Hello Games Exploring worlds Vs Elite Dangerous.

[Agony_Aunt]

ED and NMS are different games but still it leaves me gutted to see what a small team like Hello Games pulles off in such short time in comparison to what the much much larger Fdev has achieved in what four five years?

That's probably because you (and me) don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Same goes for CIG/SC (despite their claims to most open development ever, we don't really get to see what goes on inside).

We understand FD to have around 100 people working on ED. HG has a lot less. It would be a bold claim to try and say that the devs on one team are better than the devs on the other. On average, they are probably equally skilled.

So, if FD has more people, and equally skilled devs, its probably because FD are doing stuff that is either more complex and taking longer (which is definitely the case in terms of planetary generation) or there are management issues that result in the devs being less efficient in terms of productivity.... but like with the devs, it would be a bit of a bold claim to suggest that HGs management are more compoetent than FDs.

One advantage HG probably does have is they are smaller, which means they probably have less internal beauracracy, so when Sean says "I want X" his devs can just dive into it without excessive meetings and design documentation, etc.

But, without insider information, its near impossible to know the reasons, all we have to go off is what is actually produced.

 

[Dutchman141]

That's probably because you (and me) don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Same goes for CIG/SC (despite their claims to most open development ever, we don't really get to see what goes on inside).

We understand FD to have around 100 people working on ED. HG has a lot less. It would be a bold claim to try and say that the devs on one team are better than the devs on the other. On average, they are probably equally skilled.

So, if FD has more people, and equally skilled devs, its probably because FD are doing stuff that is either more complex and taking longer (which is definitely the case in terms of planetary generation) or there are management issues that result in the devs being less efficient in terms of productivity.... but like with the devs, it would be a bit of a bold claim to suggest that HGs management are more compoetent than FDs.

One advantage HG probably does have is they are smaller, which means they probably have less internal beauracracy, so when Sean says "I want X" his devs can just dive into it without excessive meetings and design documentation, etc.

But, without insider information, its near impossible to know the reasons, all we have to go off is what is actually produced.

I get what your saying and agree but for the consumer it's what you get for your money what counts so to speak.
You can't ask a consumer to take in mind how much effort or processes went into two products they have to choose from.
I've been playing ED since gpp and hoped that certain things would be added, things that were mentioned by Fdev in the beginning.
Only a fraction of those have been realised. Then HG comes along and turns a turd into big hit within two years.
Yeah I feel a bit disappointed in Fdev.

I won't tell FDev what to do or how they should do it but I'm incredibly happy that I can choose what to play.
In the end I don't look at how much effort which dev put into their game but at how much fun it is to play it.

 

[Fishy]

I've been playing ED since gpp and hoped that certain things would be added, things that were mentioned by Fdev in the beginning.
Only a fraction of those have been realised. Then HG comes along and turns a turd into big hit within two years.
Yeah I feel a bit disappointed in Fdev.

It's natural, and I'm a bit of the same in the sense that combat, for me, is an enjoyable side activity, but not a priority. But it's a (if not the) major focus of ED, so it's inevitable that a lot of the game's development will pass me by. I have close to zero interest in Thargoids personally, and would rather explore ships, stations and planets than shoot yet another kind of enemy. But combat is popular, and it's possibly the one thing FD have fully fleshed out.

By comparison, surface exploration is NMS. To the point where space flight feels more like a level transition minigame than anything. The game's core is putting boots on the ground and doing stuff there. So it was inevitably going to be the development focus.

Still, FD (pleasantly) surprised me with the release timing and quality of those airless surfaces with Horizons. I wasn't expecting it so soon and am still mesmerised by those surfaces. So who knows, although I can't see it happening, they may well do it again and suddenly come up with station interiors or atmospheric surfaces they've been working on secretly for years. One can always dream,

 

[dannysquid]

One of my worries with animal life on atmospheric planets is that the creatures will behave just as ridiculously unnatural and puppet-like as in NMS (which again is fine for that game). I have no idea how FDev is planning to do it, but they will not only have to create a PG system for creating creatures, but they will also have to create numerous behavioral patterns and interactions for all kinds of life that feel realistic and natural. This is completely absent in NMS.
If FDev succeed in doing this it will be something completely revolutionary and never before seen.

I suspect the nail in the coffin of this idea is multiplayer. Having dynamic flocks of creatures reacting to each other in emergent ways isn't going to be easy if that data is being shared-by and influenced by dozens of players.

 

[cpbtrading]

The way NMS does it is perfectly fine for that game and fits the cartoony style of the game, but it would be totally unacceptable for the much more realistic ED galaxy.

One of my worries with animal life on atmospheric planets is that the creatures will behave just as ridiculously unnatural and puppet-like as in NMS (which again is fine for that game). I have no idea how FDev is planning to do it, but they will not only have to create a PG system for creating creatures, but they will also have to create numerous behavioral patterns and interactions for all kinds of life that feel realistic and natural. This is completely absent in NMS.
If FDev succeed in doing this it will be something completely revolutionary and never before seen.

The ai behaviour in NMS is getting much better.

[video=youtube;zCUfzM7ukgo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCUfzM7ukgo[/video]

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

Not quite correct. In NMS planets vary in size and have different gravity types too. Some airless planets, your jumps are much further and higher. HG have a very bare bones way of doing it, but it is done in NMS and may get more details as the game, moves forward.

Do you have any links about how gravity works in NMS? The Wiki entry on gravity, albeit probably old, seems to indicate that gravity doesn't work like it does in our universe.

 

[Dutchman141]

It's natural, and I'm a bit of the same in the sense that combat, for me, is an enjoyable side activity, but not a priority. But it's a (if not the) major focus of ED, so it's inevitable that a lot of the game's development will pass me by. I have close to zero interest in Thargoids personally, and would rather explore ships, stations and planets than shoot yet another kind of enemy. But combat is popular, and it's possibly the one thing FD have fully fleshed out.

By comparison, surface exploration is NMS. To the point where space flight feels more like a level transition minigame than anything. The game's core is putting boots on the ground and doing stuff there. So it was inevitably going to be the development focus.

Still, FD (pleasantly) surprised me with the release timing and quality of those airless surfaces with Horizons. I wasn't expecting it so soon and am still mesmerised by those surfaces. So who knows, although I can't see it happening, they may well do it again and suddenly come up with station interiors or atmospheric surfaces they've been working on secretly for years. One can always dream,

I'm not a combat pilot in the first place either but I love exploring.
Yeah when Fdev introduced Horizons with planetary landings I was incredibly excited.
That excitement is gone now because there's hardly anything to do on those planets.
Searching is done by the eyeball mk1 and that is just not good but incredibly boring.

It's just the lack of things to do in ED and the rewards you get is what's starting to make ED into a drag for me.
The only thing you can obtain and upgrade is ships, there's nothing else you can spend your credits on.
Everything you do leads to a purchase or upgrade of your ship, that's it, and quite a number of those ships and upgrades need a huge grind to obtain them.

I truly hope Q4 will change ED for the good, I'll gladly return but for now NMS is giving me a lot of fun and satisfaction, lots more then ED did in the last year or so.

 

[cpbtrading]

Do you have any links about how gravity works in NMS? The Wiki entry on gravity, albeit probably old, seems to indicate that gravity doesn't work like it does in our universe.

No, just in-game observation. Try YT, a few on there have experienced gravity type effects that are different since 'Next'. Its bare bones as said, so not real gravity effects but a little something added in. One planet I can jetpack really high, others you can only get so far off the ground. Usual planets are just as normal, its moon's that seem to change.

 

[Daish]

It's only frustrating when you think about how awesome Elite could be considering how awesome the ships and galaxy are. It's like they're very close to having an amazing game but refuse to take a few steps forward.

I've accepted that it will never happen. It's a game with nice ships and a nice but lifeless galaxy. I play it sometimes to do some bounty hunting.

This game also has the best gaming forum.

Couldn't agree more I see Elite as this huge sandbox galaxy with nothing in it to find except material and barren planets. full stop....It's true they are losing players because of it.

 

[Daish]

I'm not a combat pilot in the first place either but I love exploring.
Yeah when Fdev introduced Horizons with planetary landings I was incredibly excited.
That excitement is gone now because there's hardly anything to do on those planets.
Searching is done by the eyeball mk1 and that is just not good but incredibly boring.

It's just the lack of things to do in ED and the rewards you get is what's starting to make ED into a drag for me.
The only thing you can obtain and upgrade is ships, there's nothing else you can spend your credits on.
Everything you do leads to a purchase or upgrade of your ship, that's it, and quite a number of those ships and upgrades need a huge grind to obtain them.

I truly hope Q4 will change ED for the good, I'll gladly return but for now NMS is giving me a lot of fun and satisfaction, lots more then ED did in the last year or so.

ED needs a bonanza to get back what it once had, it is losing players steadily as they are frustrated at the endless grind and more over the time you have to spend doing it, is a massive thing right now. By Q4 they need to produce something bigger than anything they have shown so far.

 

[Daish]

A planet with real good looking buildings and mechanics, from a small team of developers, so why is ED struggling, we haven't even got proper seamless planet transition yet, so many people say oh it's the server thing rubbish, if a small indie team can produce this again WHY can't ED.

Now I like Both ED & NMS I find that combat exploring is worth while in ED though exploring planets is worthless there all rock and lifeless the buildings don't look great they don't look weathered, they don't look like they belong, Nms Planets are seamless, the buildings you can't fault and with the added plant and fauna the planet exploring is way past ED.

Whether ED will get this far I don't know I would like to hope so but it's long overdue they have more than the man power, but instead all we get is silly paint jobs and even worse Krait ship kits!!

I am losing interest slowly and surely with ED I hope that Q4 they will bring something worth while to the table to end the debate on planet atmos: landings and a whole new experience because this is what's needed badly.

And not to mention the ill fated space legs well NMS speaks for itself and is ahead of the curve compared to ED.

 

[Cheapchips]

we haven't even got proper seamless planet transition yet, so many people say oh it's the server thing rubbish

People say this because it's true. Supercruise is one network instance and regular space is another. The transition will always be there in ED.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

People say this because it's true. Supercruise is one network instance and regular space is another. The transition will always be there in ED.

There's probably a really good technical explanations why a planet and the system it is in are different instances where in NMS they aren't. I would make a supposition that it's due to the size of the world in ED vs. NMS, apparently the planets in NMS are very small, so small they would barely register as small moons. In ED they are the actual size you would expect then to be. Now, that's not a knock on either game, it's really just a design decision by the developers of each game.

 

[Cheapchips]

There's probably a really good technical explanations why a planet and the system it is in are different instances where in NMS they aren't. I would make a supposition that it's due to the size of the world in ED vs. NMS, apparently the planets in NMS are very small, so small they would barely register as small moons. In ED they are the actual size you would expect then to be. Now, that's not a knock on either game, it's really just a design decision by the developers of each game.

The other design element is that ED allow 'unlimited' player per star system, even if they're constrained to ~32 pockets within in. As well as the smaller system size, NMS only contends with four players at once. Both perfectly valid but different approaches.

 

[Ian Skippy]

There's probably a really good technical explanations why a planet and the system it is in are different instances where in NMS they aren't. I would make a supposition that it's due to the size of the world in ED vs. NMS, apparently the planets in NMS are very small, so small they would barely register as small moons. In ED they are the actual size you would expect then to be. Now, that's not a knock on either game, it's really just a design decision by the developers of each game.

Actually, that is not true. You can seamlessly go from planet to space to another planet as long as you dont change instance. It has been done by people daft enough to fly from one non-atmo planet to its non-atmo moon without using supercruise. [haha] Planets arent in a different instance on itself, you just automatically switch instance when going from SC to normal flight and visa versa. This is done because you need to check for AI/cmdr flying in the flight-mode you are transitioning to. Within a system, everything is perfectly seamless within the engine. The only thing that requires a loading screen is going to a different system.

And yes, people tried that without hyperjump too!

 

[VR StarLightPL]

And yes, people tried that without hyperjump too!

And it's afaik not possible. They tested a system 1.5 or 2ly apart or something... it wouldn't load the new system.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

One man did it with Evochron. It all depends on what you want. In nms, all planets are the same size, same gravity, there is zero consideration for any astronomical consistency, 'atmosphere' doesnt exist in a meaningful way, or with any noticeable impact on anything, there are no orbits and surface generation has nothing to do with how planets and space actually works.

If that is good enough depends on what kind of game you want. But the 'why can nms do this and FD cant?' question is either disingenious or thoroughly stupid.

Exactly. +1

 

[lysan]

Actually, that is not true. You can seamlessly go from planet to space to another planet as long as you dont change instance. It has been done by people daft enough to fly from one non-atmo planet to its non-atmo moon without using supercruise. [haha] Planets arent in a different instance on itself, you just automatically switch instance when going from SC to normal flight and visa versa. This is done because you need to check for AI/cmdr flying in the flight-mode you are transitioning to. Within a system, everything is perfectly seamless within the engine. The only thing that requires a loading screen is going to a different system.

And yes, people tried that without hyperjump too!

In ED they didn't make the graphic representation if you go from one system to another without the jump, because it didn't make any sense, and I agree with that. I got no issues with how they do it in ED at all, however I would love to have it the same way they do it in Battlescape because that is just cool. Still it's a no issue, the problem is when you hang in a freeze mode waiting to get an instance to join, that is really annoying.

 

[askavir]

In ED they didn't make the graphic representation if you go from one system to another without the jump, because it didn't make any sense, and I agree with that. I got no issues with how they do it in ED at all, however I would love to have it the same way they do it in Battlescape because that is just cool. Still it's a no issue, the problem is when you hang in a freeze mode waiting to get an instance to join, that is really annoying.

Agreed.

Having seamless flight between different star systems would be worthless because no one in his right mind would ever do it beyond just testing if it is possible (for science!).

On the other hand , those planetary transition pauses are very offputting...

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

There's probably a really good technical explanations why a planet and the system it is in are different instances where in NMS they aren't. I would make a supposition that it's due to the size of the world in ED vs. NMS, apparently the planets in NMS are very small, so small they would barely register as small moons. In ED they are the actual size you would expect then to be. Now, that's not a knock on either game, it's really just a design decision by the developers of each game.

sleutelbos already corrected you but I will add my two cents - instancing in ED is mostly for networking. Those hangups and freezes are mostly for that too. If you play solo or play alone in system your drop outs from supercruise are instant. Planetary bases have their LOD actived long before dropping out of orbital cruise. They have talked to do same for stations, but supercruise speeds in space are so huge that it would make little sense. NMS have to do none of that trickery because it has no dynamic peer to peer matchmaking to deal with. It's MP is very very simplistic.