Asteroids and Ring Systems. Is there any hope?

[Jex =TE=]

In contrast.. It's getting better and better for me. I'm one of those people who has a mediocre computer and I happen to enjoy RES combat. My FPS got better by the patch, which allowed me to increase the overall graphical detail. In my opinion this has more influence on my experience in-game than better looking asteroids.

They did look amazing back then though...

And that's great It still doesn't answer the question about graphic options for the rest of us. I can't run on ultra (I'm on high I think) either but I'm not going to sit here and congratulate the devs because I might get 2 more FPS when they just borked the graphics quality of the game for everyone. I'd like to be able to decide if I want to play the game at 15 fps, 30 fps or 60 fps, depending on what options I choose and then there are still those quoted words "visual consistency across platforms"

Just what was the deal with M$ when they included the xbox in the dev process?

 

[Space Pigeon]

"The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"

Good one dude i like that, but what if Mid to high end PC,s are the many.

Not sure if that will ever be the case. I'm not basing this on any facts, but I do think that most casual gamers won't be upgrading their machines each year to keep up with developments.

The thing that got me playing Elite were the system requirements. If I'd have chosen to get Star Citizen instead, I'd probably have to spend several hundreds of $$$ to upgrade my computer. (Oh and I'd have to wait 1000 years for actual content )

And that's great It still doesn't answer the question about graphic options for the rest of us. I can't run on ultra (I'm on high I think) either but I'm not going to sit here and congratulate the devs because I might get 2 more FPS when they just borked the graphics quality of the game for everyone. I'd like to be able to decide if I want to play the game at 15 fps, 30 fps or 60 fps, depending on what options I choose and then there are still those quoted words "visual consistency across platforms"

Just what was the deal with M$ when they included the xbox in the dev process?

I'm running at medium graphics, but got an increase of 15-20 FPS overall. Which is great.

You do make good points, have to give you that.

 

[Kerrash]

...I don't know where you got yours from and they keep breaking it and making it worse every patch. How about the game I paid for, why is that now different to the game I bought?...

Day 1 KickStarter backer. Not that the time or the quantity of money spent has anything to do with anyone's degree of entitlement over the product.
Personally I see a game with limitless potential that is continuing to grow, not sure why your interpretation of what the game should be is any more relevant than anyone else's?

 

[Cargobane]

btw, I've run since gamma, 270x then 290x. I've never had crash or graphics problem.

 

[ZeeWolf]

And that's great It still doesn't answer the question about graphic options for the rest of us. I can't run on ultra (I'm on high I think) either but I'm not going to sit here and congratulate the devs because I might get 2 more FPS when they just borked the graphics quality of the game for everyone. I'd like to be able to decide if I want to play the game at 15 fps, 30 fps or 60 fps, depending on what options I choose and then there are still those quoted words "visual consistency across platforms"

Just what was the deal with M$ when they included the xbox in the dev process?

What does stability have to do with FPS?

We've been over these theories about Microsoft providing some kind of "deal" but it doesn't make sense because a) The minimum spec requirements for Elite are way lower than the XBox and b) ED is an obscure title on their preview program. I seriously doubt it pops up on their radar much. I can't see how they would be getting any return on any deal that saw them compromising Frontier's use of PC hardware and ensuring an entire development teams silence for each of their individual careers.

Gamers have misunderstood the graphical parity situation and how it has related to other titles that have targeted consoles as the primary platform or gone to third party developers when porting. I'd like to see some links with interviews from developers that say yes there are deals in place with the likes of Microsoft. Surely someone would have left a developer now and leaked this information? I've not even seen it mentioned in the most scathing of glass door reviews.

I've still not heard a really good argument to really support this idea that the console version has anything to do with it other than it's a convenient scapegoat for those who don't want to take a moment to understand the less headline grabbing realities.

 

[Shar]

Day 1 KickStarter backer. Not that the time or the quantity of money spent has anything to do with anyone's degree of entitlement over the product.
Personally I see a game with limitless potential that is continuing to grow, not sure why your interpretation of what the game should be is any more relevant than anyone else's?

My concern would be just how much the game can grow if its got to cater to the lowest possible common denominator, I hope FD will find the balance for us all. I also note that the Min requirements of the game automatically rule out the older systems anyway.

 

[Peaches]

At the risk of sounding elitist (heh), I really think catering to the lowest common denominator is what hinders the game the most. Everybody is doing RES because it's easy money, even though the mechanic is super gamey. Bounty hunting? More like shark feeding, and you're the shark. Why in the world would a bunch of pirates fly in a place that has so much authorities? Dynamic economy? Traders would lose their heads if they had to find a new trades route every other day. Balancing pulse lasers and multis by making other weapons more useful? PVPers will cry out in dismay.

 

[Kerrash]

My concern would be just how much the game can grow if its got to cater to the lowest possible common denominator, I hope FD will find the balance for us all. I also note that the Min requirements of the game automatically rule out the older systems anyway.

Couldn't agree more, as is often the case, the capability of the team is ultimately constrained by the hardware of the current day.

We've already seen that Horizons couldn't have things such as caves and overhangs because it would require too much horse power; even though the engine could do it. see:

Spoiler

[video=youtube;yyK0aIuflZ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyK0aIuflZ0[/video]

Games development has always been a balancing act between what you want to do and what the hardware can deliver.

 

[FearTheKhaliban]

And guess what - it's costing Frontier a lot of money.

Huge sales across all platforms beg to differ.

 

[Ozric]

Just what was the deal with M$ when they included the xbox in the dev process?

Really? Where's your proof that a deal was struck?

 

[Shar]

Huge sales across all platforms beg to differ.

Undeniably true, frontier have the momentum on there side.

 

[FearTheKhaliban]

My concern would be just how much the game can grow if its got to cater to the lowest possible common denominator, I hope FD will find the balance for us all. I also note that the Min requirements of the game automatically rule out the older systems anyway.

I'd say that they are already showing that they won't hinder the game to keep older, lower-power platforms involved. The Mac platforms won't be getting Horizons at all, and and the Xbox One won't be getting it for some time.

Why? Because they are giving the bulk of players (low/mid-range gaming PCs) the content as the main audience. XB1 will get it once they've worked out the difficulties of that platform - if there was some super secret deal, then it would have been either held back on PC, or lowered in scope until it could be launched on both.

The fact that Macs won't get it at all shows that FD are willing to cut off potential markets if they can't run the game, rather than lower the quality of experience for all.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

My take on this is that Frontier have basically just admitted that they had design flaws/problems with the initial shadow and fog code. This is mirrored by what Ben Parry said quite a few months ago on these forums, that the fog was removed because it was to much of a resource hog. At the time, I assumed that meant Frontier wanted the fog to run on low spec PC's. But now, reading between the lines - my understanding is that the effects themselves are not the problem, but rather the underlying code / implementation is the problem.

This would give a single logical explanation to three issues:

1) Why don't we have graphical options to enable the old shadows / fog?
2) Was the PC version downgraded because of the XBox?
3) Couldn't high end PC's still run the better version of the graphics?

The single answer to this, which actually answers all three questions is; No, because the original code was "broken"!

The review process is looking at ways of bringing those things back with working code.

Just my opinion of course, but in corporate-speak that is what Frontier essentially have just told us (and I can kinda understand why Frontier haven't outright admitted that in direct-speak). I am actually very ok with that...

 

[Zac Antonaci]

Thanks Zac for the reply. Honestly.

Don't take this he wrong way it's not your issue but this replying to this VERY narrow issue is a bit Smoke and Mirrors really. How about a real deep dive at some point soon where the dev's can perhaps lay out where they intend to add value and development to the sorely bare boned season one mechanics. I'm talking exploration, mining, trade, piracy etc the list is not exhaustive.

Hey Jezzah,

No worries at all.

I understand your point about the depth question, and as we all know this is a question that comes up often with many comments on both sides of the discussion. I certainly don't feel this reply is smoke and mirrors. It's simply taking the time to address one specific issue.

In terms of depth, it's something that the developers are always working on. There are some really amazing features being added in Season 2 like multicrew, ship launched fighters, loot and crafting and many other unnanoucned tweaks, fixes and changes which will continue to expand your gameplay. One thing we do know is that there are a lot of Commanders who have spent a huge amount of time enjoying elite and I'm excited to see how these new additions will add to that mix.

 

[Bane Six Echo]

I couldn't agree with Akofine more: graphics options are there for a reason.

If something is causing the game to be unstable I can understand removing that something if it can't be made to behave. If it costs frames per second to use, well, I'd consider that to be our call to make. Those that can't play with it will turn it down/off, and those that can should have the option to do so and see the game at the highest graphical fidelity possible. This is not a new issue for PC gaming or PC gamers. Tweaking graphics settings to match our hardware is part of the deal when we sign up to be PC gamers. It just comes with the territory.

Making "optimizations" that have an effect on your entire playerbase, some positive and some negative, instead of adding graphics options that can be tweaked to suit everyone seems like the wrong move to make to me.

 

[Oheck]

Why don't FD get the game to 'Auto-Detect' a rigs capabilities and simply 'Red Out' graphics options that wouldn't work on that machine. Or disable options that would slow down performance on lower end rigs altogether?

Nah, leave the options open. One thing I've noticed about auto detect setups is they are not that dependable. If anything, they should put in a benchmarking option based off of your current settings, which would allow you to adjust yourself to get the FPS you are comfortable with.

 

[Ozric]

So many people assuming the omissions and optimisations are purely graphical and resource related.
It's funny how vehemently people will argue a point without actually knowing if it's true or not.

Just my opinion of course, but in corporate-speak that is what Frontier essentially have just told us (and I can kinda understand why Frontier haven't outright admitted that in direct-speak). I am actually very ok with that...

Not just your opinion, I have said similar things on other topics before. It's all well and good for people demanding that Frontier should be completely open with us (and I still maintain they are far more open than most companies) but the simple fact is the bottom half of the internet would tear them apart if they did.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Day 1 KickStarter backer. Not that the time or the quantity of money spent has anything to do with anyone's degree of entitlement over the product.
Personally I see a game with limitless potential that is continuing to grow, not sure why your interpretation of what the game should be is any more relevant than anyone else's?

My point being that when you buy a product, from that point on it's yours in the condition you bought it in including any updates for the game. If your game is then being changed from what you have purchased, to becoming a lesser product to what you bought originally then in any other avenue of sales you would be in your right to ask for compensation.

It's odd that you don't feel like you own the copy of the game you paid for.

 

[vermu]

The single answer to this, which actually answers all three questions is; No, because the original code was "broken"!

The review process is looking at ways of bringing those things back with working code.

Seems that this could be the issue. It's easier to wait cause now we know there will be working code at some point. And of course developers want to build always on working code.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Really? Where's your proof that a deal was struck?

They had to make a deal with M$ to get their game on their platform, afaik?