The first dev-diary for 'Surviving Mars' from Haemimont Games and Paradox is here, looks good

Quoting: Kels

Quoting: Patola

QuoteUnlike Tropico, which Haemimont Games previously worked on, they're going for a more sandbox approach instead of following some sort of campaign.

Oh, come on!!! I hate open-ended games like that, a Campaign is the way to go. I like to play games like if I was reading a book, follow along an interesting, captivating story, not arranging random pieces of loosely coupled fragments of tales here and there. I guess I'll have to buy [url=undefined]Maia[/url] instead.

Oh, I missed that part. Personally, I'd rather have the choice between campaign and sandbox, given the choice.

So, given the choice, you'd like to be given the choice?

Quoting: TheRiddick

Quoting: PhiladelphusAnyone with a telescope can look at Mars by eye (as I've done, as an astronomer) and verify that it actually is that color. No conspiracy theories needed. :)

And if you look at Earth via a telescope you would think its blue and the surface is blue also. ;)

Besides, from what I'd read it wasn't the ground really that was reddened, but the sky as well. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/03/20/what-color-is-the-red-planet-really/

Quoting: TheRiddickAnd if you look at Earth via a telescope you would think its blue and the surface is blue also. ;)

Which is over 70% correct. ;) But that's a terrible comparison because Mars doesn't have A) vast bodies of liquid water, B) highly-visible and reflective clouds, or C) plant life, all of which make the Earth a vastly more complicated system to analyze.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBesides, from what I'd read it wasn't the ground really that was reddened, but the sky as well. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/03/20/what-color-is-the-red-planet-really/

That photo is flat-out wrong, as explained in the very article you linked, which explains it well: color balance is a pretty subjective thing. Does any digital camera actually reproduce colors as we actually see them? No. It just records photon counts on a CCD through different filters, which we process with software to try to get colors that roughly approximate what we see with our eyes. Process the resulting image and you can make it look however you like, which is what those "blue sky" images are: skewed with a white balance to make the scene look like it would on Earth to help geologists better identify geological features. The article itself points out that the first photo in it—of a reddish, ocher-ish Mars—is explicitly processed to be as close to "what a typical cell phone camera" would take from the same location.

Yes, it's true that Mars doesn't look quite as saturated red as those first Viking images did (which is what the left image in the linked photo is from). But that's entirely due to advances in digital photo color processing methods, not some shadowy coverup by NASA.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KelsOh, I missed that part. Personally, I'd rather have the choice between campaign and sandbox, given the choice.

So, given the choice, you'd like to be given the choice?

Yes, that would be choice.

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: TheRiddickAnd if you look at Earth via a telescope you would think its blue and the surface is blue also. ;)

Which is over 70% correct. ;) But that's a terrible comparison because Mars doesn't have A) vast bodies of liquid water, B) highly-visible and reflective clouds, or C) plant life, all of which make the Earth a vastly more complicated system to analyze.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBesides, from what I'd read it wasn't the ground really that was reddened, but the sky as well. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/03/20/what-color-is-the-red-planet-really/

That photo is flat-out wrong, as explained in the very article you linked, which explains it well: color balance is a pretty subjective thing. Does any digital camera actually reproduce colors as we actually see them? No. It just records photon counts on a CCD through different filters, which we process with software to try to get colors that roughly approximate what we see with our eyes. Process the resulting image and you can make it look however you like, which is what those "blue sky" images are: skewed with a white balance to make the scene look like it would on Earth to help geologists better identify geological features. The article itself points out that the first photo in it—of a reddish, ocher-ish Mars—is explicitly processed to be as close to "what a typical cell phone camera" would take from the same location.

Yes, it's true that Mars doesn't look quite as saturated red as those first Viking images did (which is what the left image in the linked photo is from). But that's entirely due to advances in digital photo color processing methods, not some shadowy coverup by NASA.

Yeah, my point in linking that article is that pretty much none of the images we've seen really show what the surface of Mars looks like and are 'best guesses' by the imaging team, because (for some inexplicable reason) they don't just get a lens from Samsung or Nokia to get correct pictures :P

Quoting: slaapliedjeYeah, my point in linking that article is that pretty much none of the images we've seen really show what the surface of Mars looks like and are 'best guesses' by the imaging team, because (for some inexplicable reason) they don't just get a lens from Samsung or Nokia to get correct pictures :P

We don't know what it would look like to a naked eye yet, but we do know the "soil" is mostly hues of reddish brown due to its composition. Apparently there's a lot of fine, rusty, iron-rich dust in the thin atmosphere as well, and if that dust is red... I bet everything looks blue with invisible pink polka dots.

It's not the lens that's the problem anyway. It's trying to guess how to interpret the raw image data. Modern digital cameras use complicated algorithms based on reference images (often getting the white balance wrong anyway), but as we don't have any references from Mars, it's all guesswork.

EDIT: As MayeulC pointed out, I should think before I write.


Last edited by tuubi on 2 November 2017 at 6:46 pm UTC

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: TheRiddickAnd if you look at Earth via a telescope you would think its blue and the surface is blue also. ;)

Which is over 70% correct. ;) But that's a terrible comparison because Mars doesn't have A) vast bodies of liquid water, B) highly-visible and reflective clouds, or C) plant life, all of which make the Earth a vastly more complicated system to analyze.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBesides, from what I'd read it wasn't the ground really that was reddened, but the sky as well. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/03/20/what-color-is-the-red-planet-really/

That photo is flat-out wrong, as explained in the very article you linked, which explains it well: color balance is a pretty subjective thing. Does any digital camera actually reproduce colors as we actually see them? No. It just records photon counts on a CCD through different filters, which we process with software to try to get colors that roughly approximate what we see with our eyes. Process the resulting image and you can make it look however you like, which is what those "blue sky" images are: skewed with a white balance to make the scene look like it would on Earth to help geologists better identify geological features. The article itself points out that the first photo in it—of a reddish, ocher-ish Mars—is explicitly processed to be as close to "what a typical cell phone camera" would take from the same location.

Yes, it's true that Mars doesn't look quite as saturated red as those first Viking images did (which is what the left image in the linked photo is from). But that's entirely due to advances in digital photo color processing methods, not some shadowy coverup by NASA.

Yeah, my point in linking that article is that pretty much none of the images we've seen really show what the surface of Mars looks like and are 'best guesses' by the imaging team, because (for some inexplicable reason) they don't just get a lens from Samsung or Nokia to get correct pictures :P

Uh? Curiosity for example has a calibration target for its pictures. I guess your post was ironic, but it's sometimes hard to tell.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16798.html

Quoting: MayeulC

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: TheRiddickAnd if you look at Earth via a telescope you would think its blue and the surface is blue also. ;)

Which is over 70% correct. ;) But that's a terrible comparison because Mars doesn't have A) vast bodies of liquid water, B) highly-visible and reflective clouds, or C) plant life, all of which make the Earth a vastly more complicated system to analyze.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBesides, from what I'd read it wasn't the ground really that was reddened, but the sky as well. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/03/20/what-color-is-the-red-planet-really/

That photo is flat-out wrong, as explained in the very article you linked, which explains it well: color balance is a pretty subjective thing. Does any digital camera actually reproduce colors as we actually see them? No. It just records photon counts on a CCD through different filters, which we process with software to try to get colors that roughly approximate what we see with our eyes. Process the resulting image and you can make it look however you like, which is what those "blue sky" images are: skewed with a white balance to make the scene look like it would on Earth to help geologists better identify geological features. The article itself points out that the first photo in it—of a reddish, ocher-ish Mars—is explicitly processed to be as close to "what a typical cell phone camera" would take from the same location.

Yes, it's true that Mars doesn't look quite as saturated red as those first Viking images did (which is what the left image in the linked photo is from). But that's entirely due to advances in digital photo color processing methods, not some shadowy coverup by NASA.

Yeah, my point in linking that article is that pretty much none of the images we've seen really show what the surface of Mars looks like and are 'best guesses' by the imaging team, because (for some inexplicable reason) they don't just get a lens from Samsung or Nokia to get correct pictures :P

Uh? Curiosity for example has a calibration target for its pictures. I guess your post was ironic, but it's sometimes hard to tell.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16798.html

:) Yeah, that picture from Curiosity looks spot on with a nice comparison of the actual craft to balance out the colors. If you see that it's more of a brownish, mucked sky. Seriously just looks like Utah during an inversion. Ground isn't overly reddish. I think, much like Earth, there are the areas that are rich in iron rust, and there are areas that look more like any desert here on Earth. Either way, where's our tickets to Mars so we can see for ourselves!

On that note, I was trying to figure out how you'd even have 100 mile per hour winds... if there was too thin of an atmosphere to properly have winds? I'm pretty sure there are large dust storms on Mars, but are they more in the upper atmosphere? I recall the first pictures before we'd landed anything on there was always showing that it had nasty weather patterns, and giant dust filled hurricanes. But it seems all the rovers aren't seeing that, except for maybe some sand dunes on the edge of craters.

Quoting: slaapliedjeOn that note, I was trying to figure out how you'd even have 100 mile per hour winds... if there was too thin of an atmosphere to properly have winds? I'm pretty sure there are large dust storms on Mars, but are they more in the upper atmosphere? I recall the first pictures before we'd landed anything on there was always showing that it had nasty weather patterns, and giant dust filled hurricanes. But it seems all the rovers aren't seeing that, except for maybe some sand dunes on the edge of craters.

You might find this interesting.

Spoiler: It's the first Google hit for "Mars storms".

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeOn that note, I was trying to figure out how you'd even have 100 mile per hour winds... if there was too thin of an atmosphere to properly have winds? I'm pretty sure there are large dust storms on Mars, but are they more in the upper atmosphere? I recall the first pictures before we'd landed anything on there was always showing that it had nasty weather patterns, and giant dust filled hurricanes. But it seems all the rovers aren't seeing that, except for maybe some sand dunes on the edge of craters.

You might find this interesting.

Spoiler: It's the first Google hit for "Mars storms".

Dunno if slaapliedje did, but I did.
So, the winds only get to 60 mph and the atmosphere is 1% as thick. I think that's not quite as wimpy as it seems at first glance; if I foggily recall my grade 11 physics, the energy would vary with the square of the velocity. So like, to have as much impact as a full-atmosphere wind of speed X, a 1% atmosphere would have to be at velocity 10X cuz 10 squared = 100. Soooo, if I'm not getting this all totally mangled, a 60 mph wind on mars would have the pushing power of a 6 mph breeze on earth.
Still not exactly capable of threatening to push over a rocket and stranding a certain astronaut, though.