Space doesn't look like space.

[SwampDragon]

Just bounced pretty hard off the first 5 minutes of game play. I was hoping this title would break the mould considering its supposed influences, but again this is a space sim not set in space. The lights bloom in a thick atmospheric haze that also washes out half the sky. There is no contrast between light and dark in your immediate surroundings, nothing that looks like being in space. The station and debris doesn't seem to be in orbit either but instead just floats there. I know it's just a game, but it didn't have to be. It could also have been an immersive sim-like experience too.
Bit disappointed.

The purpose of this thread is to find people similarly effected. I don't want the game to change on my account. I wish the devs well.

[Notoshy]

Not many People can say "this is how it is in Space", only a few Dozen Humans have left the Earth for some time yet.
Sometimes, a bigger Ship moves behind our Station and reduces Brightness a bit, since it blocks one Light-Source. You can still see... but the effect cant be overlooked.
I dont know if there is a fix Definition when the Orbit of a Planet ends, i would argue the visible Stations are between Earth and Moon and therefore in an "Orbit" around Earth.
The missing Shadow could be because of the several Light-Sources in our Bay.

Also....yes, there is a thin atmosphere in the Bay, thats intentional. The Lore behind that is, that it slows down objects and Cutters, preventing Objects from escaping our Working Area to fast. So Objects float/drift through the Bay, but the thin atmosphere will stop them sooner or later.

[SwampDragon]

Over 500 people have been in orbit personally, plus countless satellites, transport ships, telescopes and probes. All of which send back images for those that don't follow science. Space isn't a mystery, this is 2022.
There is no atmosphere in space. You can't have localised pockets of atmosphere without it being hermetically sealed. This part is not a nit pick or pedantry, but something fairly obvious I feel.

Orbit isn't a measure of altitude, it's a velocity; how fast you are moving perpendicular to the planet. If ISS (or the moon for that matter) stopped circling at thousands of miles per hour, it would drop out of the sky like a sack of spanners. The effect of Earth's gravity in low orbit is not much less than you would experience on the surface. All this could have been satisfactorily resolved by having the Earth rotate beneath you, for example.

Anyway, thanks for commenting. I was just a bit disappointed the game wasn't more sim-like. It easily could have been without costing anything in terms of game play.

[Pr0wn]

Would it bring much to the actual gameplay compared to the development time needed to get it right?

[SwampDragon]

I would argue that it wouldn't have needed extra dev time if modelled like that from the start, although it would do now. It's a bit late to change anything.

[Pr0wn]

Have you seen the amount of stuff in space around you? Imagine how it would look if you had to make it behave with correct orbital behaviour. A lot of these assets are 2D as well.

[SwampDragon]

All that could still be stationary in your frame of reference. Only the Earth needs to move (rotate) beneath you to give the same effect. How the game models orbit is definitely at the bottom of my list though. ^ It was the thick atmosphere, not just in the immediate surroundings but also across half the sky that made me bounce so hard. Space isn't even black, it's blue for the most part. Strange choice I feel...

[Clail]

There's no reason to waste resources and our PC's processing power on making the background environment of space realistic in a video game.

[SwampDragon]

Modelling atmosphere is much more resource intensive than modelling a vacuum. Particle effects are very expensive. I fail to see how not having them would increase processing work. Spinning the Earth I admit would require some extra work, but it can still be a 2D background image. I want to make clear I never expected grand visuals!

I think the reason they chose to put atmosphere in space is because of artistic license (making it look more interesting) and maybe a certain amount of confirmation bias too. Lots of video games and movies use a kind of faux space for ease of viewing/comprehension that we slowly accept as reality - or at least never question. A more realistic depiction of space is actually not that hard to pull off, if that was ever the intention...

[Warner Vachanges]

it's def washed out, and I don't like it. no idea if it's realistic or not and don't care.

[The Lerf]

It's called artistic liberty. Probably for the simple reason of "it looks nice" to the dev team.
Consider that including ridiculous contrast would make areas of darkness hard to see or navigate. Consider that one explosion could send half the ship's pieces floating off out of bounds without the negative acceleration.
This game isn't Kerbal Space Program, and it doesn't need to be. It's a zero-G salvage game that is a completely unique genre. The devs didn't set out to make a space sim, because it would detract from the experience.