree with some of the earlier assertions of how bad it would be if StarMade adopted Space Engine levels of realism.

 

[TFlok]

Space Engine with StarMade like ship building. Heck yes. My dream is to fly around alone on my own staraship and none of the games so far satisfy me in that regard, Space Engine lacks the elements from Starmade/KSP. Games like Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are sickeningly over-bloated with heavley aesthetic ships that make no sense due to their aesthetics (frell your aesthetics, give me a blocky Thargoid warship or better yet.. let me build one). Games like KSP deal with current technological primitivity (I don't like rockets, inefficient slow and wasteful crap to me).

In the end I'm that 0.01% of the people who yearn for something greater than just life.