Devs pls. explain..., Is graphics downgarded or NOT ?

Wow, nice find. I suspected something changed as current graphics are a bit washed out but I tought I was imagining things :)
 

Sargon

Banned
Hm. I thought that my Nvidia settings had shifted... I had to boost brightness and contrast last night.
Also had a slight framerate drop.. nothing major though.
 
The graphics have changed with each iteration. I much prefer the look of the game when in space now than the overly bright galaxy background with 'fake' Xmas-tree-decoration stars, to that which was in the betas. Conversely, I preferred the moodier, darker, 'more dependent on lighting' stations that were in the previous versions. Swings and roundabouts...
.
Washed out graphics/flat lighting on nVidia cards was a Beta 1 bug I thought crushed now? But I do admit I've had my in-game gamma a lot lower in Beta 2/Gamma/Release, than I did in Alpha/Prem. Beta.
.
And anti-aliasing has always seemed a bit borked. :)
 
Last edited:
I noticed that the drawing distance seems to be reduced. Sometimes plates pop-in in supercruise. That did not happen before.
 

Sargon

Banned
The graphics have changed with each iteration. I much prefer the look of the game when in space now than the overly bright galaxy background with 'fake' Xmas-tree-decoration stars, to that which was in the betas. Conversely, I preferred the moodier, darker, 'more dependent on lighting' stations that were in the previous versions. Swings and roundabouts...

I agree. Now as you get farther from a star the lower magnitude stars start to come out. And as you near a star only the brightest remain.. Quite realistic.
But I think what we're referring to is overall depth of color, as if they shifted the gamma settings.
 
I don't think is been downgraded, its just some docks are different than others. Also the right comparison shows none of the smoke effects.
 
I noticed that the drawing distance seems to be reduced. Sometimes plates pop-in in supercruise. That did not happen before.

Reduction in draw distance was in the patch notes. Shame really that we used to see planets far away, and now we get the awkward transition from 'star' to 'planet', but at least we can see stations at a distance now, and I don't get any stutter near planets anymore (swings and roundabouts again...)

But I think what we're referring to is overall depth of color, as if they shifted the gamma settings.

Ah. I must have been editing my previous post when you responded. Yes I agree that something does seem to be amiss with gamma and depth of colour/colour tone - but I don't think its a major issue.
.
Where graphics have CLEARLY been downgraded is in the quality of the orbit lines - they are very jagged and segmented now. Also I have a feeling that planets are now lodded more severely in terms of the number of polygons displayed until you are right on top of them. I've seen quite a few places where the 'curve of the atmosphere' is smoother than the planet surface below, causing the two to not match up.
 
Last edited:
I don't think is been downgraded, its just some docks are different than others. Also the right comparison shows none of the smoke effects.

True, but look at the cockpit details? IMHO the left one is superior to the right one...
 
I guess their picture from beta has no antialising turned on and the the other picture has the "crappy" fxaa turned on "blurring" everything. :)

I haven't seen any graphical improvements since beta in stations so yes maybe the ship interior and the textures of the station was sharper in beta. But I feel everything else has been improved, planet surface, stars, the textures an looks of the rocks at planet rings, the lighting in space, etc. But yes I would prefer the sharpnes of the cockpit texture on that picture from beta.

edit: Beside the two image have been made at different station with different ambient lighting .
 
Last edited:
The dates in the screenshots are Sep 5 & Dec 17.

So were wondering if graphics were tweaked and optimised while in beta?
 
Is this based on two jpgs from an uncited source, "made under the same circumstances" despite the resolution being different and an automatic graphical adjustment option having recently been added into the game specifically for people who're running the game at 32FPS like the guy in the screenshot is? This article is the first time I've heard a word about this, and I look over the forums regularly every few hours. It'd be nice to hear exactly which number this "number of fans" is.

Why are people even basing their opinions on some random's screenshots anyway? You should probably load up the game and check if the textures on your own cockpit are blurry. Mine aren't.
 
Last edited:
From the screenshots shown the lighting in the cockpit has changed, less highlighted bits. Possibly the underlying texture too, hard to tell as it could just be the lighting removed. If that was done for performance or to support brightness changes outside of the cockpit fair enough.
It's not as extreme or bad as the aliens colonial marines issue, which is the theme I suspect the story is trying to aim for.
 
Yes, I noticed the reduction in lighting quality when it went into beta 2. I was never really sure if it was just on my end as there was also a lighting bug at the time, and no one seemed to mention it on the forum; but planets and stations looked significantly more impressive in beta 1, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind so much if there was a corresponding boost in performance, but that was when the stuttering started hitting lots of people, including myself. Oh well. It still looks good; bit of a shame though.
 
You can see my post in the comments showing that infact some of the textures got a higher resolution texture set.

It's not a downgrade it's just been made less shiny, and other textures got replaced with better ones. That's it.
 
What ship is that interior of? I think that comparison is bad, I am having doubts the person on the right is playing at max settings cause of the 30fps label. If someone could provide a screenshot of the same ship at max settings 1080p that would be great.
 
Back
Top Bottom