<Greys> UmbralRaptor, is there a typical maximum range at which even the largest star can be seen with the naked eye?
oeuf has joined #KSPD&D
egg|zzz|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
egg|phone|egg has joined #KSPD&D
egg|cell|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 201 seconds]
egg|phone|egg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
oeuf is now known as egg
<UmbralRaptor> Greys: Sorta. Stars vary enough of brightness that I'd end up with a range and lots of assumptions. For a place with reasonably dark skies I'd say ~10,000 light years.
<UmbralRaptor> Assuming everything lines up properly (Luminosity class Ia no dust, etc), maybe double that?
Orkeren_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Orkeren_ has joined #KSPD&D
<G-Mobile> I phrased that poorly, what I'm interested in is the concept of generating starscapes by rendering an emulation of real astronomy stuff
<G-Mobile> So the first order of business is establishing a sight horizon to estimate the scale of the emulation
<G-Mobile> I assume the big thing here is angular width, absolute brightness, and color relative to distance for shifting
<G-Mobile> fricken client is buppin up
<G-Mobile> Bup...
<G-Mobile> Buppp
<G-Mobile> Seems fixed
<G-Mobile> If one star perfectly eclipses another, is anything about the obstructed star apparent in observation of the obscuring star?
<Iskierka> I think there's very few naked eye objects with angular width greater than a pixel
<egg> !wpn UmbralRaptor
* Qboid gives UmbralRaptor a nuclear correction-like ferram4
<UmbralRaptor> G-Mobile: not directly. Though if you watch the stars for the whole cycle, you'll see changes in brightness (and possibly color)
<UmbralRaptor> Like Iskierka said, you can more or less assume that everything is 1 pixel.
<UmbralRaptor> Uh, unless you want to also include galaxies and/or nebulae?
<UmbralRaptor> I'd initially assume no real doppler or cosmological red (or blue) shifts unless you plan on simulating telescopes.
<UmbralRaptor> Big thing is blackbody temperatures for stars, their radii, and their distances vs sensitivity of the eye?
<Iskierka> UmbralRaptor, even then, if assuming no zoom (because naked eye) I don't think anything would be above a pixel that's naked-eye visible
<UmbralRaptor> Sight horizon for individual stars is weird given that they vary in luminosity by something like one million. Maybe 1-8 lightyears for M-dwarfs, but on the order of 10000 lighyears for supergiants.
<Iskierka> even the moon is like what, 12 pixels?
<Iskierka> (at KSP FoV)
<UmbralRaptor> Not sure about KSP FoV. Assuming 1-4 arcminutes, the moon would be ~7-30 pixels.
<Iskierka> ;wa 4 arcminutes / 60 degrees * 1920
<Iskierka> wrong bot
<Iskierka> !wa 4 arcminutes / 60 degrees * 1920
<Qboid> Iskierka: (4' (arc minutes))/(60° (degrees))×1920: 2.133
<Iskierka> ... assuming I didn't screw anything up, console FoV and standard FHD would genuinely be under 12 pixels in total
<Iskierka> or is 1-4 arcminutes the pixel size assumption?
<UmbralRaptor> 1-4 arcminutes is a human retina assumption.
<Iskierka> on second thoughts probably yes
<Iskierka> ah, fair
<Iskierka> but we don't actually have genuinely retina-size displays
<Iskierka> !wa 34 arcminutes / 60 degrees * 1920
<Qboid> Iskierka: (34' (arc minutes))/(60° (degrees))×1920: 18.13
<Iskierka> moon is 18 pixels across at console FoV
<Iskierka> so 12 would be a correctly remembered figure for more like 90
<UmbralRaptor> !wa 1920/15
<Qboid> UmbralRaptor: 1920/15 = 128
<UmbralRaptor> !wa 1920/30
<Qboid> UmbralRaptor: 1920/30 = 64
<UmbralRaptor> Hm. 64 degrees with 2 arcminute pixels.