Engineers Interesting good looking planets after 2.1?

[InDigital]

Does anyone seen nice looking planets with interesting relief or craters or canyons after 2.1 release?
I mean besides Deciat 6A (Farseer inc). All planets i visited now looks flat.
I can't see any sifnificant reliefs or montains. I see just some craters but they all are flat.
It bothers me...

 

[Sterlino]

Does anyone seen nice looking planets with interesting relief or craters or canyons after 2.1 release?
I mean besides Deciat 6A (Farseer inc). All planets i visited now looks flat.
I can't see any sifnificant reliefs or montains. I see just some craters but they all are flat.
It bothers me...

i will post a video tomorrow of a planet i visited recently in the pencil nebula zone.
i called it: ''the infernal planet''

you will see the reason of that name.

 

[InDigital]

i will post a video tomorrow of a planet i visited recently in the pencil nebula zone.
i called it: ''the infernal planet''

you will see the reason of that name.

Ok but i mean planets on you can land.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Any planet I deign to land my craft upon is of course.....

Nevermind I'll see my own way out ....

Check if your graphics settings changed after the last update?
Turn up the terrain slider perhaps.

 

[InDigital]

Any planet I deign to land my craft upon is of course.....

Nevermind I'll see my own way out ....

Check if your graphics seetings chamged after the last update?
Turn up the terrain slider perhaps.

All at maximum.
Can anyone post nice planet screenshots btw?
We had this topic on Landings beta. Wee need new one.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Will test this, I'' just flip it from med to ultra

maybe a little, hard to say where i am now, ice planet

 

[Nekrobob]

Try one of these.

Junga 1
Gakiutl
Atata 2b
Hip 38064 2
Mechtan 1 e a
Lamia
Maruti 1
Kisaywa b4a
Kolanji b2
Sivas ab7a
GD 279

 

[InDigital]

Try one of these.

Junga 1
Gakiutl
Atata 2b
Hip 38064 2
Mechtan 1 e a
Lamia
Maruti 1
Kisaywa b4a
Kolanji b2
Sivas ab7a
GD 279

ok i will look into it when i have time. Now i am looking just for resources. And all planets i visited are quite flat.
Before 2.1 i seen many more than now with cool strict geometry. Now everything is so rounded and flatty.

 

[GG7]

Does anyone seen nice looking planets with interesting relief or craters or canyons after 2.1 release?
I mean besides Deciat 6A (Farseer inc). All planets i visited now looks flat.
I can't see any sifnificant reliefs or montains. I see just some craters but they all are flat.
It bothers me...

I was VERY disappointed by the new textures on planets in 2.1. I'm running all ULTRA settings with everything texture related maxed and the surface textures in 2.1 look like crap compared to the detail I was getting on the same planets in 2.0.

Sandy said in a stream that the new textures were faster loading and better looking. They may be faster loading, but they look like garbage now! It seems as if I am not getting fed the ULTRA textures and instead are getting low end or medium grade, like something you would see on the Xbox One or a budget PC build running an underpowered GPU.

The planet looks pretty detailed from orbit, but as I descend to land, it gets blander and blander, to the point that all surface detail is pretty much removed when you enter the GLIDE phase of your landing approach.

This has really taken the shine off of planetary landing for me. I want my ULTRA TEXTURES BACK!

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

I was VERY disappointed by the new textures on planets in 2.1. I'm running all ULTRA settings with everything texture related maxed and the surface textures in 2.1 look like crap compared to the detail I was getting on the same planets in 2.0.

Sandy said in a stream that the new textures were faster loading and better looking. They may be faster loading, but they look like garbage now! It seems as if I am not getting fed the ULTRA textures and instead are getting low end or medium grade, like something you would see on the Xbox One or a budget PC build running an underpowered GPU.

The planet looks pretty detailed from orbit, but as I descend to land, it gets blander and blander, to the point that all surface detail is pretty much removed when you enter the GLIDE phase of your landing approach.

This has really taken the shine off of planetary landing for me. I want my ULTRA TEXTURES BACK!

Looks fine to me ....

 

[InDigital]

I was VERY disappointed by the new textures on planets in 2.1. I'm running all ULTRA settings with everything texture related maxed and the surface textures in 2.1 look like crap compared to the detail I was getting on the same planets in 2.0.

Sandy said in a stream that the new textures were faster loading and better looking. They may be faster loading, but they look like garbage now! It seems as if I am not getting fed the ULTRA textures and instead are getting low end or medium grade, like something you would see on the Xbox One or a budget PC build running an underpowered GPU.

The planet looks pretty detailed from orbit, but as I descend to land, it gets blander and blander, to the point that all surface detail is pretty much removed when you enter the GLIDE phase of your landing approach.

This has really taken the shine off of planetary landing for me. I want my ULTRA TEXTURES BACK!

Yeah i feel your pain. I want them back too! I am also dissapointed.
Not only textures. Geometry too.

 

[Devlin-Darkside]

Before 2.1 was released I manually altered my graphics settings with help from Obsidian Ants post. Now after every update I had to redo these settings because it would reset it all including my cockpit hud colors.


This time however my cockpit colors stayed on release 2.1 and I have not looked to see if the other settings have been reset.


In answer to your question everything looks stunning for me with the new graphics. Did FDev start using direct x 12? I am not sure because the graphics look so pleasing to me that I haven't even checked the settings.


Also I upgraded my monitor to an Asus ROG PG279Q 2560 x 1440 @120Hz and it looks awesome. After upgrading from an old samsung syncmaster I realized how much I have been missing out on. It is akin to buying a high end sound system and listening to it through a cheap pair of battery operated speakers.

 

[GG7]

Yeah i feel your pain. I want them back too! I am also dissapointed.
Not only textures. Geometry too.

I wasn't aware of any changes to Geometry or Physics in 2.1. What exactly are you seeing there?

P.S. I wouldn't waste your time going to all those suggested planets. All the landable planets in my home system of Altair took a significant hit in quality in 2.1. I had been down to all of them many, many times in 2.0 and knew several strikingly detailed views from specific landing spots/ areas. I go to those same places now in 2.1 and they look dull and and unremarkable. I would have never made a note of them had the 2.1 version been my first impressions.

The difference is a good 50% reduction in detail and realism or more. I don't understand what these other players are talking about when they say that 2.1 planet textures look stunning. I'm a retired graphic designer, so perhaps I have a better eye for stuff like this. (Attention to detail)

2.1 was a radical downgrade in planet texture quality using 100% ULTRA settings. I run an overclocked 980ti and an overclocked 6700k CPU. There is no reason why I should be getting anything but the highest quality textures in the game, so I must assume that what I am seeing is the best there is.

I really hope they fix this soon! But I worry that those who claim everything looks great are going to get in the way of this much needed upgrade/improvement at least back to what we had in 2.0 using ULTRA settings. I'm frankly shocked that anyone could look at what I see on planets and call it stunning. That blows my mind! It looks like complete and total garbage to me! Circa: 1995 terrain graphic quality.

 

[Devlin-Darkside]

Yeah i feel your pain. I want them back too! I am also dissapointed.
Not only textures. Geometry too.

I have noticed that the planets look oval as they get closer to the edge of my screen.

Maybe go into the file and alter things to 4k?

Maybe some of this will still be relevant

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=163517

 

[Barking_Mad]

ok i will look into it when i have time. Now i am looking just for resources. And all planets i visited are quite flat.
Before 2.1 i seen many more than now with cool strict geometry. Now everything is so rounded and flatty.

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

Generally Id agree that they've sacrificed quality for frames per second. Which for me is a shame. Id rather have 40fps at good quality than 60 at a poorer one.

Edit: I should add thats from certain altitudes, not on the ground which does look better.

 

[sensai25]

 

[MarikMonika]

Looks fine to me ....

https://osqeqg.by3301.livefilestore...vALlhpMw?width=1920&height=1080&cropmode=none

The fact is this: terrain textures closer to your SRV are awesome, a really BIG improvement over 2.0, but when you're looking at something more far away then it looks like a big pile of mud. I remember the breathtaking landscapes I've seen in 2.0...now they are all gone.

 

[PanTast]

Try Timbalderis B1


Its nice orange/ brown - black surface and the mountains will blow your mind. But don´t be too distracted, because you might miss the Polonium meteroids

 

[GG7]

There are plenty of images comparing 2.0 and 2.1 surface details that were posted during the beta. The differences in mid range textures were HUGE! Unfortunately, now that we no longer have 2.0 to compare to, all the graphics know it alls can say 2.1 is better and no one can prove how utterly ridiculous that claim actually is.

Those who go back to the beta forum and search for the threads that were posting concerns about this downgrade will see exactly what I am referring to. The texture quality should INCREASE in DETAIL as you get closer to the surface, not get softer and less defined. This is just the opposite of real life.

You can cherrypick 2.1 images and enhance them all you want, but they look like garbage compared to what we had before. But, go ahead and celebrate having your game borked if that floats your boat!

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

The fact is this: terrain textures closer to your SRV are awesome, a really BIG improvement over 2.0, but when you're looking at something more far away then it looks like a big pile of mud. I remember the breathtaking landscapes I've seen in 2.0...now they are all gone.

Only on Ice worlds for me ... Everything else looks OK at distance. Yes its not perfect, there are still times when it can look slightly odd looking, but its no worse than 2.0, its just a bit different. And this is on settings that are not even close to Ultra.

Slight issues aside, for me 2.1 planets are ten times better looking, with better framerates, so its win win. Some of the pictures in this thread prove that.

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

There are plenty of images comparing 2.0 and 2.1 surface details that were posted during the beta. The differences in mid range textures were HUGE! Unfortunately, now that we no longer have 2.0 to compare to, all the graphics know it alls can say 2.1 is better and no one can prove how utterly ridiculous that claim actually is.

Those who go back to the beta forum and search for the threads that were posting concerns about this downgrade will see exactly what I am referring to. The texture quality should INCREASE in DETAIL as you get closer to the surface, not get softer and less defined. This is just the opposite of real life.

You can cherrypick 2.1 images and enhance them all you want, but they look like garbage compared to what we had before. But, go ahead and celebrate having your game borked if that floats your boat!

Just as you can cherry pick examples from 2.0, that argument goes both ways my friend. Also whilst its true detail in real life should get better the closer you get to an object, game textures will always break down to a blurry mess if you get extremely close to them, thats just the nature of game textures. I don't disagree there are some oddities when approaching a planet at times, but it isn't worse than 2.0, not even close.

If you are talking about surface detail up close then 2.1 is miles better, if you are talking at some distance then I would still say 2.1 is better overall, different looking but better.