We don't know if these things are coming down the line .. a lot of the ideas were not promised at launch .. or ever given a time scale. If by the end of it's run ED hasn't provided these things then maybe we can start to complain.
"Beyond" free for Horizon owners - LEP musings
- Thread starter Astral Crawler
- Start date
- Status
We don't know if these things are coming down the line .. a lot of the ideas were not promised at launch .. or ever given a time scale. If by the end of it's run ED hasn't provided these things then maybe we can start to complain.
No, Metal is an Apple Proprietary API in a similar fashion to Direct X being a Microsoft proprietary API.
OpenGL and Vulkan are intended to be platform independent approaches.
According to Wikipedia:-
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
True we don't know ... But the worry is these things have gone from ARE coming to would be cool IF.
If FD could come out on the record and say NPC wing and crew mates ARE coming but have proven more difficult than expected hence the delay and not coming with the MP counter parts I would be *somewhat* happier. (Same with the other stuff like legs, Eva, atmos landings.
Truth is I am not fussed about those yet I always expected those to be years away
But everything I have seen from FD recently is that now all they are really fussed about is MP stuff, and the "guild megaship " seems to be another one where NPC features have been dumped and is just MP only,
Last edited:
No. Vulkan could have been on MacOS but Apple blocked it in favour of their own system which wasn't that good.
I kind of agree - I think it is meant as a concession to (attempt to) appease/silence the fleet personal home-base crowd. I do hope this is not a trend towards MP focused gameplay with the risk of alienating those that either do not wish to (or are unable to for one reason or another) engage in MP-centric gameplay on a regular basis.
FD need to keep a balance of gameplay options and not err too far towards MP-centric features (whether PvP or PvE).
I always thought the language in the DDF was "This is what we would like to do".
I am not just talking about DDF. I watched every Dev diary, every live stream , every interview (as am sure you did as you seem at least as obsessed as I)
Not once were the features listed portrayed back then as "this would be nice IF we get to it)
But I am like a broken record some am done on this (for now
For clarities sake, other than off-line Solo mode - what is it you think FD are not going to deliver on?I am not just talking about DDF. I watched every Dev diary, every live stream , every interview (as am sure you did as you seem at least as obsessed as I)
Not once were the features listed portrayed back then as "this would be nice IF we get to it)
But I am like a broken record some am done on this (for now
AFAIK FD have not yet declared an official end date for ED's evolution thus that only leaves the question of when things are likely to be implemented/delivered.
I'm pretty sure you know I am on your side when it comes to too much multiplayer stuff .. I've been calling for less of the "Bringing players together" nonsense since 'Community Goals' were released.
I didn't like the "Cool If" comment as much as the last guy, But I am not going to lose (Not Loose!) faith in FD over a remark that Sandro made in a stream and I am happy to wait to see what is Beyond (see what I did there) the QoL updates.
Well the thread seems to have returned to it's original 'reassurance' topic
More info on future plans please, start off big picture & vague, let us know what is being worked on (and maybe what isn't in some cases), regularly keep your customers updated with info on what they have bought.
In an information vacuum, speculation runs wild.
I see this as a bit of a misconception because with or without a kickstarter, either way a studio is still using someone else's money to make a game based on that financier's outline. The difference is that professional backers (such as game publishers) have already gone through the pain of learning that the outcome must differ from the original concept to become a viable game, whereas few consumers have been in a position to see the full extent of this. The studio doesn't take the money and run off in a new direction, changes in direction are necessitated by a thousand unavoidable issues accumulating every step of the way and cascading in unpredictable directions.
You write as if the studio had the option of keeping the game the same as the original concept. I'm saying generally that isn't even an option in AAA - the options are more like either "game evolves away from concept as unknowns become knowns" or "failed project". You might also underestimate how often devs really really wanted the same things you wanted, and had to make difficult decisions that upset not just you, but themselves as well.
I'm not suggesting your complaint lacks merit - I grant you that FDev arguably failed to appreciate this gap in experience (between professional backers and consumers) and arguably they could/should have done more to prepare people for the ugly realities of game production. You initially ascribed the disconnect to unpleasant motives, prompting my reply because I think both you and FDev acted in good faith. Backers and devs having different ideas of what the concept allows is exactly the kind of perceptual difference I would have failed to fully appreciate while operating entirely in good faith.
(I think that FDev believes in good faith that they have done things as they said they would do them, and regret misunderstandings. I know I'm inclined to think they have done as they said they would, by their understanding of what they were saying. At the same time I think your position (upset/disappointed) is similarly intuitive and understandable. Hence, I think all sides of this disagreement can have arrived at their respective disagreements without the need for casting dark motives on any of the other parties, ie I think everyone was operating in good faith. It was your first comment suggesting darker motives that prompted my original reply, not your views on the whether the game does or does not live up to kickstarter expectations)
Last edited:
perpetual fuzzy 10 year plan
On the bright side, even though official shareholder documents don't indicate any development planned past 2022, that mythical "ten year plan" keeps popping up. David Braben's Q&A in the July 17, 2017 issue of Rolling Stone:
Do you think you'll ever be done with Elite: Dangerous? If so, what's next?
I hope not. It's down to fans engaging with it, to be honest. But I would very much like to see it still going in 10-plus years.
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...-talks-sci-fi-politics-and-whats-next-w492781
Me, too, David.
Engaged players raised honest questions about how delays would affect LEP holders. We received some official reassurance. I'm happy with that.
But I'll still be keeping an eye on those shareholder reports. Seeing the official plan move beyond 2022 would certainly be cause for celebration.
On the bright side, even though official shareholder documents don't indicate any development planned past 2022, that mythical "ten year plan" keeps popping up. David Braben's Q&A in the July 17, 2017 issue of Rolling Stone:
Do you think you'll ever be done with Elite: Dangerous? If so, what's next?
I hope not. It's down to fans engaging with it, to be honest. But I would very much like to see it still going in 10-plus years.
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...-talks-sci-fi-politics-and-whats-next-w492781
Me, too, David.
Engaged players raised honest questions about how delays would affect LEP holders. We received some official reassurance. I'm happy with that.
But I'll still be keeping an eye on those shareholder reports. Seeing the official plan move beyond 2022 would certainly be cause for celebration.
Hi
I am worried that now ED seems to put far more stock in direct multiplayer features, that we may never get the proper fleshed out npcs for crew or wingmates like in the ddf
i am worried that the "squadrons" is yet another multiplayer only feature without npc equivalents.
i am worried that we will never have a rewarding economy, or that the game will ever be able to simulate a "living" universe
i am worried that even after 3 years out in the wild we still have next to no persistance.... that even IF i find the megaload of a wrecked anaconda loaded with platinum, it will simply "poof" into the ether as soon as I leave... what happened to those very short lived gold rushes where we could find such a "treat" and then have a race against time to attempted to empty it out and get away without being found by others.
instead we get farming areas which last for months which are obviously due to broken parts of the BGS and are exploited, and thus. there is no need for short lived gold rushes so long as quince and the like can exist for months on end.
my biggest fear is FD are not really interested in adding this stuff now, and that their aims have changed and now they just want to make a standard fantasy mmo type game - something DB specifically said ED was not going to be.
space legs and landing on ELWs...... would i like them one day? of course but to me it seems people are asking for a 4 wheel drive car to be delivered to their door, when they are currently using a horse and cart and the petrol engine has not even been developed yet (which i know was meant to be what "Beyond" is about..... but in which case, why the Squadrons? is that not a new feature out of the blue as opposed to fleshing out the existing features?
i said i was bowing out but as you kindly read my post and asked, it seemed rude to not reply
(I say all that and sound like i dislike what we have... honestly i dont... but I am not even sure FD are attempting to make the game i *thought* i was backing and that they want to make something very different..
(and the mining and exploration pass sounds v interesting, and the new planets look lush!)
Last edited:
Try this series of videos for what was left out....
[video=youtube;gcBawB7Mh5k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcBawB7Mh5k[/video]
No but at the same time you only need to look at what other smaller devs are cranking out which is why questions are asked about the slow development. BTW "more devs working than ever before" is meaningless if "before" they had ONE dev working on the game.
"More devs than ever before" is non-committal and non-committal in my experience = nonsense.
Well, tens of games using OpenGL 4.3 on Linux proves otherwise and first Metal was incapable to do compute shaders. Metal 2 can so there's hope. Still not seeing how it's FD fault - they owe me Linux version though
Since when did Apple make Linux? Isn't the criticism that open GL doesn't work on Mac OS so how does it "prove otherwise" that on a different OS open GL works?
FWIW I think comparisons that make Elite development seem slow are understandable but are very apples to oranges. In terms of how quickly they are developing new technology and assets to the level required for this game, they have not been going slowly. In terms of how fast apples can move compared to oranges, well, yeah
Elite isn't very much like a regular 3D game where teams can lean on off-the-shelf technology and benefit from experience of known options and known pitfalls, Elite is far deeper in uncharted waters of technology and design that outright doesn't exist until FDev starts developing it and testing the waters. As well as being a much more difficult game to build than most, there's also a ton of extra overhead from it being so ambitious (like how everything has work as good or better in VR as well as on screens) that very few games even attempt. Elite is a monster project, which brings enough unwieldiness to need a bigger team for little apparent gain. These things don't scale linearly.
Last edited:
FWIW I think comparisons that make Elite development seem slow are apples to oranges. In terms of how quickly they are developing new technology and assets to the level required for this game, they have not been going slowly. In terms of how fast apples can move compared to oranges, well, ok
Exactly true. Unless you can find another space game with a similar set of features from which to draw a comparison, anything else is pretty pointless.
That's not what he said. MacOS and Unix are relatives.
FWIW I think comparisons that make Elite development seem slow are apples to oranges. In terms of how quickly they are developing new technology and assets to the level required for this game, they have not been going slowly. In terms of how fast apples can move compared to oranges, well, ok
Just this.
Also, I suspect the underlying code for E: D is... shall we say... sub-optimal in many places. Purely by virtue of multiple devs making sticky-plaster changes, and others tacking on features, all stressed by deadlines. That's why there are several subtle bugs in the game, and development is harder.
Consequently, I think a huge reason and motivation for Beyond is to refactor and rewrite a lot of that code to remove bugs & make it easier for them to work with going forward. No dev likes writing bad code, but it happens sometimes in a crunch just to get something out the door, and you always want to go back and revisit it.
Time will obviously tell.
- Status