You realize it is the first game we can land on full sized planets in real time, right?
Of course they could make some tiny potato with highly detailed graphics, and a nice cut-scene sequence for landing on it. Duh.
Last edited:
FD please do not downgrade Horizons graphics
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
You realize it is the first game we can land on full sized planets in real time, right?
Of course they could make some tiny potato with highly detailed graphics, and a nice cut-scene sequence for landing on it. Duh.
I have not loaded up horizons yet and hope they will go for the highest possible fedelity they can. But I sure am tired of humans in general deciding that the lower common denominator is something to shoot for. I doubt that, other than the moderators, they (whom ever they are) read any of the posts here.
Yeah, I do, that alone is an achievement. However, graphics isn't impressive at the moment and leaves little space for downgrades; that's all I am saying. I am not bashing the game.
Last edited:
Have you seen the view distance in this game? It's just mind boggling. Of course that requires allot of computing power. I'm stunned it is even possible.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
i strill have not gotten around to installing horizons yet, however i wonder if FD cant offload a lot of the calculations to the CPU for those of us with the grunt to do it, and then leave the gpus with more bandwidth for the pretty stuff?
FWIW from what i have seen I think it looks great - all bar the man made stuff having a little too much reuse and too little diversity, but this can come in time.
but i have a 12 core pc (6 real, 6 due to hyperthreading) soon to be running at 4.3ghz.
unless something has massively changed, ED barely even worked my sandy i5 2500k. I would love ED to really test the mettle of my CPU and try to see if my aio cooler is really capable of keeping my cpu cool
of course the option for those with only 4 cores and no hyperthreading should keep the option to have more going to the gpu
FWIW from what i have seen I think it looks great - all bar the man made stuff having a little too much reuse and too little diversity, but this can come in time.
but i have a 12 core pc (6 real, 6 due to hyperthreading) soon to be running at 4.3ghz.
unless something has massively changed, ED barely even worked my sandy i5 2500k. I would love ED to really test the mettle of my CPU and try to see if my aio cooler is really capable of keeping my cpu cool
of course the option for those with only 4 cores and no hyperthreading should keep the option to have more going to the gpu
Last edited:
I have quite an old PC with a recent graphics card, and run the game in HD with the Ultra settings. It doesn't struggle at the moment, but I anticipate needing a new PC (CPU/Mobo/RAM) by the end of next year.
I am looking forward to this, I definitely don't want less pretty stuff
Optimisation is great, but please don't take away the option to use high quality graphics where the work to create them has already been done.
I am looking forward to this, I definitely don't want less pretty stuff
Optimisation is great, but please don't take away the option to use high quality graphics where the work to create them has already been done.
Last edited:
Space engine just has to calculate and render celestial objects.
It has to move a camera to where you want to go.
It has some kind of a ship movement but it's more like a ship skin is pasted on your viewport.
It does this using your computer's available resources.
Elite has the same exact resources to work on. It doesn't magically buy new hardware for you.
On this same hardware, it has to do the procedural generation constantly because everything you see is generated as you see it and only while you see it.
It has to spawn NPCs, run their AI, know and update their positions, what ever they do, all the while they are alive in your instance.
It has to run your ship, according to your input using the flight model. It needs to detect collision between moving objects constantly. Their movements must be realistic after they hit some other moving thing.
It has to keep tabs on other statistics like your velocity, power consumption.
It has to constantly communicate to the server about what you are doing.
It has to do a million other things I can't think of right now.
All in the same hardware which is your computer.
Space Engine has some better visuals, OK.
Last edited:
Spawning NPCs, running AI, know and update positions, running a flight model, keeping tabs on statistics and communicating to the server are fairly low on CPU resource, given the power of modern computers. I have a high-end i7 CPU with four cores (8 with hyperthreading) and total usage never goes above 30% while playing ED.
What does soak up computer resources are procedural generation and especially rendering in real time.
Mines not struggling with my GTX 960, im only running at 1920x1080p though (hence choosing that card) I did have to knock a couple of settings from ultra to high but its not noticeable and pushed the frame rate back up. My PC is pretty old now, running an old Phenom 2 with 16gb DDR 3 RAM although Mb and CPU are next on the list of upgrades and the RAM isnat that fast.
Not much point putting up video as the cap software slows my frame rate but its sticking around 50-60fps normally and looks like this.
Not much point putting up video as the cap software slows my frame rate but its sticking around 50-60fps normally and looks like this.
Last edited:
Make it 'soak up GPU time' and you are correct.
I was pointing out the basic differences between Space Engine and ED in terms of what code is there.
FD has to optimize the PG and everything else at the same time so they'll be in sync and playable. This means the priority can't be just on the visuals as it very well can be for Space Engine.
This is what I was trying to say but apparently I couldn't.
Moreover, I don't know if they do but with Space Engine you can push some of the PG work onto the CPU since it's not doing much while use the GPU for texture and lighting fidelity.
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, you stuck that GTX 960 in a PCI-E 3.0 slot or lower?
indeed... even if the gpu is 100 times faster than the cpu for a certain task, in an ideal world it would still be nice if FD could multithread the code to make the CPU cycles do what they can....
i know i am no coder, and this is not trivial - maybe not even possible!, but it is frustrating when playing any game and you see your performance struggle and your cpu is sitting there largely unused.
some have said elsewhere that the lighting seems to take a heavy toll........ iirc the nvidia GTX7000 series of cards (which the ps3 had) was unable to do HDR and AA at the same time. the radeon in the XB360 could, which is why at 1st some games on XB had HDR and AA where as on PS3 one or the other (usually AA) had to be dropped.
in time devs figured out how to get the monster (at the time) cpu in the ps3 to take some of the load.
it would be cool if in time elite had the option to balance similarly.
i assume SLI/CF is scaling really well right now if it is largely limited by everything being done by the GPU?
Last edited:
Space Engine is still buggy as hell, could never get the damn thing running smoothly and is prone to CTD at any random moment, even after every possible cfg tweak.
I have the old USB 2 version of the Asus M4A77T MB, it doesn't support PCI-E 3.
http://www.game-debate.com/motherboard/index.php?mot_id=61&motherboard=Asus M4A77T
Hope that's helpful
Should add cpu has a slight oc and the gpu is a G1 gaming card so also runs faster than a stock one, but not by that much, nothing particularly fast in there, even the SSD runs slower than it should on the old SATA interface.
Last edited:
Space Engine works fine for me, and main point that it shows well that planetary procedural generation could be done *much* better. Esp. when you consider that SE was made by just *one* guy - TBH I was pretty disappointed that in all time FD took with their whole team for year+ they still below in visual fidelity (unless there will be a massive quality increase from beta to final). Some rocky planets looked all right, but I've saw some ice world missions being done, and it did look pretty terrible (reminding me of FFE at some points).
Last edited:
You really don't want to see the difference between generating planets to land on, take off and fly around in real time, feeling realistic with generating planets to look at.
Procedural Generation can indeed be done better to generate things to look at while moving them around arbitrarily without any sense of physical reality. We actually don't know if it can be done better in a video game, in a real time physical setting where you don't only get to look at the generated stuff but also get to interact with them, since no one had done it before in 1:1 scale.
Comparing ED to other software that uses procedural generation is like comparing a steak to a hamburger because they are both meat, cooked on a grill and can be ordered at restaurants.
I've been trawling Youtube for 10mins now and i'm still to find any Space Engine videos showing anything better than Elite, even in it's current incarnation. Mountains being calculated slowly and popping up all over the place and sketchy surface details? Maybe i'm missing something here?!
I found a way of lowering the graphics beyond low. It improved the FPS no end. Graphics quality of course left something to be desired...
