Listen to this quote, followed by this, and you got the intro to Wig Commander the Movie.
Sadly, the only really good scene in the whole thing...
E: D being super ambitious
- Thread starter Alex614
- Start date
Listen to this quote, followed by this, and you got the intro to Wig Commander the Movie.
Sadly, the only really good scene in the whole thing...
Does anyone else think that Frontier are being overly ambitious with E: D. This is a dream game for me and a lot of the players. I'm sure the devs are in love with this project too. However, does anyone think that Frontier's ambition is far fetched, or that it might drive people away from the project? It seems a bit of a stupid question, I know. However, 400 billion stars, planetary landing, EVA and all this other stuff is a lot. I mean, I know this game is kind of "In the long run" but, can it be done? What's everyone think?
I think the love for the project shines through everything. I think it's difficult, but I also believe that the absolutely hardest questions are being answered NOW and we're in the home stretch.
Ambitious yes, overly ambitious no.
as other said, thata game im very looking forward.
im not the type who plays multiples games and stuffs, but elite has caught my attention . Also David Braben seems such a nice guy, i mean a very charismatic , nice guy...
i passed like more than a month reading throught the forums only but never joining, in fear like to spoil all fun . but one day i cracked , and wanted to join this community that we all waiting and sharing about this experience .
long live ED, and its surely one of those time i will remember with joy in the future, with my ED mug i got from Psykokow's free contest lol
im not the type who plays multiples games and stuffs, but elite has caught my attention . Also David Braben seems such a nice guy, i mean a very charismatic , nice guy...
i passed like more than a month reading throught the forums only but never joining, in fear like to spoil all fun . but one day i cracked , and wanted to join this community that we all waiting and sharing about this experience .
long live ED, and its surely one of those time i will remember with joy in the future, with my ED mug i got from Psykokow's free contest
lolNailed it, especially with your last sentence. Very perceptive for a young'un
Someone else mentioned how the system requirements to play seem fairly low (by gaming standards) and commented that FD must have some 'magic' coders. Actually, they've just got (and are owned and run by) OLD coders, who remember when hardware was an absolute constraint and you bloody well learned how to write tight, compact efficient code to fit in it. Not "hack it together and hope Nvidia launch a bigger card that can handle it"
(This is the thing)!....I'm a Sci Fi freak from way back. Read all the classic authors; Heinlein, Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, Theodore Sturgeon, F 'Doc' Smith, Ballard, etc. etc. throughout my youth...
When 'Elite' showed up in the 80's; I was in space, where I always wanted to be. And the following Braben/Ian Bell games cemented me to it. How wonderful to finally get out in the Galaxy again!
That'll be "EE Doc Smith", one of my favourites, although the writing now seems terribly cheesy.
Random and off topic but interesting (to geeks) facts: the combat information centre on US warships built around WW11 was based on 'The Tank' from his novel Directrix.
Similarly, during the development of the Eurofighter, one of the proposed pilot situational awareness displays was what was called the "Elliptical Format" - it was a direct copy of the Elite scanner, golf-club symbology and all. (Source - I worked on it) It didn't end up in the final aircraft, though, turns out it's a lot harder to make it work with real world, real-time information.....
Forgive me if this game seems almost too good to be true. I am an absolute sci fi FANATIC!
I run Frontier: First Encounters on my Win7 laptop as it is too feeble for Elite Dangerous.
I've not checked it, but this should be everything you need: http://spacesimcentral.com/ssc/files/file/825-ffed3d-complete7z/
I think yes, this game is really Ambitious. Fortunatelly, Mr. Braben and his team have a clear vision of how this game must be done too.
Does anyone else think that Frontier are being overly ambitious with E: D. This is a dream game for me and a lot of the players. I'm sure the devs are in love with this project too. However, does anyone think that Frontier's ambition is far fetched, or that it might drive people away from the project? It seems a bit of a stupid question, I know. However, 400 billion stars, planetary landing, EVA and all this other stuff is a lot. I mean, I know this game is kind of "In the long run" but, can it be done? What's everyone think?
More worried about system choices and core design than actual gameplay at this point...
p2p looking at you
I absolutely think that large chunks of it can (and will) be done.
E: D is an ambitious project no doubt but I feel, in terms of "modular design", that the core dynamics being tested now looks to be completely the right place to start. Watching progress leads me to believe that future expansions will have equal attention to "important" detail. (Some "detail" is much less important, but must hang on a strong skeleton, being implemented now .. if you see what I mean.)
In terms of expression, "overly ambitious". Valid question, but I personally see evidence of a workman-like design approach. So much so that I even feel OK in reaching for a quote here (not usually a good idea but here goes);
“Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.” ~ Norman Vincent Peale
E: D is an ambitious project no doubt but I feel, in terms of "modular design", that the core dynamics being tested now looks to be completely the right place to start. Watching progress leads me to believe that future expansions will have equal attention to "important" detail. (Some "detail" is much less important, but must hang on a strong skeleton, being implemented now .. if you see what I mean.)
In terms of expression, "overly ambitious". Valid question, but I personally see evidence of a workman-like design approach. So much so that I even feel OK in reaching for a quote here (not usually a good idea but here goes);
“Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.” ~ Norman Vincent Peale
There you go, Elite's ambition inspiring real-world ambition.
So what else did the proposed EF scanner have that E
can crib back? A v-bar? Threat vectors? Contact heading on blips?
You are dismissing the amount of time it would take to travel to these systems.
Does anyone else think that Frontier are being overly ambitious with E: D. This is a dream game for me and a lot of the players. I'm sure the devs are in love with this project too. However, does anyone think that Frontier's ambition is far fetched, or that it might drive people away from the project? It seems a bit of a stupid question, I know. However, 400 billion stars, planetary landing, EVA and all this other stuff is a lot. I mean, I know this game is kind of "In the long run" but, can it be done? What's everyone think?
After playing this game since the first second of P-beta i kinda get the feeling your conclusion might not be that far from reality. The bugs are numerous (perfectly normal for a first pass beta) and they will be fixed no doubt. But a 5 star system and a end goal before end of 2014 is 300 billion star systems is not going to happen, unless they are going to copy paste ALLOT of star systems, and **** loads will look the same. If the release date is set in stone, then those corners will be cut.
The 400 billion star systems are already out there. We're just confined to five for testing purposes.
Also procedural generation.
Does not make a difference, it only means that besides the star, nothing is there and it's just an empty shell. That is why we are bound to those 5 star systems and everything else besides that has to be filled in. The conclusion stays the same.
Errrr..incorrect assumption that going going 5 star to 70 billion visitable systems is a major leap. They did limit to 5 stars on purpose to test their p2p network code for congestion bugs/desyncs.
As for 70 billion stars systems being samey, well you can expect some repetitiveness as in real world, but trust me there're are enough permutations of the params that make up a planet/system that you'll have enough variety.
Consider these (partial) list of params for a planet:
1. Mass
2. Radius
3. Rings (on/off, density, number of rings)
4. Moons (number, radius, size)
5. Atmosphere (density/layers, speed, cloud formation)
6. Surface types (frozen, gas, liquid, earth like,...)
Add some randomisation to the list and you'll realise that the number of possible permutations is mind boggling -- you brain will detect similarity but not sameness. In a sense, that earth-like planet will look similar to Earth but will not be The Earth.
Procedural generation is indeed the key. While we (as a species) know a bit about many (most?) of the stars in the Milky Way - size, colour etc - we know very little about existing exoplanets. We do however have theories what sort of planets are likely to occur around each type of star.
So, if we use available data about stars and other large phenomena, fit a framework of rules and probabilities for generating planets around that based on star type, distance from star, size, composition, atmosphere, satellites etc then I don't see why a procedurally generated galaxy of 400 billion stars is an obstacle.
Naturally in order to preserve the storyline and continuity a bit of tinkering with major population centres, famous places etc will be needed.
So, if we use available data about stars and other large phenomena, fit a framework of rules and probabilities for generating planets around that based on star type, distance from star, size, composition, atmosphere, satellites etc then I don't see why a procedurally generated galaxy of 400 billion stars is an obstacle.
Naturally in order to preserve the storyline and continuity a bit of tinkering with major population centres, famous places etc will be needed.
I think you should go and do a bit of research on the original Elite and its sequels and get an understanding of procedural generation and how big those games were. Your post tells me you are possibly new to the Elite universe - I assumed everyone who played the original elite had a small understanding of how the game was designed? Every single article you could possibly come across on the internet relating to either the originals or Elite Dangerous will mention procedural generation in some shape or form.
They probably have early versions of algorithms already in testing - it would take a press of a button to go from 5 star systems to 400 million. Its 5 systems at the moment to restrict server overhead and network traffic and allow them time to slowy scale the game up.
Last edited: