Why have the Black Hole effects been REMOVED? Stop trashing all the good work!

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

CMDR Rob James

C
I would love to be able to purchase a "predator" visor mod for my helmet, to see all the different wavelengths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS57VH3QN1g

Imagine looking at a neutron star close to a giant or any other kind of stellar cannibalism with a nice lensing effect. Or watching 2 neutrons spin into each other at.. uh... 35 millisecond... boom... anti-boom?
At any case what is a reasonable supercruise orbit for one of these monsters assuming we are not really moving but the space and time "bubble" is still affected by physics being divided by zero.
All I can think about was when I tried orbital re-entry with my Kerbal= http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/560975619239105677/A4FE3AACA60E07369C241E7CF0D5A837A93CF2CF/
 

edd

edd
vonDutch said:
Its really a shame this, actually quite simple, but awesome effect has been equaled with that of a neutron star. I really hope someone broke something, and it'll be fixed eventually.
Click to expand...

How different to a neutron star do you expect it to be?
 

Pyro Steel

Pyro Steel
I was really looking forward to encountering my first black hole while using my oculus rift. I hope they fix this soon, i really want to see how that lensing looks in the rift.
 

Marikc0

Marikc0
According to that video it just looked like a round nebula. It should have never looked that way. Nothing about that says black hole. We do need to be able to actually see it, but turning it practically into a nebula is not the right way.
 

ChaosCloud

ChaosCloud
Pekka said:
Well, I guess somebody thought that destroying the sounds was not enough, so they went after the black holes next.
Click to expand...
What do you expect from FD after them saying "ship turret mode is unrealistic" (aka having useful yaw and any control authority at all when moving slow or standing still instead of moving like wading through jello quicksand) while putting in the same set of "realism"
"you can't accelerate endlessly in normal flight even if you can go at 2000c in supercruise and turning the dampers (aka flight assist) off will still slow you back down to max ship speed after boosting".

FD has one messed up sense of realism so maybe for them it's realistic that sound should be broken and black holes boring.

And about turret mode: so pulling up hard in a Cobra going 380m/s is fine (during boosting you get increased control authority), and so is pulling down hard which would give you a pretty bad headache to say the least I guess, but god forbid we even get half of that force sideways for yaw... Just good we can spin like dentist drill.
 

Zieman

Zieman
@ ChaosCloud: yaw & turrets in space thing again, eh? I thought that horse had been beaten to pulp several times already... ;)
IIRC the slow yaw has nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with a) David Braben wanting the flight model feel more like original Elite than FE2/FFE and b) FDEV wanting fights to be cinematic experiences in style of Star Wars et al instead of 'turrets in space'.
 

ChaosCloud

ChaosCloud
Zieman said:
@ ChaosCloud: yaw & turrets in space thing again, eh? I thought that horse had been beaten to pulp several times already... ;)
IIRC the slow yaw has nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with a) David Braben wanting the flight model feel more like original Elite than FE2/FFE and b) FDEV wanting fights to be cinematic experiences in style of Star Wars et al instead of 'turrets in space'.
Click to expand...
Yeah I get that, but there's a different between encouraging "plane flying" in space instead of turreting and "hf turning around over the landing pad for the next minute".

Leaving aside that I know that the topic is dead anyways would I not want yaw which replaces roll pitch in combat but atleast spare me the horror of turning over the landing pad because that outpost pad is expecting me to land the other way around, instead of just letting me land and just skip the half rotation...

And in relation to landing and outposts: why is our whole cockpit window a HUD and it's fricking 3300 and yet that piece of junk is not capable of displaying me an approach vector so I know from where to approach an outposts pad to not end up having to turn over it, and also know where the hell it is as 90% of the time it's not in sight at first.

Landing pads capable of displaying holo numbers of the pad flying free in the space above it, cockpit HUD not capable of showing you the approach direction... this really makes me wanna punch someone >_<
 

Zieman

Zieman
Yeah, you have some good points there - still room for improvement in E: D. :)

And that said, back to topic - FDEV, please revert the black hole lensing effect back to 1.0 level and then preferably improve the effect!
 

Yanaran

Y
The 1.0 effect was horribly overdone. Stellar black holes are not "wild and crazy" at supercruise distances, flying near one is not much different from flying near a regular star except that the big fiery ball in space is missing.

You have to get much closer than we can get in the game before you start seeing significant distortions of the background (except for SMBHs). Most simulations like the often-linked Interstellar images are done at a distance of the order of 10-100 Rs. Stellar black holes (like the one in Nutters video above) typically have Rs ~= 30km, multiply that by 10-100 and you get 300-3000 km - that's how close you need to get to see the "crazy" distorted background covering a large part of your screen. 0.2 light seconds is almost 60.000 km for comparison...

Looking straight away from the black hole you should not notice anything at all, exactly like in the video. The way the background warped and twisted around you was one of the biggest flaws of the old look. The effects in the video looks spot on to me, perhaps still a little overdone (especially when you were cruising ~20ls away) but it's a step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:

edd

edd
vonDutch said:
The way it was before. Have you seen both versions?
Click to expand...

Well you don't seem to be complaining about the neutron star effect, so it sounds like the black hole effect was brought into line with the neutron star effect. A neutron star is very very close to being a black hole.
 

Zieman

Zieman
Yanaran said:
The 1.0 effect was horribly overdone. Stellar black holes are not "wild and crazy" at supercruise distances, flying near one is not much different from flying near a regular star except that the big fiery ball in space is missing.
Click to expand...
Really? If so, ditch the realism! The 1.0 effect was quite good IMO (it just needed to include in system objects too), this is a game and some artistic freedom is needed to make the experience great. I was really awed by the effect when I first encountered a black hole in game, and now the effect is 'nerfed' beyond all recognition, I was sorely disappointed.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

edd said:
Well you don't seem to be complaining about the neutron star effect, so it sounds like the black hole effect was brought into line with the neutron star effect. A neutron star is very very close to being a black hole.
Click to expand...
Well, there should be some difference between 1.5 solar masses neutron star and 15 or 35 solar masses black hole...
 

Yanaran

Y
Zieman said:
Really? If so, ditch the realism! The 1.0 effect was quite good IMO (it just needed to include in system objects too), this is a game and some artistic freedom is needed to make the experience great. I was really awed by the effect when I first encountered a black hole in game, and now the effect is 'nerfed' beyond all recognition, I was sorely disappointed.
Click to expand...
I think the way forward is to get accretion discs and jets into the game, then we can start talking spectacular views. There's also a lot more room for artistic freedom there since they can be tiny or huge, flat or thick, red-shifted from frame-dragging or not, as many variations as you can think of really. You can't really argue with the schwarzschild radius or light geodesics, they are what they are.
 

Nutter

Nutter
Yanaran said:
The 1.0 effect was horribly overdone. Stellar black holes are not "wild and crazy" at supercruise distances
Click to expand...

What? Super cruise distance? - I kinda stopped there, the Distance was 17ls, everything you said after that lost my attention, Sorry.
 

PotatoOverdose

PotatoOverdose
Yanaran said:
The 1.0 effect was horribly overdone. Stellar black holes are not "wild and crazy" at supercruise distances, flying near one is not much different from flying near a regular star except that the big fiery ball in space is missing.

You have to get much closer than we can get in the game before you start seeing significant distortions of the background (except for SMBHs). Most simulations like the often-linked Interstellar images are done at a distance of the order of 10-100 Rs. Stellar black holes (like the one in Nutters video above) typically have Rs ~= 30km, multiply that by 10-100 and you get 300-3000 km - that's how close you need to get to see the "crazy" distorted background covering a large part of your screen. 0.2 light seconds is almost 60.000 km for comparison...

Looking straight away from the black hole you should not notice anything at all, exactly like in the video. The way the background warped and twisted around you was one of the biggest flaws of the old look. The effects in the video looks spot on to me, perhaps still a little overdone (especially when you were cruising ~20ls away) but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, except that sounds horrendously boring. Real space exploration is weeks/months/years of traveling through empty blackness. That gives way to gameplay concerns, and so should this. There's nothing wrong with a bit of exaggeration for added effect.

And TBH, I see nothing wrong with black holes having a more pronounced effect in super cruise - It's not like we aren't breaking the laws of physics already by having a super cruise in the first place.
 

Bluebottle

B
Nutter said:
What? Super cruise distance? - I kinda stopped there, the Distance was 17ls, everything you said after that lost my attention, Sorry.
Click to expand...

Allow me to do your reading for you.

You'd need to be less than 300 km away to see amazing effects. You were over 5,000,000 km away. The new effect is more realistic.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom