Princely Dawnlight Palace Lighting

Sporvan

bluebird wrote: »

Besides, even according on your (baseless) complaints about the cliff-windows you absolutely do agree that the windows are bugged You simply seem to be confused as to which windows you consider bugged, but the fact remains that the windows of the palace are objectively bugged.

Amen.

It's staring him right in the face in the screenshots that the actual window (not the light's shadow) does not light up on narrow windows and he refuses to acknowledge it. Some people are just stubborn by nature and can't accept when they're wrong sadly.

Objectively without trying to make explanations of terrain etc, these windows are bugged. I don't know why this guy is on a crusade to be contrary. It's in everyone's best interest to fix this issue with Dawn's Light.

bluebird

Sporvan wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Besides, even according on your (baseless) complaints about the cliff-windows you absolutely do agree that the windows are bugged You simply seem to be confused as to which windows you consider bugged, but the fact remains that the windows of the palace are objectively bugged.

Amen.

It's staring him right in the face in the screenshots that the actual window (not the light's shadow) does not light up on narrow windows and he refuses to acknowledge it. Some people are just stubborn by nature and can't accept when they're wrong sadly.

Objectively without trying to make explanations of terrain etc, these windows are bugged. I don't know why this guy is on a crusade to be contrary. It's in everyone's best interest to fix this issue with Dawn's Light.

Exactly! And while I have little hope that they'll ever change the PDP's windows, it's important to be critical and assertive in identifying weak points in ZOS's housing quality control. Because if we just keep making excuses they'll just keep making the same thing over and over again as we sadly see with the new Elsweyr homes.

It's in everyone's best interest after all, just as you said, not only ours but also ZOS's. It matters that they hear criticism about what makes people dislike their homes and potentially turns them off purchasing them! Even Hymzir (not going to tag since he doesn't seem to like that) pointed out that mis-matched interiors and things that break suspension of disbelief are a problem. Well, bugged windows are another one of those problems, and it would serve ZOS better if they didn't continue handicapping their otherwise great creations with mistakes like that.

Tigerseye

The thing is that, if those windows are supposed to be made from obscurred/stained glass, they shouldn't cast the same amount of light on the ground as the other windows, should they?

So, technically (and logically), either the shaft of light from them should be subdued (which I wouldn't recommend, as it's dark enough in there, already), or the windows should all be equally well lit.

Tigerseye

Sporvan wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Besides, even according on your (baseless) complaints about the cliff-windows you absolutely do agree that the windows are bugged You simply seem to be confused as to which windows you consider bugged, but the fact remains that the windows of the palace are objectively bugged.

Amen.

It's staring him right in the face in the screenshots that the actual window (not the light's shadow) does not light up on narrow windows and he refuses to acknowledge it. Some people are just stubborn by nature and can't accept when they're wrong sadly.

Objectively without trying to make explanations of terrain etc, these windows are bugged. I don't know why this guy is on a crusade to be contrary. It's in everyone's best interest to fix this issue with Dawn's Light.

To be fair, I think he is saying he knows it doesn't, but he likes it that way.

He likes that they're stained/obscurred and is trying to make an argument for them staying that way (or even for the other ones to, also, receive the same treatment); partly on the basis that they, illogically, create a shaft of light on the floor which is equally bright as the non-stained/obscurred windows.

So, he's asking why would you need them to light up equally, basically, as they produce the same shaft of light, either way.

However, it (objectively) makes no sense that they do that.

If the windows are supposed to be stained a dark colour (or tone, in this case), they would let in less light and therefore, create a less brightly lit shaft on the floor.

So, if you are into logic, as he claims to be, that should disturb you.

Of course, he is also making the case for removing all of the light (and shafts) from all of the windows which have been built into the cliff face, on the basis that they wouldn't emit any light, in that situation.

Which is absolutely true, but is also conveniently forgetting that no (even vaguely) competent architect would have built the building and then added windows, with its main rooms facing that way, in the first place.

You can't have a logical discussion about something which is, fundamentally, illogical.

All you can do is to try to match the windows up to the shafts of light they permit to pass through them.

Which is not, currently, the case.

...and when assessing whether the darker ones should be made lighter, or the lighter ones should be made darker (and whether the overall ambient light levels should be reduced/increased), all you can do is to look to the current levels of ambient light and the description of the house.

In this case, if a place is objectively too dark, when it was described as having been "built solely to better catch the light of the morning sun", it would make far more sense to match the darker windows to the lighter ones and to increase the overall ambient light levels.

Albeit, ideally, with a slider made available for those who prefer dark (/very dark) houses, despite the house description in this case.

Yes, it still won't make sense, because "cliff".

But, it made no sense to build a house that way around, with its main room facing into a cliff face, in the first place.

ZAD1ST

I got round this in the main hall with 6 Varla stones from the luxury furnisher. It depends if you object to the blue light but it is possible to light up the whole room with careful placement of enchanted lights.

Raijindono

ZAD1ST wrote: »

I got round this in the main hall with 6 Varla stones from the luxury furnisher. It depends if you object to the blue light but it is possible to light up the whole room with careful placement of enchanted lights.

That is super cool! But I would definitely want something more neutral.

mnemoniclights

ZAD1ST wrote: »

I got round this in the main hall with 6 Varla stones from the luxury furnisher. It depends if you object to the blue light but it is possible to light up the whole room with careful placement of enchanted lights.

I didn't even recognize it was Dawnlight, I thought it was like the Psijic home or something just heavily decorated

bluebird

ZAD1ST wrote: »

I got round this in the main hall with 6 Varla stones from the luxury furnisher. It depends if you object to the blue light but it is possible to light up the whole room with careful placement of enchanted lights.

That's an awesome picture! Although white it's nice that you made it work, I wouldn't consider that room 'lit'. The bottom third of it lit, for sure, but the galleries are pretty dark and the ceiling is in shadows as well which is a shame because the ceiling of the PDP is magnificent (it has intricately carved wooden inlays and gold trims)!

Imperial_Voice

ZAD1ST wrote: »

I got round this in the main hall with 6 Varla stones from the luxury furnisher. It depends if you object to the blue light but it is possible to light up the whole room with careful placement of enchanted lights.

Where in the seven hells did you get the dragon?

Sporvan

Imperial_Voice wrote: »

Where in the seven hells did you get the dragon?

The dragon priest / ancient nord furniture pack

Hymzir

M'kay... This thing has devolved into baffling levels of silliness now, and the discussion has been derailed into nitpicking irrelevant details instead of discussing the actual original topic posted in the OP. But since you guys seem to like to nitpick things from your own subjective point of view, let's have another dance shall we...

Affirming to an overall logical framework has never been a design priority for this game. No one is trying to refute that. But at the same time, nothing about the game points to them being utterly flippant about it either. While you see plenty of stuff where requirement of gameplay trump those of logical consistency, you do not see utterly impossible things either. There is a certain level of consistency in how things are portrayed within the game world. A certain level of inherent believably the devs are aiming for.

While everything created for the game is done to suit whatever needs the current design has, and as long as it makes sense in the context it was created, it is deemed good enough, it doesn't mean that there is no though on to how the things flow together as a coherent whole.

The end result is of this approach is, that pretty much everything in the game, including the houses available for players, are a compromise between what makes sense and what is feasible given the assets the devs have at their disposal, and the overall design goal for each particular element. In the end, some things do make less sense than others, but I do not see that as any reason to start asking for things to make even less sense! To change things that do make sense, into something that does not, just because some other thing doesn't make sense. Sorry, will not board that boat.

And that is the key here I think.

I do not speak in terms of absolutes, and thus I guess my stance may be hard to understand. Context is always the final arbiter.

The thing is though, that it is perfectly possible to not be offended by certain illogical things within the game, while still being miffed by others. And it is also quite possible to be fully aware, that there are lot of things that are the way they are, due to reasons of expediency and not internal consistency, and still try to look at things form a logical point of view.

It is quite possible to look for reason and logic when confronted by the various issues the game has, and to champion the path that actually makes sense in the given situation. Even if one is willing to look past some other matters that make no sense what so ever. It all depends on what things matter to you personally. It's all subjective in the end, and based on personal bias. We all have different priorities after all, and I am under nor illusion that mine are objectively the best.

There are things I care about in this game, and there are things I am not as heavily invested in, and stuff where I am willing to accept a less logical but more expedient solution. Your mileage may wary, but that is just the natural state of things.

Having said all that, I do admit that I have a vested interest in Danwlight Palace, and thus will obviously champion the side that makes most sense from my own subjective take on things. I accept that others have different opinions on such issues, but I am not bothered by those. I am however bothered when people frame their take as the truth. Whether they do it implicitly or directly.

Which brings us back to those windows... All am saying is that I do not agree on the assessment that they are objectively bugged, at least not without more convincing arguments supporting such claim. Or without giving a contextual frame of reference.

The only truly objective fact here is, that they use different rendering settings. And until the devs come out and say right out what the truth is, that is the way it remains.

There are plenty of other windows in the game that behave in similar fashion to both the wide and the narrow windows of Dawnlight. Should they be made of a darker glass or lighter? I don't know, nor do I care. All I'm saying is, that as far as the way they render the window panes themselves, is that I can see a reasonable explanation for them being dark. I've also noted that I prefer the dark look since it gives my designs less headaches, and it looks more realistic to me than the bright windows.
I do, however, understand if you prefer it the other way around. I will not however, just accept that one is the right one and the other is the wrong one. The fact that one also makes more sense give the location is just an added bonus, but not really inherent as to which material setting is the correct one. It just colors my personal take as to which one I prefer.

As for the actual settings, and which one is right... I don't know. Based on my previous experience with ZOS designs, I think that it is likely that one is wrong, or that both are wrong, and the actual values should be something else. But I am also perfectly ready to accept them both as being correct. They just represent different types of glass windows. And I see nothing wrong with having two different types of windows in the same place. And once again, going on my experience with ZOS designs, it's quite possible that it started out as a bug, but then the devs decided that it was cooler looking this way, and now it's a feature. All I can say is that it's been like that for well over a year now.

Whatever the reason behind this, does not change the fact that both window types work just fine. Their light levels may differ but it's not like they do not react to the time of day. That would mean that they'd be obviously bugged. But both types do work. They just have very different settings for some reason.

Just go and look at how they change as the hours of the day pass. At night the narrow windows are completely dark. In fact they appear nearly black, where as the wide windows look bluish green with an almost silvery mirror like sheen to them. The narrow ones just look like dull thick colored glass. No mirror effect on them. Some varieties of glass do have a rather low reflectance value, and if they are also colored, would have a fairly matte overall look while still permitting the passage of light. Admittedly only certain wavelengths would pass, thus leading to only certain color shining through, but such finesse is probably beyond the abilities of the engine to simulate, and thus not really something to get hung up on.

What matter though is, that once the sun rise, and the day becomes brighter, both windows start to light up. And while the narrow ones do not light up as brightly as the wide ones, they do still change in accordance with the light cycle, and do lit up during the day. I might go as far as to concede that perhaps they are a bit too dark, but then again the wide ones are definitely too bright. So it balances out in the end, and as everything else in this game, it's all subjective question of taste and style.

All that is proven by this, is that they are using different material settings. Nothing else. You could argue that they are bugged in relation to one another, that you think they are meant to use the same setting, which is a reasonable enough claim to make. But on it's own it is not an objective fact. To you, the bright ones may look like they are the obvious correct version, but all am saying is that to others, me included, the dim ones might look more plausible.

All am saying is that I don't know why they are the way the way they are, and that I wont make a call one way or another as to which ones are bugged, because I am not really all that invested in the way they choose to render glass in the game. I am much more interested in the ambient light levels, the thing that actually dictates the amount of light the place has.

And even though ZOS seems to like dim lighting conditions as a default for homes, no place in this game is truly dark. There is always some ambient light. Even in the dead of night inside a windowless room. There are couple of places that are almost dark, but even in those places, you can still see without the aid of a light source. And you can see quite well inside Dawnlight Palace, even during the night, even without a single light source. The place is dim, but not dark.

Just like in every other interior in the game, it is the ambient light level that determines the overall lighting in Dawnligh Palace, and I for one am quite happy as to what that level is. Even though, realistically speaking, the default light level is far far too high. The place should be lot darker than it really is. But I understand that it is a limitation of the engine, since ambient light levels is the governing factor for overall light, not the individual placed pieces of furnishing lights, it can't be totally dark like it should.

And that is the point of discussion to which I originally responded. The way Dawnlight is build, the number and shape and size of windows in that places, and the location where it is situated, all point towards it being rather dark and the light levels that exist there as a default do make sense. At least in the overall context of how light behaves in this game.

And that is, once and for all, all I am interested about saying about those windows. The actual discussion, as presented in the OP, was about the size of the place (too big for 700 items - but that is an universal issue with the housing system, not a Dawnlight thing in particular) about he wonky layout of the place - which is true, and finally about the general light levels in the place.

My argument was, and still is, that the dim levels of light the place has as a default, actually do make sense for once. There are other dimly lit homes in the game where the light levels make no sense, but Dawnlight is not one of them. The number and shape and position of the windows speak against this.

Now you can either accept my stance as is, or go nitpicking on about my personal subjective bias and derail the discussion even more. I don't care much about word plays and wont participate any further. This is not a debate that I am trying to win, nor am I trying to formulate an ironclad thesis on the subject. I'm just pointing out that things are not as black and white as some of you have painted, and that it is possible to approach this issue from a different context. In my view, there are perfectly valid and sensible reasons for keeping the lighting as it currently is in Dawnlight, and that the way the narrow windows behave in game is also perfectly plausible. At the end of the day I am just expressing a differing opinion, and some of you guys seem to have difficulty accepting that some people see things differently.

As my closing remark, let me add that I hope this finishes this nonsense tangent, and maybe the discussion on this thread could return to the actual topics of the overall light level of Dawnlight, and maybe try to focus on coming up with ideas that work for both those who want more light, as well s those who prefer to keep it dark. Like maybe trying to convince ZOS to offer stronger light sources in a far wider variety of styles than what is currently available? Or maybe turn windows into lights that you can turn off an on. You know window shutters are a thing, there's even some available for purchase in the crown tab of the housing editor. And peaceable windows would be a really cool feature too. That way people could really decide what part of their homes are lit up and which are not.

bluebird

Hymzir wrote: »

M'kay... This thing has devolved into baffling levels of silliness now, and the discussion has been derailed into nitpicking irrelevant details instead of discussing the actual original topic posted in the OP. But since you guys seem to like to nitpick things from your own subjective point of view, let's have another dance shall we...

First of all I'm going to pat myself on the back because I actually read the whole thing *exhales* To tl;dr, many of your points are just a longer rephrasing of your earlier points without really addressing what others have written since, and could thus be considered beating a dead horse... but here we go.

You also claimed that other people's points are 'baffling levels of silliness' and a 'nonsense tangent '. However, OP included the dark windows in the 'actual original' topic very clearly, so I don't see how the discussion is 'derailed into nitpicking irrelevant details instead of discussing the actual original topic.'

Hymzir wrote: »

The only truly objective fact here is, that they use different rendering settings. And until the devs come out and say right out what the truth is, that is the way it remains.

Insisting on something not being bugged because no dev came forward to state that they are bugged is not very rational. Bugs don't start existing only when the devs acknowledge them, critical thinking involves looking at patterns, circumstances, prior evidence, and coming to a conclusion based on facts. Here, as well as in your argument about the semantics of darkness and dimness, you seem to split hairs about terminology.

Hymzir wrote: »

Which brings us back to those windows... All am saying is that I do not agree on the assessment that they are objectively bugged, at least not without more convincing arguments supporting such claim. Or without giving a contextual frame of reference.

You're saying more than that. You're actively arguing that that they shouldn't be changed because you convinced yourself that the current situation suits you, and you're making the judgment that other people's logical arguments are inferior to your own preference. You strongly assert that lighting them up would not make sense and you'll stand against it. So you're not just speaking generally, about there not being enough evidence, you're making claims yourself. As for evidence and reference, plenty of people gave you proof, myself included, but here we go again.

Hymzir wrote: »

To change things that do make sense, into something that does not, just because some other thing doesn't make sense. Sorry, will not board that boat.

Your insistence that 'lighting all windows as the others are already lit and even the dark ones cast lightbeams' would make less sense than 'make all windows dark' is ridiculous, as no architect would cut out their wall just to place panels of glass that touch a cliff. On the other hand, lighting can exist inside cliffs - how do you know that the cliff isn't hollow for example, and has an opening that lets in sunlight just like the Colossal Aldmeri Grotto has? There you go, a perfectly logical explanation why they should be lit. And we can now return to the actual discussion that OP posted about: PDP being too dark, and many of its windows not lighting up when others do.

Hymzir wrote: »

They just represent different types of glass windows. [...]The narrow ones just look like dull thick colored glass. [...] Whatever the reason behind this, does not change the fact that both window types work just fine.

No they don't. If the dark windows are of a 'different material' they shouldn't look identical to the other windows from the outside, but they are. They also shouldn't let in the same amount and intensity of lightbeams, but they do.

Hymzir wrote: »

The fact that one also makes more sense give the location is just an added bonus, but not really inherent as to which material setting is the correct one. [...]In my view, there are perfectly valid and sensible reasons for keeping the lighting as it currently is in Dawnlight,

If the cliff is a consideration (you keep insisting that it would make sense for them to be dark) then no window on that side of the palace should let it light. However, all the front-facing ones should, whereas now they don't (because the bugged windows depend on their shape not their location). If the cliff is no consideration then all windows should be lit. As pointed out here and above, the current setup makes no sense either way.

Hymzir wrote: »

My argument was, and still is, that the dim levels of light the place has as a default, actually do make sense for once.[...] To you, the bright ones may look like they are the obvious correct version, but all am saying is that to others, me included, the dim ones might look more plausible. [...] I might go as far as to concede that perhaps they are a bit too dark, but then again the wide ones are definitely too bright.

There is an obviously correct version though. The wide ones also aren't 'definitely too bright', they're in line with almost every other racial style window ingame. That's the default. Windows that don't light up are not the default, and windows that don't light up but cast the same lightbeams that the other windows of the same style do while those do light up, definitely doesn't make sense.

Hymzir wrote: »

This is not a debate that I am trying to win, nor am I trying to formulate an ironclad thesis on the subject. I'm just pointing out that things are not as black and white as some of you have painted, and that it is possible to approach this issue from a different context

It's not that we didn't understand your points earlier. It's not that we didn't approach the issue from that angle. We did, we followed those thoughts to their logical conclusion and upon seeing that they didn't hold up to scrutiny, we discarded them. And despite claiming that you aren't trying to win an argument, you reiterated quite frequently that you claim that your preference makes the most sense while our arguments don't make sense and are 'derailing nitpicking' so I'll be tagging you anyway. @Hymzir

Jaraal

For a little clarity on what's behind the Main Hall, here's a view looking at it from behind. The structure to the left is Prince Hubalajad's main palace in Abah's Landing. You can see the spatial relation on the mini-map.

bluebird

Jaraal wrote: »

For a little clarity on what's behind the Main Hall, here's a view looking at it from behind. The structure to the left is Prince Hubalajad's main palace in Abah's Landing. You can see the spatial relation on the mini-map.

Cool image, thanks for sharing! Although when it comes to discussing lights, the exterior has little do with it. The windows that line the top dome don't light up at all, even though there is nothing above the house and the loading screen also shows illumination coming from above. The different types of windows don't light up based on their shape, even when they're on the same wall. And the windows on the front of the palace, in the front-facing not cliff-facing rooms are equally dark depending on their shape. All that in addition to several outside windows not lining up with interior windows at all, or even missing entirely

Hymzir

bluebird wrote: »

Hymzir wrote: »

M'kay... This thing has devolved into baffling levels of silliness now, and the discussion has been derailed into nitpicking irrelevant details instead of discussing the actual original topic posted in the OP. But since you guys seem to like to nitpick things from your own subjective point of view, let's have another dance shall we...

First of all I'm going to pat myself on the back because I actually read the whole thing *exhales* To tl;dr, many of your points are just a longer rephrasing of your earlier points without really addressing what others have written since, and could thus be considered beating a dead horse... but here we go.

Oh boy... Starting with a snarky side remark, never a good sign...

As for repeating my points... Well, you seem to have difficulty understanding, so I don't really have other options than to try to repeat them until you do. - Aint snark such fun...

And all this simply because I am not willing to agree on your views that the windows are objectively bugged. Just because I can see the possibility for them being the way they are due to a conscious design choice... Even tough I am open to the notion that it is indeed just a bug and was unintentional? Interesting.

But, enough with that, lets get onto the horse shall we?

However, before we start with the equine violence, let me just point out couple of things.

1 - We are obviously looking at this thing from different points of view. I doubt that is going to change no matter how much we prolong this.
2 - I do get what you are saying, I just don't agree with the way you are framing it. And even though you claim to understand where I am coming from, I just am not seeing it in your posts. All I'm seeing is you being irked by someone disagreeing with you.
3 - In general, I see no reason to go point by point over everything everyone says. It will just devolve into a convoluted mess of I say you say, without anything much really being said. Forum posts are not really all that effective way to have debates, and easily devolve into pointless bickering about the context of the words used, with the real message being drowned under all the noise. But I guess that's where we are heading next.
4 - I am known for really long posts, because I prefer to explain my arguments, not just present them as is. And yes this is going to be another rather lengthy one.
5 - And finally, about that horse violence...I'll try to steer this into fresh territory, thus maybe we can finally work around this thing and come to an understanding about our respective points of view. I doubt we'll ever agree on this, which is fine, but I see no reason why we couldn't live with the disagreement in peace.

You also claimed that other people's points are 'baffling levels of silliness' and a 'nonsense tangent '. However, OP included the dark windows in the 'actual original' topic very clearly, so I don't see how the discussion is 'derailed into nitpicking irrelevant details instead of discussing the actual original topic.'

Yes, because we are getting bogged down on talking about the way the window panes are rendered, instead of talking about actual light here. And I think that is the key here, the root for the disconnect in our thinking. We originally were talking about different things, and then ended up arguing over whether something can be considered objective within this frame of reference, and sort of got lost into that endeavor, without really saying anything meaningful about any of the actual topics this tread deals with.

So let's back up a bit, and lay down some groundwork before we proceed:

All windows are fake in ESO. That's a fact. None of them are actual windows. Light does not shine through them. Light is not tied down to them. It's all passive ambient universal light. The windows aren't even set up as lamps. They do not light up anything around them. They only light up themselves.

The OP does not mention dark windows. It speaks about the lack of ambient light, and the limited number of lighting options. All it says about the windows is to present a wish:"Could the windows in the palace have some neutral lighting come from the actual windows? The artwork for the main hall seems to suggest that was the original intent."

And that is what I originally talked about in my post, and what I originally objected to.

I suspect that you took that as a call for the windows to be rendered more brightly. I could be wrong here, but that would explain lot of what followed. It is also quite possible that this is indeed what the OP was referring to, in which case the initial misunderstanding came from my part. And should that prove to be the case, then I apologize for not making my position clear enough.

The reason I didn't associate those two with one another, is because they are not directly linked in this game. It just is not the way light works here. Now, you may be familiar on the way light works in this came, but for the benefit of those who do not, I think it's prudent to go though this thoroughly.

There are 6 components to lighting in ESO. Ambient light is the king, and the one that ultimately dictates how bright any given interior is. The second are the actual light emitting sources.(i.e. lamps and their ilk) These have an intensity and a range, and generally illuminate anything within the radius of the source. They are not real dynamic lights though. They do not produce shadows, nor do they care about collision. That is why light from them can shine through walls. The only thing that acts like a real light is the sun, the third component. But that is only relevant when in an exterior space. The fourth one would be all the various FX lights, but they really have no bearing on the subject, so I'll just skip them. That leaves us with the last two - The way windows are rendered, and the cast light tied to windows.

Those are two different effects in this game. And I feel it is those two things we are getting bogged down discussing here.

The way cast light works is, that it projects a cast light into the interior based on the shape and size of the window. The position of the cast light is determined by the direction of the sun (and also the moons, but the effect is lot weaker) It also seems to be dependent on the weather - so on a cloudy day, you get less cast light.

The way the effect appears in the game is, however, dependent on the material it is rendered on. Thus different things react differently to the effects of the cast light. The intensity of the cast light seems fairly uniform throughout the game, regardless of how the windows themselves are rendered. I would not be surprised to learn, that this effect is not based on the mesh, nor the location, but tied to the actual rendering effect which is just attached to the windows. It is, after all, something the game did not launch with, and something they added into the game later.

Pretty much every window now uses the effect, even the the nearly black orc windows. (Though the cast light is really small for those widows.) And every window in Danwlight also uses this effect, and it renders exactly the same regardless of which window it is being attached to. Thus my earlier comment of there being no difference between the light while standing in front of windows of either variety. Cause spoiler alert: There isn't.

The thing with the cast light though is, that it is directional and dependent on the relative position of the sun. And it just happens that the tall narrow windows, at the back of the main hall of Danwlight, point away from the sun for the majority of any given day. Thus they do not produce cast light effects except fairly late in the evening. Starting to really show around 4 in the afternoon, and lasting until about 8 in the evening, after which the suns starts to set and the effect goes away.

Which is also why I pointed out in my reply to the OP, that having such dramatic shaft of light, as is seen in the load screen makes no sense for Danwlight Palace. There just isn't anyway for the sun to shine there like that. This is partly due to the cliff face, but also due to the orientation of the building. You'd need a large skylight for that to be possible.

However, during those 4 hours of the evening, you do get fairly dramatic, even if tad unrealistic, light show in the main hall. But I can live with that, it's a limitation of the engine as far as I can see, with the cast light effect tied to all the windows and set to run more or less on auto pilot. It would make more sense for it to not be there, but I also get the feeling, that it would require too much effort to set up, for ZOS to consider it to be worth the hassle.

And this all brings us back to the source of the disconnect: the suggestion of "Could the windows in the palace have some neutral lighting come from the actual windows?" presented by the OP. The only way to do that in this game, is by adding more ambient light to the place. To me it seemed evident that this is what the OP was referring to, since, up to that point, all the lighting was discussed from the point of view of ambient light. I did not see that as a call to make the windows themselves actually emit light, since that is not how things work in this game. Nor a call to make them brighter, since that has no actual bearing on the light inside the place.

I also felt it evident, that when I was speaking about windows emitting light (which they do not actually do) that I did it in the general sense of their presence contributing to the default ambient light levels of the place. I.e how many windows, how large they are, their placement, and the location where the building itself is situated, are all factors to take in consideration when determining how bright the place should be. And my stance was, and still is, that Dawnlight should be, by all reckoning, a pretty dimly lit place. And I do really think that the current light levels reflect this reality fairly well.

If you go back to my original post and read through it, you should notice that I am talking about light levels, and only talking about the windows and their ability to emit light, and the fact that a lot of them should not emit any light at all, as justifications for the general ambient light level. I did not talk about the windows themselves as the source of light or the way they are rendered

It was only at this point, that you decided to inject yourself into the discourse, and tagged me to point out that the "windows are objectively bugged. It's not a subjective aesthetic choice, its a broken feature of the house." and that I only should use the home at night, and that "people who prefer daytime (…) would actually like their windows to let in some light."

Having read your post, I literally went WTF? What are you talking about, and why are you tagging me with this? And are you really serious? Use the place only during the night? WTF?!

I was still thinking about things in the context of the ambient light. Thinking you were saying the place should have more ambient light, even though it made no sense given the location, and the number and shape and size of windows in the place.

This lead to my "angry rebuttal" as you called it. And yeah, I was bit miffed for you having the arrogance for suggesting that I should only use the place during the night.

It is also at this point, that I myself wandered off topic, and and should've been more precise and clear about what I was talking about. The thing is, I do not like the extra bright way the wide windows are rendered, and prefer the way the narrow ones are rendered. To me it seems like a conscious decision on the part of the dev that threw the place together, it's something that makes sense to me, and feels more believable. I also do not like the fact that a lot of impossible windows are producing cast light on the floor. I should've been more specific and went with that right of the bat, isntead of talking about windows emitting light. Which, after all, they do not actually do.

If you go back to "my angry rebuttal" you will note that I am still talk about the ambient light levels when it comes to actual light. Since that is the thing that actually determines the lighting of the place. And yes, I do keep bringing up the fact that it is surrounded by cliffs, because it is, and thus it makes more sense for the place to be dark. And at that point I was feeling rather frustrated that you didn't seem to understand that.

It is also at this point that ta Sporvan interjected the discussion with a bunch of screenshots, and a claim of destroying my argument with one picture, which he did not, since we were essentially arguing about different things. You guys seemed to be fixated on the way these windows are rendered, where as I was concerned about the ambient light level.

Sporvan also claimed that the narrow windows were "completely unlit" which is patently not true. And that is the thing I objected in his post. It was wrong. It was not an accurate statement. They do light up. The effect is much weaker than on the bright ones, which to my eye look comically bright. In comparison, and in contrast, there is an obvious difference in the luminosity of those window panes, but that has nothing to do with the actual light levels inside the place. Or even the intensity of the cast light both types of widows produce.

I could've clearly made that more evident, but we are not perfect beings after all, and once people start to debate things, and different viewpoints are being tossed around, that the way you present your arguments becomes muddles and people interpret things differently. And the thing back there was, that I did not see the windows as inherently bugged. I just saw them as different types of windows, since they both do lite up, react to the time of day, and have a cast light affixed to them and generally seem fairly plausible, and their rendering makes sense to me given the context of the place. I was disputing the fact that their bugged status is an objective fact, and the claim that they do no lit up. And those really are the only things I objected back there.

The fact that they do have different values set to them, may very well be a bug, but as I keep telling you guys, I am open to the possibility that it is not. If you had said they are inconsistently lit up, I'd have given you that. You could've said that they are bugged in comparison to some other instance of similar windows, like pointing out to other windows in Abah's Landing, and I'd have agreed that there is a difference there, and that you do present decent arguments to support such claims.

I just wasn't ready to label them as objectively bugged. And I still am not. I make no claims as to what the person who made the place was thinking. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was intentional, all I can say is that to me, the way the narrow windows are rendered makes more sense. And I find it rather difficult to believe, that who ever made the place, did not notice the way those windows are rendered. I suppose it's possible they missed it, but I find that rather difficult to believe, since it is such a huge and obvious feature of the place. I find it much more reasonable to assume, that they went with those settings because they though it looked fine.

And that is the reason why I call arguing about this thing nonsense. The only real disagreement here is whether there is a possibility that it was done intentionally. Which you are vehement to not accept.

And is that really something worth arguing over? To you it is a bug, end of discussion, and am fine with that. To me it is potentially a bug, but it also might be intentional, and it might be an intentional thing that the devs decided to be worth keeping. (Anyone remember Animation Cancelling?) After all, it's been like that for quite a while, and it is also quite obvious as far as how it looks. It's not a subtle thing you might easily overlook.

So, I really see no reason to prolong arguing over this - it's for the devs to decide whether it is a bug, and whether it is worth the effort to fix. Personally I would prefer them to tone down the brightness of the wide widows, and slightly increase the brightness of the narrow ones. That would still lead to some issues in the overall picture of things, but would be decent enough compromise between aesthetics and things making sense. Either way, am fine with what ever path they choose, as long as they do not muck up the ambient light levels.

So then.. as to your last post: It's pretty much what I expected it to be. You isolating snippets of what I wrote and then framing them in a way that misses the point I was making. I did go over it, thought about doing the same sort of targeted word magic you did, but then decided not to. It just isn't worth the effort, I'll just cover your first example to show what I mean:

Hymzir wrote: »

The only truly objective fact here is, that they use different rendering settings. And until the devs come out and say right out what the truth is, that is the way it remains.

Insisting on something not being bugged because no dev came forward to state that they are bugged is not very rational. Bugs don't start existing only when the devs acknowledge them, critical thinking involves looking at patterns, circumstances, prior evidence, and coming to a conclusion based on facts. Here, as well as in your argument about the semantics of darkness and dimness, you seem to split hairs about terminology.

See, right of the bat, you go twisting what I said. I never insisted that you need a devs confirmation before being able to call something a bug. I just said that in this case, the only objective fact is, that there is a difference in the settings. All I'm saying here is, that I, personally, am not ready to call this one as being objectively a bug. I am perfectly open to the idea of it being a bug, it's just that I also see a possibility for it to be intentional.

That is all I said and, all I was referring to. Your attempt to frame my statements as some sort of sweeping generalization about what one can cal bugs, is intellectually dishonest. And a perfect example of the sort of word games I find tiresome.

And your comment about semantics is just more of the same. Using different words to avoid monotonous text is just a style of writing I like. If you find it aggravating or confusing, then... Well, can't really help you on that one. All I can say is what my history professor once told me: "Never change the way you write." Apparently he though it had character or something. So yeah, avoiding monotonous text is gonna be a feature in the future too, even if you have an issue with it.

See? Doing this sort of isolated sniping at snippets of other peoples post is not really constructive. It's just being petty and trying to paint the other in a bad light. I get the urge as to why one does it though, after all, how can one live with the fact that someone is wrong on the internet...

I have fallen prey to the urge myself, but try to avoid doing it these days. Instead I just try to present my take on the topic, provide my reasoning, construct my arguments as a more or less self contained whole, and let people make their minds whether to agree with what I said or not.

But that's just me.

So to wrap this thing up, I have tried to explain my stance, why I do not see the thing with the windows to be objectively a bug. Why I see the possibility of it being intentional. The fact that I prefer it the way it is is just a happy coincidence on my part. You obviously dislike it, but I don't', and am not ashamed of that fact. I'm known to have controversial opinions on things, mostly because I am not willing to jump on any old bandwagon, and reserve the right to hold my judgement on issues until I feel comfortable enough to make a call on it. And this is one of those times.

But hey, don't let me stop you from preaching what you feel to be true. Just try not to be bummed when someone turns your message down. Remember, it was you who originally felt the urge to go and tag me and tell me about your opinions. It was not me, who came to you, and told you that you are thinking about this all wrong. I just told you I don't agree with your assessment. I see other possible explanations.

If you had just participated in the thread normally, came in and told that you think the windows are bugged, then I doubt we'd be here. But no, you felt it important enough to go and tell me specifically that the windows are bugged. And that I should only use the place at night, so that you can enjoy your slot free sun during the day. I did kinda object to that idea. I'm only human you know.

An no... am not gonna tag you, since I am not petty with things like that.

bluebird

Hymzir wrote: »

The way Dawnlight is build, the number and shape and size of windows in that places, and the location where it is situated, all point towards it being rather dark and the light levels that exist there as a default do make sense. [...] Makes more sense than sitting inside the place trying to appreciate the light through small windows [...] There just isn't anyway for the sun to shine there like that. This is partly due to the cliff face, but also due to the orientation of the building. You'd need a large skylight for that to be possible. [...] It does not feature gigantic panorama windows or skylights.

The windows of the PDP are some of the largest ever created. They aren't small at all compared to other races' windows which light up just as brightly (just as - ironically - the smaller windows in PDP light up brightly). And while not gigantic skylights, there are several windows lining the dome that currently do nothing. I also pointed out that the current lighting is contradictory and impossible one way or another so it's not 'fine as it is', and while you also agree that they use the same lightbeams you somehow dismiss the impossibility of your 'different glass' theory.

Hymzir wrote: »

And yes, I do keep bringing up the fact that it is surrounded by cliffs, because it is, and thus it makes more sense for the place to be dark. And at that point I was feeling rather frustrated that you didn't seem to understand that [...] Neither of the upstairs bedrooms exist in the exterior mesh, and most of the windows do not match with what is shown outside. [...] The windows are not objectively bugged, they are objectively stuck inside a cliff face. Buried in solid rock and the fact that they do not emit light makes a lot more sense than them permitting sunlight to pass.

I understood it, but then disproved it, just like you did. You acknowledge that the exterior doesn't match the interior. Windows are missing or don't line up. Entire structures are missing or are aligned differently. I'm not sure the scale of the interior is accurate either, tbh. This establishes that there isn't any way shape or form that the interior can match the exterior. For all we know, the doors of houses take us to a pocket realm of Oblivion that doesn't match the exterior shell and is free of the laws of physics. That would be far more rational at this point because it's a possibility, whereas interior-exterior matching is already impossible.

Sporvan also disproved this argument, that orientation and cliffs have somehow anything to do with the windows 'making more sense'. They don't, as we demonstrated (which is what I believe his screenshots inteded to do as they highlighted that the windows are dark based on shape not layout). You're the one that keeps making layout excuses for dark windows and disregarding the fact that they are equally dark in the garden-facing rooms, on the dome, or on the same-facing walls. So either all windows should be dark or no window should be dark. Again, 'it's fine as it is and it makes the most sense' is false and it does not make sense based on the location.

Hymzir wrote: »

I did not see that as a call to make the windows themselves actually emit light, since that is not how things work in this game. Nor a call to make them brighter, since that has no actual bearing on the light inside the place.[...] The thing is, I do not like the extra bright way the wide windows are rendered, [...] Personally I would prefer them to tone down the brightness of the wide widows, [...] I do not really care what color the window panes themselves are (though prefer the less brightly lit ones, [...] but then again the wide ones are definitely too bright.

You talked a great deal about ambient light and how the brightness of the windows isn't technically light, but then you repeatedly state that you have a strong preference regarding their brightness. So while not 'technically' light, even you agree that the windows' brightness contributes greatly to our impression of brightness and isn't irrelevant. Remember the gold/blue dress? Our brains interpret bright colours as light and darker colours as shadow, which is why games brighten up bits they want to illuminate. It's a visual shorthand. And it works, the same way putting highlighter colours on your face creates the illusion of light and shape, and the same way you're bothered because the brightness of the 'lit' windows translates as brightness, whether or not they emit light.

Hymzir wrote: »

And I find it rather difficult to believe, that who ever made the place, did not notice the way those windows are rendered.

It's quite possible. That's what a bug is, after all. There are also examples of the new Elsweyr windows doing the same thing (casting lightbeams while remaining dark while the others in the same room brighten up when they cast lightbeams). It's also quite possible that while the windows ended up that way due to a mistake not due to planning, they are aware of the bug, but do not intend to fix it due to policy or lack of resources. But when we're discussing how things currently are, and how they ought to be, intent seems to be on the bright side rather than the dark side.


Some housekeeping stuff behind spoiler tags since they don't relate to the topic, but address some stuff you seem to have taken a bit too personally.

Hymzir wrote: »

Oh boy... Starting with a snarky side remark, never a good sign...

You literally started with making derisive judgments such as 'derailed' 'devolved' 'nitpicking irrelevant details from your own subjective point of view' to dismiss and devalue other people's points, screenshots and analyses, so you can't call me out on any 'snark.' However - albeit humorous - it served to communicate that even though I will be addressing individual arguments, you can rest assured that I read your entire post.

Hymzir wrote: »

In general, I see no reason to go point by point over everything everyone says. [...] but I guess that's where we are heading next [...] Forum posts are not really all that effective way to have debates,

You're clearly aware that posting walls of text isn't conducive to getting a point across in a concise fashion. You even used a numbered list there, which everybody can tell you is easier to read at a glance on a forum than fishing for points in an essay. That was the point, to specifically cite your points instead of talking generally, as addressing things directly adds clarity. It is not a malicious tool of attacking you or whatever you perceived it as.

Hymzir wrote: »

And your comment about semantics is just more of the same. Using different words to avoid monotonous text is just a style of writing I like. [...]And even though ZOS seems to like dim lighting conditions as a default for homes, no place in this game is truly dark. [...] And you can see quite well inside Dawnlight Palace, even during the night, even without a single light source. The place is dim, but not dark.

That was the hair-splitting I referred to btw, I wasn't addressing stylistic choices. You were quite concerned with making semantic distinctions between 'darkness' and 'dimness', between 'lighting up' and 'brightening up while technically not emitting light'.

Hymzir wrote: »

Having read your post, I literally went WTF? What are you talking about, and why are you tagging me with this? And are you really serious? Use the place only during the night? WTF?! [...]This lead to my "angry rebuttal" as you called it. And yeah, I was bit miffed for you having the arrogance for suggesting that I should only use the place during the night. [...]But no, you felt it important enough to go and tell me specifically that the windows are bugged. And that I should only use the place at night, so that you can enjoy your slot free sun during the day. I did kinda object to that idea. [...]An no... am not gonna tag you, since I am not petty with things like that.

Tagging someone on the forums, especially when directly replying to or at least extensively addressing what they wrote, is pretty common. Tagging is not an act of aggression and didn't warrant your indignant tone. It's not pettiness, it's common practice. Do you hear yourself? You seem to champion some sort of paranoid vendetta. And as I pointed out several comments back, my 'if you want your windows dark, nighttime will cycle around naturally' was in direct reply to your own suggestion that people should just use Culanda stones if they want things to be brighter. You can't stand behind the suggestion that people can easily just spend tons of money and a lot of slots on lighting yet be outraged when I suggest that it's easy to get darkness at no extra cost or slots.

ZhugeKongming

bluebird

ZhugeKongming wrote: »

Nice! Pretty similar to my own actually, we both seem to have used Clockwork Illuminators and Varla stones (I presume that's where you got the blue light from, plus some other more intense blue and purple items?) to make the water pop in contrast! I suspect you placed several concealed Culanda stones around the upper areas though, as my Clockwork lights didn't end up with that strong of a yellow tint by themselves.

ZhugeKongming

Yes we both seem to love those cw lamps

I use a bunch of cw chandeliers, and salt lamps for the purple tint

TheNightflame

solitary clockwork illuminator capsules are my favourite for natural ligjt but sadly don't fit a lot of themes unless you use more furnishing items to hide parts of them

Tigerseye

Always interesting when someone, who writes reams of text on a subject, accuses other people's posts of "nitpicking irrelevant details"...

Tigerseye

The Clockwork lights give great illumination, no doubt about it and the gold/brass colour of them looks fine in there; but, I just couldn't bring myself to use such an incongruous style, personally.

...and this is coming from someone who happily mixes racial styles/objects (which look right together), all the time.

This is why there should just be a giant, Redguard chandelier design, with an extra long (and thick) chain and which pumps out roughly the same amount of light as the Illuminator.

Simple as that, really, re. lighting.

Tigerseye

By the way, Hymzir, you would probably be touching more hearts with your rejection of the light and plea for (even more) darkness, if you stopped talking about dancing (which you have been doing throughout this thread) and getting on horses.

That just makes it seem like you are itching for a fight, with pretty much anyone, about pretty much anything; as opposed to genuinely caring about the subject at hand.

It just makes it seem like you are out to remove potential pleasure, from other people.

As opposed to, genuinely, believing you have a cast iron case, to objectively argue for.

You may think everyone else on the internet is a braindead troll, who has to be put down and "danced" with, rather than talked to like a fellow adult, but (if so) you are mistaken.

Hymzir

bluebird wrote: »

Hymzir wrote: »

The way Dawnlight is build, the number and shape and size of windows in that places, and the location where it is situated, all point towards it being rather dark and the light levels that exist there as a default do make sense. [...] Makes more sense than sitting inside the place trying to appreciate the light through small windows [...] There just isn't anyway for the sun to shine there like that. This is partly due to the cliff face, but also due to the orientation of the building. You'd need a large skylight for that to be possible. [...] It does not feature gigantic panorama windows or skylights.

The windows of the PDP are some of the largest ever created. They aren't small at all compared to other races' windows which light up just as brightly (just as - ironically - the smaller windows in PDP light up brightly). And while not gigantic skylights, there are several windows lining the dome that currently do nothing.

The windows of Dawnlight are not all that large. They are just tall and narrow. And they are recessed in the walls. Narrow windows means, that the the time of day they would lit up brightly, and let a large amount of light pass, is sorely limited. Since the amount of light is dependent on the relative position of the sun, and the angle of the rays of light hitting the panes of the window. And with a narrow window, the time those rays would pass clear through, without being intercepted by the windows framing, and the wall of the recessed space, is quite short. Thus limiting their affect on the overall amount of light available.

As for the windows on top of the dome, I dealt with them in my first post on this thread:

Hymzir wrote: »

And gettign the sort of light shaft in the main halls center structure, as is seen in the load screen, is not really possible without actual skylights. The structure is topped by a dome ringed by small windows, which are also slightly recessed into the wall. No way would they create a dramatic cascade of light.

As I already pointed, there are lights up there, but they are not skylights, they are not build into the roof. Those windows would only illuminate upper part of the central structure, i.e. these gilded bits:

They are too small, too deeply recessed in the wall, and far too narrow (as seen by the cast light) to be able to provide all that much light to the floor level. It's just a simple fact of geometry.

And yes, they do actually do do something up there:

Now, having taken the effort of going up there, I decided to chart the path of the cast light. And discovered that the effect ends fairly quickly as you descend. That is the reason it seems they don't do all that much. There isn't all that much up there for the cast light to interact with. Unless you build something up there as I have.

During the day light hours, some portion of the upper part of the central structure, namely these double arches:

should always be illuminated by sunlight coming from the windows. But the cast light effect just wont render that far, it cuts out midway there. A shame really, but not an issue with the general light level of Danwlight itself.

If one wants to get technical about this, then one could point out that the top part should have a significantly higher level of illumination than the floor level, during all hours of the day, since the dome is ringed by windows on all side, thus letting in light during all the hours of the day. But that is an engine limitation.

The light level is the same throughout the structure, and you can't have different levels of illumination in different parts the building. The way such local variances are dealt with it this game, is by using a localized light source. Unfortunately the housing system does not provide players with localized dynamic daylight sources, even though I'm pretty sure they do exist as assets within the game. Since there are some dungeons and structures here and there, that do seem to sport such sources of illumination.

For housing, we are limited to using a regular light source to provide such spot illumination. And there are plenty of lights that can be used to do that.

I also pointed out that the current lighting is contradictory and impossible one way or another so it's not 'fine as it is', and while you also agree that they use the same lightbeams you somehow dismiss the impossibility of your 'different glass' theory.

No you have not. And yes it is. All you have shown, is that you have a different set of priorities as far as plausibility goes than I do. All you have shown, is that the everything in this game, is a compromise between what is possible and what the design calls for. This is not a bleeding edge of 3D technology we are dealing with. So yes, there are bound to be things that make less sense than others. But the things that are important to you, the things on which you rate sensibility of things, are not the same as they are for me. While you seem to be utterly happy to overlook the fact that the place is surrounded by cliffs, I do not. And while you take issue with different types of glass having the same cast light effect attached to them, I am not bothered by that. And that is all you have shown.

Hymzir wrote: »

And I find it rather difficult to believe, that who ever made the place, did not notice the way those windows are rendered.

It's quite possible. That's what a bug is, after all. There are also examples of the new Elsweyr windows doing the same thing (casting lightbeams while remaining dark while the others in the same room brighten up when they cast lightbeams). It's also quite possible that while the windows ended up that way due to a mistake not due to planning, they are aware of the bug, but do not intend to fix it due to policy or lack of resources.

As for the bug... Yeah, it's possible, even though I find it quite unlikely. However, the possibility of such blindness on the part of the devs, does not mean that it is objectively true. And that is all I really objected to. And the only reason I presented my original arguments, for it being a conscious decision, was to show why I do not agree on your statement that they were objectively bugged. There are other explanations for the thing, besides it being a bug.

As for Elsweyr lighting issues, as I noted on that thread, I am not having them. Based on your screenshot there, something is obviously wrong, but it is not something that is inherent to the windows and the way light levels are set in Elsweyr, since they do work for others. Also... If the game did universally look the way it does in your Elsweyr screenshots... I really think the devs would've noticed it too. I don't think they are all blind. So it's not an Elsweyr issue as such, there is something between your set up and the contents of the new chapter. And I do sincerely hope it gets sorted, so you and others suffering from that issue, can play Elsweyr without worries.

And I don't think the Elsweyr windows are meant to light up with bright yellow glow. It's a common stylistic device used in a lot of games, even though it isn't realistic portrayal of windows. (except for those made of yellow glass that are directly in sunlight) Though it is common enough, so that a lot of people to have grown accustomed to it, and feel things to be less believable when it is not used. But ZOS has been veering of from overtly bright windows. The windows in Morrowind do not go for that bright yellow glow, the windows in Summerset don't go for it either, and it seems neither do the windows in Elsweyr.

Just because ZOS has stopped using the style of brightly lit yellow windows, does not mean they are broken. It just means the art direction has changed.

Raijindono wrote: »

The way I see that loadscreen is, that the narrow windows should be dark. As is shown on the left hand side of the image. And that perhaps the wide one's should be too, since the one in the right hand side is not particularly bright in that image either. There is also a huge amount of light coming from above, that is drowning out what ever level of brightness the narrow windows at the back have. And the only way to do such strong localized light in this game, is by using a localized light source. I.e. stick a bunch of Culanda stones up there or something. But ultimately it's just a loadscreen, a Phothospped depiction of an idea, not a factual representation of what is possible within the constraints of the engine.

However... Now that I thought about all the things concerning this, the position of the sun, the angles and geometry involved, I realize that maybe this loadscreen is depicting the speculator morning light the place was build for. It would actually sort of make sense, and explain why the windows on the side are not illuminated, and why most of the hall is in darkness. If you imagine that light on the wall to be the morning light shining thought the windows at the top of the dome, it makes sense as a concept at least.

The light in that image is not coming from the tall narrow windows at the back of the room. It's coming from above, from the opposite side! The sun rises from that side, there are windows up there, facing the rising sun, thus the tall nature of the hall would finally make some sense. It needs all that volume for the light coming from the windows in the central dome to let that light shine on to the wall. It actually makes sense, and explains why the foreground is in dark. Why the light is solely on the back wall, it's coming from the other side.

Obviously though, for this to really and truly work, the windows at the top would need to be a lot bigger. At the very least, each of those small narrow windows up there would have to be replaced by those wide double windows. And even then the amount such windows would let pass would be bit iffy. But at least it would be plausible. A design that would make actual sense, would be if whole of the wall of the dome was lined with windows. Tall windows. And isntead of wall, there would just be beefy columns supporting the dome itself.

Even with those changes to the place, you still wouldn't get the effect in game, since the lighting system does no support it. ZOS would have add some extra powerful dynamic light there (an I know they exist in the game - plenty of dungeons have dynamic spotlights of sunlight shining through the cracks), to really have such light shine in the hall. And you know, if ZOS goes and does that. I'd be totally fine with it. Even though it would kinda wreck my design. Because it would actually make sense, and it would look really cool.

Housekeeping... Cheesh.. Right. Well, I am not gonna do that. Me and bluebird obviously have a persona disagreement here, and I see no reason to wash my laundry any further on the forums. It has devolved into "I say, you say, nothing is being said!" And it has no real place to take any more forum space than it already has. I will leave it at this: I disagree with bluebird, nor do I find any of the arguments presented as conclusive. All I see is competing set of theories, and a different mind set towards what factors make something believable, and what things one can easily overlook as artifacts of gameplay expediency.

So I will just move the "housekeeping" part into private discussing where it rightly belongs. So bluebird, if you want to continue this in private, to try and hash out our differences, to sett, then just gimme a holler and I'll oblige.

Tigerseye wrote: »

By the way, Hymzir, you would probably be touching more hearts with your rejection of the light and plea for (even more) darkness, if you stopped talking about dancing (which you have been doing throughout this thread) and getting on horses.

Well... I knew that my personal preference was most likely going to be in the minority here, but it's still a battle I need to fight. It's important. Am invested. I am, however, gonna try to limit "colorful" word choices from now on. And did my best to edit this post to stay on target as much as possible. But some quips prolly still go through, since am only human.

But you know, I think you're right. I did let this this thing get too personal here. I suppose I wasn't as prepared as I though I was, about the amount, and directed nature, of the backlash, for coming out in favor of camp dark, ended up being. Guess am just gettign old, and cranky, and get riled when my words are taken out of context. Or when things that are not true are presented as fact...

Anyway, I still remember the discussions we had when the place was first introduced. A lot of people criticized it for it's lack of light even back then. And at that time, I think I was more in the camp light than I am now.

But after having lived with the place for over a year. Getting to know it's every nook and cranny, I've come to accept it for what it is. And come to prefer some of it's design choices that I may have opposed at the start. And lot of the things I originally objected to, make lot more sense to me these days. And thus my vote for camp dark.

bluebird

ZhugeKongming wrote: »

Yes we both seem to love those cw lamps
I use a bunch of cw chandeliers, and salt lamps for the purple tint

Aah, cool! I was wondering what that was - thought it might be the purple glowing achievement skull - so thanks for the info! How did you light up the wood in that yellow light btw? Is it some Culanda stone light bleeding over from a different room, or is just a cwc light placed from below it?

Hymzir wrote: »

I also pointed out that the current lighting is contradictory and impossible one way or another so it's not 'fine as it is', and while you also agree that they use the same lightbeams you somehow dismiss the impossibility of your 'different glass' theory.

No you have not. And yes it is. All you have shown, is that you have a different set of priorities as far as plausibility goes than I do. [...] While you seem to be utterly happy to overlook the fact that the place is surrounded by cliffs, I do not. And while you take issue with different types of glass having the same cast light effect attached to them, I am not bothered by that. And that is all you have shown. [...] Me and bluebird obviously have a persona disagreement here

No, we do not have a personal disagreement. Apart from you taking the common practice of tagging and citing comments that someone wants to reply to as an act of aggression. What we're having - clearly can't speak for what you're doing but at least what I and the others are trying to have - is a factual discussion.

• If there is a cliff in the back, but some windows still light up there --> doesn't make sense
• If there is a cliff in the back, but the dark windows still cast lightbeams --> doesn't make sense
• Even if there is a cliff, some windows in the front are as dark as the ones in the back --> doesn't make sense
• Windows light up/don't light up even when they are on the same wall, same direction ---> doesn't make sense
• 'Different glass' casts the same lightbeams as bright glass --> doesn't make sense
• 'Different glass' looks the same from the outside as bright glass --> doesn't make sense
• Speaking of the outside, exterior and interior windows don't line up or are missing --> doesn't make sense
• The exterior and interior structures, not just the windows, don't match up --> doesn't make sense.

So somehow all of the above means that I 'haven't demonstrated that the current lighting situation is contradictory is impossible'? But when you dismiss logical limitations that don't suit your subjective preference when you say 'I'm not bothered by them' and perform other acts of mental gymnastics, it somehow means that the current situation 'makes the most sense' and it's 'fine as it is'? Mhhhmkay

My suggestion of brightening them all up would increase internal consistency, and my lore suggestion that doors of houses take us to a pocket realm of Oblivion would be logically and canonically possible All of which would make far more sense that as it currently is.

ZhugeKongming

The chandeliers make the gold trims visible:


Even the stairs and doors have gold trimmings/platings on them:



And you can't make a disco room if the palace is bright by default:

Sometimes there are sun rays in this dark room, I tried covering the window with paintings, tapestries, eht darkness, etc, but nothing worked (eht darkness make the whole room dark, instead of just eliminating the sun rays from the window).

agegarton

There are a few good lighting options that aren't Redguard, but they are not out of place in the Palace. Two good examples that I have used are:-

Alinor Candles, Stand - there are two options, short and tall, and they seem to work well as the wood colour matches the pillars in the great hall etc.

Hlaalu hanging lanterns (can't remember the actual name) but they look somewhat like Chinese paper lanterns and come in various sizes. These have some gold and crimson trim, so they look appropriately regal. I have used them upstairs to light walkways etc and again, they don't look out of place against Redguard furnishings.


Hope that helps !!

ZhugeKongming

The Palace guard towers have these trippy ceilings too:


@bluebird you are very welcome
Which wood? Can you mark/circle it?

Tigerseye

Hymzir wrote: »

Well... I knew that my personal preference was most likely going to be in the minority here, but it's still a battle I need to fight. It's important. Am invested. I am, however, gonna try to limit "colorful" word choices from now on. And did my best to edit this post to stay on target as much as possible. But some quips prolly still go through, since am only human.

But you know, I think you're right. I did let this this thing get too personal here. I suppose I wasn't as prepared as I though I was, about the amount, and directed nature, of the backlash, for coming out in favor of camp dark, ended up being. Guess am just gettign old, and cranky, and get riled when my words are taken out of context. Or when things that are not true are presented as fact...

Anyway, I still remember the discussions we had when the place was first introduced. A lot of people criticized it for it's lack of light even back then. And at that time, I think I was more in the camp light than I am now.

But after having lived with the place for over a year. Getting to know it's every nook and cranny, I've come to accept it for what it is. And come to prefer some of it's design choices that I may have opposed at the start. And lot of the things I originally objected to, make lot more sense to me these days. And thus my vote for camp dark.

Yeah, I understand.

We're all on the same side, really, as we all just want housing to be as good as it could be.

They could end all this by just making all the windows light up, in the same way and then giving us a slider, which controls how light the windows appear, the strength of the light beams that come from them and the ambient light, simultaneously.

Or, you know, they could give us three separate sliders and/or let us control the light from each window individually; but, just one slider would be OK, too.