Hyperion wrote:Dusty zones look AMAZING from within, and that is part of why I am conflicted over this next criticism. Your dusty zones, seem to have way too much dust in them. They are practically opaque to the outside from within, if you were going to get any semblance of coherence to how dusty from the outside they are, they would be entirely opaque... I think either you are going to have to lighten up on the dust in zones, or admit that dusty zones will look like blobs in space. I mean I guess that is an aesthetic you can go for, and thunderclouds in space certainly have their place, but i think a much lighter approach to them would be better for the overall picture... But as I said, I am conflicted by this suggestion because of how beautiful they are from the inside.... I guess what I am asking for is a variety of dust levels, with what you have now being towards the heavy end, while in other places, there would just be a tiny amount of dust, but if you looked at the central star through the dusty zone, it would look much like your heavy zones do while you are inside them.
I agree completely with you. But playing on devil's (Josh?) advocate, I'd like to point out that light refraction can have huge different impacts depending IN which side of the density change you are in.
I'll put up two practical examples:
Swimingpools: You can see somebody diving from outside the swimingpool, but from the inside, all you can see of the OuterPool Space is a mirror with the background tinted by the surface light.
Planes: Half the time you can't see the land, as is covered in clouds, forming 'oceans' of fluffy condensed water. Yet when you land, the sky is clear blue as far as your sight can reach.
I agree with you, and I give reasons to Josh to disagree.
May luck be by your side for the matters not under your responsability.