So, basically, everyone agrees that the fss is not good.
Cool.
I bow to the overwhelming majority of these 4 brilliant geniuses:
Faded Glory, Gregg Rulz ok, rlsg and Riverside
Wish you luck in your endeavors, I for one have found another way to waste my time.
I bow to the overwhelming majority of these 4 brilliant geniuses:
Faded Glory, Gregg Rulz ok, rlsg and Riverside
Wish you luck in your endeavors, I for one have found another way to waste my time.
Oh Pico! You're not leaving us (again) are you?
... or in a few month or in 2 years or never, or as soon as its suits me.
No promises, no guarantees!
I have suggested something very similar, in another thread. I don't believe I have been the first either.The FSS supporters want suggestions for improvements to the FSS, not requests that the ADS is brought back, so, in a spirit of cooperation I propose the following improvement to the FSS.
An optional 'FSS Booster' module that extends the capabilities of the FSS - the same principle as the FSD Booster - by adding automatic mapping functionality to the initial honk. This would populate the System Map with images of system bodies and show selectable 'Unexplored' items in the Nav Panel.
So the evil ADS doesn't come back and the FSS gets even better!
Not that original in principle, but the packaging is a little different though.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. We don't agree it is bad, it is much, much better than ADS.So, basically, everyone agrees that the fss is not good.
Cool.
What Enderby is saying is not related to "subjective assessments" of the relative mechanics but rather that the FSS has been badly implemented and very few people disagree with that point - even if they think it is better than what we had pre-3.3 (which is entirely subjective).That's a bit of an oversimplification. We don't agree it is bad, it is much, much better than ADS.
I think the concept of imposing needless interactivity for exploration is the root of this whole argument. The "skill" argument is pro-mini-game which is something I diametrically oppose. The nub of the problem is that there is a fallacious perception that the argument against the FSS and in support of the ADS is about speed of discovery - this is a misnomer since the ADS based approach was always on balance slower and the lack of forced interaction is what some of us liked about it.We probably all do agree anything can be made better. FSS included. Drew's "suggestion" is a.bad one though as it brings ADS back.
I would support any suggestion that would somewhat speed up the exploration process by applying skill.
It does nothing of the sort! It merely adds to the functionality of the FSS, to allow more gameplay options. I don't see how this can be considered a bad thing!We probably all do agree anything can be made better. FSS included. Drew's "suggestion" is a.bad one though as it brings ADS back.
This is applying your definition of what constitutes 'the exploration process'.I would support any suggestion that would somewhat speed up the exploration process by applying skill.
but rather that the FSS has been badly implemented and very few people disagree with that point
Not really followed the thread. How was it badly implemented in an objective way and not subjective?
Not really followed the thread. How was it badly implemented in an objective way and not subjective?
I would disagree with this point - it is simplistic and childish in terms of implementation IMO - the implementation is modelled on radio telescopes, that much is clear, but it lacks various features one would expect from a radio telescope emulation/simulation which makes it ultimately a pain to use.4. It's complex and non-intuitive
I would disagree with this point - it is simplistic and childish in terms of implementation IMO - the implementation is modelled on radio telescopes, that much is clear, but it lacks various features one would expect from a radio telescope emulation/simulation which makes it ultimately a pain to use.
That aspect was part of the Beta and was included at release as I recall - the "forced (notionally) one-off tutorial" was a major condescending flaw with FD's overall approach IMO (it should not have been forced on everyone during first use and kept as a separate optional tutorial that could be engaged with at will).I was considering its usage, rather than its design. When you first enter the FSS screen there is nothing that indicates what you can do, or how you should be doing it.
For example:
There's a horizontal scale across the bottom of the display, which you move a slider across, but there's also a vertical scale on the left, that's purely informational, with nothing to indicate the difference.
I could go on, but it just depresses me.
So, basically, everyone agrees that the fss is not good.
Cool.
There are enough vehement defenders of the FSS to make your comment moot. However, I have over 10k L3 scans under my belt pre-3.3 and a Codex filled with only 17 entries - it is sickening to think anyone like myself would have to re-tread old ground in order to gain data they should already have.Of course no-one scans full systems any more, since the introduction of the dreaded FSS...
There are enough vehement defenders of the FSS to make your comment moot. However, I have over 10k L3 scans under my belt pre-3.3 and a Codex filled with only 17 entries - it is sickening to think anyone like myself would have to re-tread old ground in order to gain data they should already have.
The thought of engaging in the FSS mini-game 10k or more times just makes me want to hurl.