I think the problem lies in auto-exposure not actually changing the exposure, but the magnitude-limit.

I always use RPB, because I think it should make SE more realistic, is impossible that make SE less realistic

but I'm not sure about that, because pluto (that in SE is so darks), in photos looks very bright, neptune and uranus too...

Neptune isn't nearly as brightly lit as Earth, after all. I think the problem lies in auto-exposure not actually changing the exposure, but the magnitude-limit.

Personally, I couldn't disagree more; I think the real planet brightness is gorgeous, and much more realistic than having bright blue sky ice worlds, fierce orange titans, and hot Jupiters looking just as bright as normal gas giants.

That's why I think auto-exposure should increase the brightness of poorly-lit planets.

We want screenshots! We want screenshots! biggrin

They say the Sun's light is roughly a 1000 times fainter when it hits Pluto... due to it's distance...

The apparent magnitude of the Sun as seen from Pluto varies from around -18.3 to -19.3. This is hundreds of times brighter than the full Moon, which is quite bright, more than bright enough to see and read by. The "dim streetlight" analogy is false. A camera set to expose the background stars would drastically overexpose Pluto (don't take my word for it, look at the New Horizons pictures when they arrive in July 2015). Ergo, RPB looks absurdly unrealistic. It only compares planet brightnesses to each other; that is its sole function.

This is precisely why I am critical of it. People gather the false impression that these worlds really would look so dim if you were there. This is just not the case. At night it is many many times darker than it would be on Pluto, yet you can see perfectly fine. Features with an albedo similar to Pluto appear quite bright. At times just before sunrise, when the lighting is similar to Pluto, would you say that the world is too dim to see? Of course not.

I don't know what the point of contention is.

RPB allows planet illumination levels to be compared: fact.
RPB is visually unrealistic: fact.
Using RPB all the time looks absurd: opinion which stems from fact.

Yeah, SE doesn't do night sides properly. It treats them as if there is absolutely NO light at all (oddly, the ambience still works since it would require light, but um, yea....), not even faint starlight.

SE does a decent job of night lighting if lit by a moon or planet. But that is irrelevant to this conversation since it is about illumination by stars.