Expansion is my preferred option.
Do you want ED 2 or an Expansion?
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ed2 elite dangerous 2 sequel
- Status
I'd prefer and expansion - need to get the most out of that early-backer pass thingy lol - as I do wonder how much recycled content ED2 would bring vs. actual new stuff. I mean, the basics in ED are pretty solid, decent enough graphics, excellent sound design, and good flight mechanics etc., just need more ships (with something unique about them, no more cookie-cutter please) and the ability to walk around on them. I'd also like abilities to use my other ships, i.e. those I'm not currently flying, either to pop a Crew mate in or lend to a buddy. The current on-foot (Odyssey) stuff holds zero interest for me, and I don't think I'm unique in that view, considering it's not been a very well-received addition.
So ladder/stairs then.
Good to know I'm not the only one.
Odd, never had that problem of colliding with slow generated terrain - maybe its from flying in a slow, non engineered DBX, not having a chance to outpace generation.
As a professional graphic designer of 25 years, yes they do. Photoshop gets steadily worse with each release, as do many of their other products within Creative Suite, and their move from purchase to an (extortionate) subscription model was horrific.
I am flying in an engineered Hauler with the gear down and the throttle well back so doing no more than 60 while I look for bios or sometimes geos, but the graphics are up in high and ultra settings. And to be honest I might well be wrong but some times I am convinced that I had enough height to pop over that ridge or crater rim that was morphing as I swept over it.
As an absolute amateur that used to love Photoshop 15 years or more ago I fully agree with this, I have tried some of their lite versions of what feels like a very fragmented product and have been greatly disappointed. I loathe the subscription payment model for personal use software and I doubt I would be that keen on it if I wanted something for business use.
You're right of course, I was being overly harsh. Compared to everything else SE is an amazing achievement and in most ways looks far better than ED. Some planets look very impressive, especially from orbit. That said, I've seen many very silly looking planets in SE that look every bit as bad as planets with the worst tiling issues in ED, and EDO wins hands down when flying very low over its rocky terrains and hi res textures. Well, it did until many rocks were optimised out of existence, presumably for the sake of performance. Flight just feels more satisfying and planets feel more...solid in ED, imho.
I'm still bumming around in a non engineered DBX with only a middling jump range and not carrying any heat sinks or repair modules. It's very possible to still feel very alone out in the black and subject to the odd frisson of fear.
On max settings here too. Oh well, maybe I'm not skimming quite so close to the surface for that to be a risk.
Well he actually got to walk down the ladder, so never had to question his experience did he. Imagine if they forgot to pack the ladder.
What they did in starfield would have been alright, it is in starfield. Knowing frontier it will only come with the ship interiors patch.
Also, I literally can't stop playing jurassic world evolution. It's frontiers prize pig, it's where it's all at. Wallowing in frozen forgotten deep space has never moved anything. A stuck forgotten asteroid in deep space.
The difference between FDEV and Adobe is that the latter doesn't let technical debt pile up in their code. It's not "refining" when you dump a lot of half-thought-out, half-implemented and then abandoned, features in your game. It's not refining when you take a base game that was not ready to have a major expansion added to it and just bolt one on anyway. How many times has FDEV said that they're working on a problem and then clam up without a solution ever appearing? You don't see that with a codebase that's been properly maintained.
The anti-aliasing issue is a good example. The anti-aliasing, or lack of it, is what causes people to say that Elite has bad graphics. The graphics are fine, more than adequate for this type of game. But the jaggies problem makes them look old. It's dragging the game down, but a fix never appears. There was some talk about it and then just radio silence. They've given up, defeated by all the duct tape.
Of course not. But it's obvious to a developer like me that it needs some serious love. One of my grandsons has F1 Manager 2022 and I've played it with him. The game doesn't have anything that the Cobra engine shouldn't have been able to handle adequately if it was up to snuff. The fact that they had to dump it and switch to the Unreal engine speaks volumes.
That very first Armstrong Moment in May 2021 would have been much better if my fps was above 5.
I'm sure Neil Armstrong is really glad he didn't have to deal with stuttering vision and severe lag as he tried to move his legs.
Uhmmm..... ok. You sound like a real expert on the topic. Arm-chair experts are always excellent for great advice.
I think moving from 68k code to PowerPC and then either abandoning it for the x86 codebase of the PC version or merging them together, and now porting to ARM has to have incurred some 'technical debt' even before talking about adding features. BTW; you should have seen the original versions of Indesign when it was the redheaded stepchild of Pagemaker and Quark Xpress - they had to get to V2 point something before it was actually usable, it was utter trash. And then when Adobe introduced transparency to Illustrator 9. I guess they should have just given up on them too, right? But we are talking about Adobe, not so much that they're so good that they would never allow 'technical debt' to pile up but were developing what were and are the industry standard apps, and a massive corporation that could push through it, and quite rightly push through it they did as Frontier should as well. Acrobat still has a lot of unresolved issues and bugs unfixed for years and the last few versions of Photoshop run like a dog on anything but the latest hardware. Honestly, by your own abitrary standards Adobe actually make Frontier look good, espcially when you think about what Frontier has done to try to make up for having to drop the console versions - think of those who quite recently bought i9 Macs and are likely going to be dropped when Adobe switch to the Mx processors fully in the near future.
I can't comment on what the issue is to refute what you are saying and to be fair you could be correct, or it could be that the issue has had to take a backseat for other priorities. I doubt that you are suggesting that it would be a trivial thing to implement/fix, or are you?
In light of Unreal 5, I think all other engines need some serious love, wouldn't you agree?
I agree that F1 isn't doing anything crazy that other games made with Cobra have done already so I would suggest the possiblity that, as someone else suggested, the terms of the license may have stipulated they make the game in Unreal is not something to be dismissed.
Last edited:
To be fair, Old Coder is part of the development team of a little known base-building game called Rust which you might have heard of, so not your average armchair dev
@old Coder, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Last edited:
You spelled skin sampling wrong.
I work in a field with senior level resources. I also work with junior resources with limited experience. It is a wide spectrum that people fall in. Statements and judgements about internal aspects of a project without any direct involvement or experience with is silly: speculation stated as facts and conclusions based on that. Otherwise maybe a violation of NDA was made and very unprofessional. When someone is shooting off statements in their designated field it makes it easy to know where they fall in the spectrum.To be fair, Old Coder is part of the development team of a little known base-building game called Rust which you might have heard of, so not your average armchair dev
Edit: spelling & emoji.
Last edited:
The thing about the big-name mainstream engines is that they're extremely good at precisely the wrong things for a game set mostly in space.
The range of object-camera distances in a normal game is probably under a kilometre most of the time, maybe the tens of kilometres that realistic atmospheric hazing will get you occasionally (and in a lot of cases that can just be implemented as a pre-rendered background for that view as you're not actually going to be able to go over there)
Elite Dangerous you can easily set up a situation where you can see objects at distances of 10m, 10km, 10 Ls and 10 AU simultaneously, and all of them are visibly moving so none of it could be pre-calculated even if the playable area was smaller than "a galaxy"
That's not difficult to handle as such - after all, at 10 AU you don't usually need to be rendering much detail on that object! - but you do have to set up some fairly low-level things (depth buffers, coordinate systems, etc.) in a way that would be actively counter-optimal for most other sorts of game. So basically every released space game either uses its own "engine" (though not necessarily named as such - if you only have one game using it, the distinction between "engine" and "game" code becomes arbitrary anyway) or makes extremly heavy customisation of a commercial one. And that's going to continue, because there aren't anywhere near enough spaceship-flying games for commercial engine makers to justify building one optimised for that.
The range of object-camera distances in a normal game is probably under a kilometre most of the time, maybe the tens of kilometres that realistic atmospheric hazing will get you occasionally (and in a lot of cases that can just be implemented as a pre-rendered background for that view as you're not actually going to be able to go over there)
Elite Dangerous you can easily set up a situation where you can see objects at distances of 10m, 10km, 10 Ls and 10 AU simultaneously, and all of them are visibly moving so none of it could be pre-calculated even if the playable area was smaller than "a galaxy"
That's not difficult to handle as such - after all, at 10 AU you don't usually need to be rendering much detail on that object! - but you do have to set up some fairly low-level things (depth buffers, coordinate systems, etc.) in a way that would be actively counter-optimal for most other sorts of game. So basically every released space game either uses its own "engine" (though not necessarily named as such - if you only have one game using it, the distinction between "engine" and "game" code becomes arbitrary anyway) or makes extremly heavy customisation of a commercial one. And that's going to continue, because there aren't anywhere near enough spaceship-flying games for commercial engine makers to justify building one optimised for that.
I feel it is yet
. Game lags with FSS when I try to scan planet which have many details, even without signals.
This would have been an amazing idea and could be done for the different ships like the sidey could be descending a ladder to the planet, others down the stairs it would have been much better than the teleport to blue ring.
- Status