So who precisely of you fine folks had the vision of "improving" the graphics after 4 years?

Serious: who?

Four years of crisp and beautiful immersion.

Turned into a washed out, cartoony looking, garishly lightened imitation of the former, which looks like my graphics card is dying a slow and cruel death.

And for what? So that some asteroid belts glow brighter? Some planets shine more? While the rest of the universe, including, nonsensically, all HUD elements and even entirely separate screens like the galaxy map, suffer from the same "improvement"?

I am an older player. Like really older. When I can't, even with my reading glasses, read stuff on a screen easily anymore, someone goofed up.

I was under the impression that this was something they've been working on for quite some time? Indeed, wasn't the whole "beigefication" "crisis" down to the re-engineering of the lighting system that was underway at the time and presumably is what has now been delivered?

Must admit, I haven't fired it up yet. I did reinstall it when I saw OA's video on the new exploration mechanics with the intention to dive back in (on the Rift) but I've been struggling to drag myself away from X4 and Battletech for now.
 
Oh boy, please explain to us your optics differential equations for the light refraction in a vacuum when close to a neutron star.

Newsflash: It's a game, it's always been a game - not a physics simulator akin to the Matrix. It seems most people except a few grumpy forumdads actually love the lighting and coloring changes.
This.

So this lol.
 
Yes, they could add a button. A big red one to"switch off" an entire graphical overhaul.

Im sure that would be super simple.

(said no one ever)
Instead of making quips that sound smart but have no merit, show why this is "obviously" impossible.

We have toggles for bloom, blur, depth of field and ambient occlusion among other things. I see noe reason why the tint and volumetric effects shouldn't be switchable in the same way. They don't replace existing graphical effects. Let us turn them off. Plain and simple.
 
You don't need differential equations to know that local stars won't influence the color of background stars or stellar objects that - for all intents - are purely emissive.


Given how the game prides itself on generating star systems from first principles, accuratly depicts real life space probes and solar system objects, pays hommage to 2001: A Space Odyssey and prominent scientist i find your train of thought a bit hard to follow, especially in light of the glaring shortcomings brought up in this thread and elsewhere.

My train of thought is fairly simple: most people seem to approve the new graphics changes, and the most problematic shortcomings of the patch can be easily avoided by changing the IB setting. All non-functional observations are subjective to the viewer, and an integral part of the artistic direction that FDEV chose to take at the cost of a LOT of man hours. Not sure if applying development and artistic resources to provide options to reverse those changes would be the greatest investment of time / money for FDEV.
 
Well, not quite. :) To be clear, I'm only talking about the colour grading filters and there should be a clear distinction made between these and the lighting engine proper (in terms of the 3D scene, volumetric effects etc). Assuming that I'm correct, the former are just 2D filters working on pixels and as such they influence the entire image. They may be dynamic, but at the end of the day it's no different to colour grading in film. As I mentioned earlier, I work a lot with GLSL shaders and to me most of these problems are the result of over-zealous, exaggerated colour correction. You can do fairly sophisticated things like isolate and act on certain parts of the chroma/luma scale etc, as well as alter the filters in real-time with variables from the game (this is what is happening when you fly away from a star I imagine), but there's no way of isolating the skybox and HUD in a clean, infallible way when you apply these shaders at the final rendering stage, so it's a bit of a blunt instrument. Used subtly they can be very useful and computationally they're fairly cheap, but they've just ham-fisted it in my view. I like some of the results outside of the ship (although generally I think it's excessively used), but not enough to justify the ever changing HUD and the illogical colouring of the sky box.

Yeah.. I get what you are on about.

2D filters can be rendered differently if they are handed depth information, and based on that, could make a HUGE difference. Even if the effect is still in 2D, each pixels depth result would then be the controlling factor of how much any given 2D filter would be applied. This is something we can do with pre-rendered (as in offline rendering) using a compositing application. I wonder how expensive it would be for a real-time engine to also render a depth-pass that could then be used to influence things such as filters. Depth passes shouldn't require any AA so only one ray per pixel should be enough. Hmm...

You are probably correct when you say that these filters are applied after the 3D-rendering (applying it onto a 2D rendered image).
 
Last edited:
My train of thought is fairly simple: most people seem to approve the new graphics changes[...]
Most people seem to be indifferent to the changes as a whole. I don't count the silent majority on my side - neither should you, if you want your argument to have any merit.

[...]and the most problematic shortcomings of the patch can be easily avoided by changing the IB setting.
As far as i can tell they can't, not without losing functionality. Take the HUD visibilty - which people complain about being either too bright or too dark, depending on scene lighting.

All non-functional observations are subjective to the viewer, and an integral part of the artistic direction that FDEV chose to take at the cost of a LOT of man hours. Not sure if applying development and artistic resources to provide options to reverse those changes would be the greatest investment of time / money for FDEV.
You could simply make the additional tint, bloom and fog optional, like you can turn off ambient occlusion or depth of field effects. But apparently that's hard to grasp for some people who'd rather force the "unfiltered" experience on everyone, flawed arguments be damned.



Like it, to me it looks like light actually falls on things. Thumbs up from me
screenshot_0015_1f6fjb.jpg

#lightfallingonthings #greenmilkyway
 
Last edited:
Instead of making quips that sound smart but have no merit, show why this is "obviously" impossible.

We have toggles for bloom, blur, depth of field and ambient occlusion among other things. I see noe reason why the tint and volumetric effects shouldn't be switchable in the same way. They don't replace existing graphical effects. Let us turn them off. Plain and simple.


lol
 
Most people seem to be indifferent to the changes as a whole. I don't count the silent majority on my side - neither should you, if you want your argument to have any merit.

As far as i can tell they can't, not without losing functionality. Take the HUD visibilty - which people complain about being either too bright or too dark, depending on scene lighting.

You could simply make the additional tint, bloom and fog optional, like you can turn off ambient occlusion or depth of field effects. But apparently that's hard to grasp for some people who'd rather force the "unfiltered" experience on everyone, flawed arguments be damned.

You must fun at parties. Are you gonna start listing Philosophy 101 logical fallacies next?

My point is simple, you can ignore it if you will: don't waste dev time appeasing to a minority of the audience when you could spend it on things that actually are problems for everyone.
 
You must fun at parties. Are you gonna start listing Philosophy 101 logical fallacies next?

My point is simple, you can ignore it if you will: don't waste dev time appeasing to a minority of the audience when you could spend it on things that actually are problems for everyone.

Where precisely do you take "minority of the audience" from (it clearly shows that you obviously didn't follow the 3.3 beta forums and the according threads)? As krautbernd pointed out already: adding the silent majority on your side breaks one's arguments all to easily. And that is exactly what you do here.
 
Last edited:
Where precisely do you take "minority of the audience" from? As krautbernd pointed out already: adding the silent majority on your side breaks one's arguments all to easily. And that is exactly what you do here.

I'm taking it from informal conversations with other commanders and reading the overall mood on the internet about the changes - you know, basic social skills - they call it "reading a room". But no, I don't have a scientific poll on which to base my assumptions.

Regardless, I doubt very much the old rendering system will return. New artistic directions are hard to undo (especially but not exclusively due to how much political costs it involves inside a game studio to do it) - nobody wants to admit they were wrong - especially when the majority of players don't think they were wrong to make the change in the first place.

Reverting the changes would be a complete waste of dev and artist time. Keeping both options available would be an even greater waste as it makes things more complex to develop.
 
Last edited:
Quips it is then.

You must fun at parties. Are you gonna start listing Philosophy 101 logical fallacies next?
I don't particularily care about people being "fun at parties" as far as the validity of their arguments are concerned. I could point out your fallacies, but i think it wouldn't be worth the effort.

My point is simple, you can ignore it if you will: don't waste dev time appeasing to a minority of the audience when you could spend it on things that actually are problems for everyone.
"Appeasing the minority" would be a good way to describe the audience of any threat or bug-report on the forum if you compare the number of players to the number of people who reply to these topics. I guess you equate "actual problems" with "problems i care about"?
 
Quips it is then.


I don't particularily care about people being "fun at parties" as far as the validity of their arguments are concerned. I could point out your fallacies, but i think it wouldn't be worth the effort.


"Appeasing the minority" would be a good way to describe the audience of any threat or bug-report on the forum if you compare the number of players to the number of people who reply to these topics. I guess you equate "actual problems" with "problems i care about"?

I equate actual problems with actual problems that have been in the game since launch - like the lack of overall stuff to do on planet surfaces (introduced with launch of Horizons), lack of content, unbalanced pvp meta, repetitiveness of all combat oriented gameplay (better now with the CZ changes). There's a lot more important issues to worry about than "oh no, the color of the skybox is wrong".

Please keep educating me about these fallacies, I'm intrigued.
 
Last edited:
I'm taking it from informal conversations with other commanders and reading the overall mood on the internet about the changes - you know, basic social skills - they call it "reading a room".

I don't believe you are in any position to flatter yourself with possessing social skills. The way you address things -- and people -- here, shows the exact opposite rather.
 
I equate actual problems with actual problems that have been in the game since launch - like the lack of overall stuff to do on planet surfaces (introduced with launch of Horizons), lack of content, unbalanced pvp meta, repetitiveness of all combat oriented gameplay (better now with the CZ changes). There's a lot more important issues to worry about than "oh no, the color of the skybox is wrong".
You'd be surprised about the backlog of bugs i've reported over the years. That doesn't mean i consider all other issues as secondary. I'm also aware that graphic artists don't necessarily do a lot of work as far as designing new game mechanics is concerned. Yeah, they probably have a lot of work to do balancing PVP. Which leads us to...
Please keep educating me about these fallacies, I'm intrigued.
I thought you were complaining about me not being fun at parties?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm I wonder... if it is just simple tone mapping in the shader then I wonder if we can access the map texture in Reshade and effectively nullify it? Not well up on how reshade works though, will have to investigate.
 
Back
Top Bottom