• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Cloud Calculations issue 2: It's foggy outside

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Bronze Supporter
10,904
12,342
The other thread is way too long and essentially about another topic so I will do a new one. Since this influences calcs it's better to debate it now instead of after stuff is revised, I think.

I asked about visibility at the beginning of the other thread before. I since looked a bit more into it I believe it is something we have to consider.


I doubt that one could actually see whether or not there are clouds 160km away in most circumstances, even if one has unobstructed view.

The reason is this. Essentially due to water vapor, dust and pollution it is always kinda foggy, even though in most cases we don't really notice even when looking at the horizon, since the horizon is closer than this effect usually becomes noticeable.

The further away one looks the more the contrast between objects decreases, due to the light being dispersed. That means at a certain distance a small patch/line of blue sky would become indistinguishable from the clouds and ground above and below it.

And, the thing is, we don't really notice whether the bit fog influences our perception of the horizon. The line where the ground becomes indistinguishable from the fog just looks like the horizon for us, regardless of whether that actually is the horizon.

Games are actually a great example for that. No game actually renders hundreds of kilometers. Game makers instead just introduce fog at the border of the render distance and that way get what looks like a realistic horizon. It is not known for its realism, but minecraft makes a great example here:

Fogrender1
How the world actually looks like / fog disabled
Fogrender2
How the same world looks like with fog activated

The second picture would for our current standards qualify as an unobstructed view on the horizon, despite the fact that it is impossible to see very far at all (not sure what the precise render distance was. 480m or so, I guess). That the fog is so light just makes it seem like an unobstructed view, even though it actually isn't.

In the article linked above it was said that one could rarely see further than 20km. That fits this, according to which in clear weather conditions the visibility is 20km, in very clear conditions 50km and exceptionally clear conditions even 280km.

So what I would suggest in practice is to restrict the upper end for horizon distance calcs to 20km low end and 50km high end, unless there is evidence otherwise.

Opinions?
 
While I get that stuff make it harder to see the further away they are, what about drawings and such? Artists don't really bother with any stuff like that for the most part.
 
AnonymousBlank said:
While I get that stuff make it harder to see the further away they are, what about drawings and such? Artists don't really bother with any stuff like that for the most part.
If an artist sees this picture and decides to draw it he would draw the horizon line where the parts he sees from the earth stop (What in the picture looks like the actual horizon). I.e. they draw the visible horizon not necessarily the actual horizon.
 
DontTalk seems to make sense, as usual.
 
There is no need for the calc, you're better off assuming 20km right off the bat as any realistic cloud height when coupled with the calculation would yield far higher results than that.
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
What if the observer is over 800 meters tall and the clouds still go to the horizo
Not quite sure why 800 meters but same things should apply as long as he is within the atmosphere of the planet.

DemonGodMitchAubin said:
Also what if the observer is on a planet larger than earth, should we still use horizon calculator in that instance
Since horizon distance is reliant on planet radius anything that doesn't have a variable for planet radius shouldn't be used to estimate cases other than earth. Off-topic, though.
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
What if the observer is over 800 meters tall and the clouds still go to the horizo
Still 20 or 50 km raduis. The horizon would not be visible
 
OKƒæî, thanks

But Ugarik, the calc I have does have a confirmed different radius that is over 3x larger
 
AguilaR101 said:
There is no need for the calc, you're better off assuming 20km right off the bat as any realistic cloud height when coupled with the calculation would yield far higher results than that.
If we are taking visibility into account, my opinion is pretty much this
 
So, there is a difference between the actual horizon and the visible horizon? Even so, I am not sure why we should use 20 km or 50 km. Bc it starts to be unclear or something like that?
 
Alright so what's the new change? and does this mean that the new storm standard would upgrade or downgrade atom calcs?
 
@Spino

Yes, It's because visibility drops.

@Blacke

Essentially what was discussed in the previous thread, but with a cap of 20-50 km.

It's still an upgrade for a significant amount of calcs, but that isn't relevant here
 
I agree with this too, but what I really wonder is whether we should use the average between 20 and 50 km, or just 20 km as a low-end?

@BlackeJan It depends, calcs with a horizon distance less than 20-50 km would be upgraded, but calcs with a horizon distance greater than 20-50 km would be downgraded.
 
>Sees storms will still at least be bigger then we treat it

H E C K

But yeah, this seems good.
 
I guess I'll

Make my compelation of recalculations
 
@DontTalkDT

Given that people seem to accept your suggestion, would you be willing to appropriately update the calculations instructions pages?
 
I'm unsure. I'd like to think there will be obvious exceptions to this, just can't think of an obvious one. I suppose I can cross that bridge when I get there, though. I accept the premise.
 
An exception would of course be lightning flaring up far into the distance, as foggy as it may be outside, lightning is bright enough to be seen from even from low earth orbit through the clouds
 
Well, I am waiting for a reply from DontTalkDT regarding if he has the time and is willing to update our calculation standard pages.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Yeah, it's bigger but not Ridley big.
Why is Ridley not the image for the Large Size page?

@Antvasima I see, in the mean time, is it okay to make calcs that use the new info?
 
I would personally prefer if we focus on getting the instruction pages updated first.
 
So

Assuming this is accepted, and it looks to be that way because it's a simple idea that makes sense, the other cloud revision would effectively be a moot point, yes? Put simply, the other revision suggests that we should logically see further because the horizon might be further than the horizon. This revision, however, poses the idea that there's a limit to how far we can see, meaning the other revision is... not relevant. I think.

Of course it has been shown that I am about as intelligent as a very clever pebble so I could be incorrect.
 
Yeah that's the idea

Of course, now minimum radius is 20 KM since even "Small" storms are that big.

A radius which I use here
 
Back
Top