Why can we only Land on Barren Planets after almost 5 years?

[Ian Skippy]

Ignorance is bliss. I'm blocking you now. I find your posts, trolling and devoid of intellectual merit.

Lol, he gave a point-by-point retort of how you are wrong. Some of your nonsense has never been true, some of it was changed eons ago. Not sure why you block him, everyone else can still see how wrong you are and you just miss out on an opportunity to educate yourself. FWIW, my favourite bit was how you deny day/night cycles and scale, that was pure comedy gold.

 

[babelfisch]

So from a previous post you tell us that ‘space-sim’ was basically invented by DB

So what your saying now is that DB’s game is pretty good at trying to be a game genre invented by DB. Hell I would expect it to be an excellent example

A better space-sim doesn't exist. Better?

 

[Jools]

I hate the bugs in ED, and I have some ideas of how to polish the rough edges, but all-in-all ED is one of my favorite games of all times, just like it is. That's why I'm here.

So why are you here? Assuming your comments are about ED and not NMS, of course.

Hello Old Duck
Not much has changed since I joined the forums so i guess my introductory post should provide the best answer:

Hello Commanders.

I`m a long time gamer and a big fan of the franchise, especially my beloved frontier and FFE that i play to this day every couple of months.

I have been visiting the forums for a couple of years now, even before kickstarter, just never bothered to join and write posts, so I know most of the long time posters and their post history.

Having said that, unfortunately, I am one of the disappointed backers and to be honest I`m probably mostly here to express my concerns and fight the ongoing "white knighting" or whatever people call it these days, because i feel its damaging to the game, the kickstarter ideals and consumers overall.

As we were told by The Man himself the key to success is "to under promise and over deliver" but as it often is in life we ended with the opposite and both FDev and the most involved fans are to blame here.

Yes, I went there. A huge part of my disappointment can be attributed to some of the more active forum members (I could write exactly who what and where but that would solve nothing and would be against the rules) who assured me and many others on youtube and "the other game`s" forum that the DDF is a set in stone feature set for the release, that my concerns (that at that time were few and very mild) are unwarranted, uninformed and silly and that i should expect greatness and nothing less. Well so i did... to my disappointment

To make it clear, my complaints are not formed because FDEV didn`t make a game to my likening. Sure If I were to decide I would rather choose a single player Frontier: Elite IV with stardreamer and full Newtonian flight but I accepted their direction before pledging and I am fine with it.

My disappointment comes from FDEV`s inability to materialise their own plans, visions and goals, the lack of features, lack of promised richness - basically the horribly unfinished state of the game that is evident across the board from ubiquitous spelling mistakes through missing ships and kickstarter rewards to the missing ironman mode and multiplayer features.

To brighten my post a little I have to admit that there are things that are really well made and that still gives me some hope for the future of this game. Most of the things that came in before PB2 are very well made. The flight model is great, the controls responsive and the dogfighting engaging and fun (I recognise that despite my personal preference), the graphics engine is pretty good (could be better but that`s not that important) especially considering the amazing scale and realism of the universe (many things are astill misiing though), and the sound design is probably the best in the industry to date. As many have stated, the base is here... but its no longer a beta for it to be acceptable

This game requires a lot of work. Much more than many here imagine. I would say judging by progress so far that they would need to double the development efforts this year to give us a real finished 1.0 before the end of 2015

As far as expansions go I would not expect any this year. Maybe some super simplistic in-ship activities.

I also no longer believe that Frontier are able to create proper planetary landings expansion with fully explorable planets and EVA. What they have shown in the procedural department is very lacklustre (I`m a huge demoscene fan and procedural generation fan so I somewhat know what is and what isn`t possible).

To use D.B.`s own words it feels very "samey" because "[...] the artist provides the ingredients, and so if the ingredients are varied enough then so is the end result" "[...]it`s the content that comes from the artist that makes it feel different" and this is where FD fails so we end up with "[...] BAD procedural generation, we see cities (in this case the galaxy) going on forever, we see things where you can see the patterns that are too simplistic, its to obviously computer generated [...] essentially it`s bad art if you like"

I have never imagined my introduction here would look like this but reality bites hard.

I hope they will get their things together and deliver. But my hope is getting fainter and fainter every passing day.

Today, I`m just a bitter disillusioned former David`s fanboy, who, like a repeatedly beaten wife, comes back repeatedly for another round of wrecked hopes for a better future. In my initial post I said its doubtfull that the game will get finished to the state that they planned by the end of 2015 (for which i was repeatably attacked by some of the more vocal believers)... lol it`s 2019 and still sooo many unrealised features that we were supposed to get in 1.0, and the same people here are still saying "Just you wait for the new patch.... 1.3!! wooo.... 2.4... facemelting stuff yoyu`ll see.... Beyond will change everything!!!! Oh.... but the NEW ara.... fool me once...

Initial 2.0 release was nice though, to bad they messed it up and also downgraded the graphics later

 

[Ian Skippy]

Agree.

And in a way the empty planets and the beautiful star filled sky in Elite is kind'a indicative of the game as a whole. It's empty of things to do, sure there's some things but not a lot, and many features are half-baked, but it's all very pretty and realistic, just like the desolate, atmosphere empty planets.

While NMS is colorful and filled with things to look at, almost to the point of being too busy. And now with the new version, there's so much you can do, to the point it's hard to even remember all different categories of activities, it's like a rainbow of Skittles both in how it looks and feels and how much stuff there's in there to see and do.

Meanwhile over the NMS Steam forums people are making posts about why after all these updates there still isn't particularly much to do in NMS. I try to stay out of these discussions; both ED and NMS have plenty to do, people who argue otherwise just don't appreciate these things and discussions inevitably end up with reductionist "but it is all just moving and clicking buttons!" rhetoric. Same goes for the 'half-baked' arguments. The core activities (flight model, combat, trading) are infinitely less 'half-baked' in ED, so such claims are just indicative of someone focusing on different aspects. I could argue that the ground vehicles in ED and NMS are 'half-baked' compared with Project Cars 2, maybe call FD and HG 'lazy' while I'm at it. But whats the point. Both offer plenty of entertainment of what it costs, that would be my summary.

 

[Ian Skippy]

A better space-sim doesn't exist. Better?

And that also need not be true. It just depends on what you mean with space sim. Have you tried: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/index.html

 

[sollisb]

Lol, he gave a point-by-point retort of how you are wrong. Some of your nonsense has never been true, some of it was changed eons ago. Not sure why you block him, everyone else can still see how wrong you are and you just miss out on an opportunity to educate yourself. FWIW, my favourite bit was how you deny day/night cycles and scale, that was pure comedy gold.

Really? I saw a one line flippant reply..

But I'll play along.. Exactly which part was wrong?

I deny they have scientific day night cycles. They have camera lights that rotate/revolve with the planetary objects. Further, If I approach the dark side if a planet how comes I can actually see it? How come the closer I get to the planet the more brighter it gets?

It's a program set in a game engine with lights, cameras, objects. You trying to claim any scientific setting other than programmed camera movements is hilarious. When I see some reference to NASA using it as some kind of sim, I'll take notice. Until then, it's nothing more than a simmy-game. At least NMS doesn't try to pretend to be anything it's not.

If you want to talk about scale, drive over any planetary surface and watch how a mere stone can halt you in your tracks an dhit you for damage, yet apparently we can boost and land and receive 0 damage. If you want to talk about nonsense, look closer to home.

 

[sollisb]

Meanwhile over the NMS Steam forums people are making posts about why after all these updates there still isn't particularly much to do in NMS. I try to stay out of these discussions; both ED and NMS have plenty to do, people who argue otherwise just don't appreciate these things and discussions inevitably end up with reductionist "but it is all just moving and clicking buttons!" rhetoric. Same goes for the 'half-baked' arguments. The core activities (flight model, combat, trading) are infinitely less 'half-baked' in ED, so such claims are just indicative of someone focusing on different aspects. I could argue that the ground vehicles in ED and NMS are 'half-baked' compared with Project Cars 2, maybe call FD and HG 'lazy' while I'm at it. But whats the point. Both offer plenty of entertainment of what it costs, that would be my summary.

This I'll agree with 100%

 

[Ian Skippy]

Really? I saw a one line flippant reply..

But I'll play along.. Exactly which part was wrong?

I deny they have scientific day night cycles. They have camera lights that rotate/revolve with the planetary objects. Further, If I approach the dark side if a planet how comes I can actually see it? How come the closer I get to the planet the more brighter it gets?

That doesn't happen. You need to use Night Vision when light doesn't reflect on the surface. If you're monitor is properly calibrated it'll be pitch black, the only clue you are about to faceplant into a mountain is that there is a mountain-shaped field with no stars. This was changed eons ago.

A day/night cycle, fwiw, is not about how light/dark the night is. It is about whether a planet rotates around its axis and that this rotation influences the light, and that its shared by different observers. ED obviously has it, and you can manually calculate when a certain base will be in the dark zone. It'll be correct. If you go into a crater, and I orbit the planet, I can see when the crater is entering night and you will experience that on the ground. It is just silly to deny there is proper day/night cycles, especially when you compare it with the only 'competition' there is (X-series, NMS, SC).

Btw, yes, really. He gave a line-by-line rebuttal. You could just, you know, unblock that and read it for yourself. If your reason for blocking him was that he didnt provide arguments, well then that reason is gone.

 

[rp198419]

The major concern for me is if we consider that huge technically impressive addition of (non atmospheric) planetary landings, IMHO nothing has come close to it since, in FOUR YEARS!

It almost feels like the wind left the sails of the management or designers with little/no significant technical developments of note being undertaken. And then add to this features like Multicrew being given the greenlight and developed, seemingly all the time with the community raising their eye brows, only for it now to be collecting dust for most of the community due to how ill considered it was.... You really have to scratch your head!

The latest Mining 2.0 showed some promise, but even there it has frustrating balancing issues and clear needless issues and oversights in its mechanics, once again (IMHO) seeming to demonstrate FD's continued questionable management and design efforts with ED...

I dearly hope the now much hyped big update in 2020 is more akin to 2015's planetary landings in technical bar raising efforts, than the list of mediocre, ill considered, unbalanced, shallow plug ons that has all but plagued the years since.

But the fear is, with the same people, with the same ethos, why would next year prove any different to the past four? Can but hope for some truely deep, involved, impressive, well considered, bar raising mechanics at long last!

I have to agree. Same people = same ethos = more insignificant 'modular' features; most of which will probably end up on the shelf with multi-pew and all the others.

Having said all that, ED - even after nearly 2,000 in-game hours - is still one of the most impressive VR experiences out there (RaceFactor 2 and X-Plane being the others) and one always hopes that things will improve.

NeilF's comment above is correct though. Without new people and new ideas, I believe it will just be more of the same.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

 

[sollisb]

So from a previous post you tell us that ‘space-sim’ was basically invented by DB

So what your saying now is that DB’s game is pretty good at trying to be a game genre invented by DB. Hell I would expect it to be an excellent example

Not sure who you're replying to here, but DB did not invent the 'space-sim'. And Elite '84 was designer and programmed by 2 people. Let's not forget Mr. Bell. For the record, Elite '84 was based on a previous pace-trader, with the addition of 3D graphics and a procedural generated galaxy. Both of the latter parts were firsts on the consumer architecture of the time. To put this in perspective, we were designing and using 3D satellite plots of ships and air assets in '82 in Defense.

At or around the same time '79-'84 we were playing rogue and space-trader games o n Vax 730s.

David Braben & Ian Bell are to be credited with creating a game (Elite '84) that was a defining moment in the genre. While David Braben doesn't make mention of it, Ian Bell does, that the game was based on a space-trader by another author/publisher.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

Yeah but the space combat suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

I have opposite opinion. NMS combat is very arcadey compared to ED but is more funny. Ships are more agile and it takes less to destroy a ship. When 3 pirates attack you you know that you can handle the situation so combat is not an activity that you completely discard from the game even if you just want to explore our build your base

 

[rp198419]

However, I faintly remember that a bigger variety of landables was originally set out to happen at some point.

They couldn't even deliver the promised new 'ice planets'. What faith can one put in FDev if they just decide that it's all just too much bother.

Bet they'll build another theme park though...

 

[rp198419]

Considering Next Era has significantly more manhours spend on it than 2.0 that doesn't seem an unreasonable hope.

Well, we HOPE that Next Era has significantly more manhours spend on it than 2.0.

 

[Old Duck]

They have camera lights that rotate/revolve with the planetary objects.

 

[sollisb]

That doesn't happen. You need to use Night Vision when light doesn't reflect on the surface. If you're monitor is properly calibrated it'll be pitch black, the only clue you are about to faceplant into a mountain is that there is a mountain-shaped field with no stars. This was changed eons ago.

A day/night cycle, fwiw, is not about how light/dark the night is. It is about whether a planet rotates around its axis and that this rotation influences the light, and that its shared by different observers. ED obviously has it, and you can manually calculate when a certain base will be in the dark zone. It'll be correct. If you go into a crater, and I orbit the planet, I can see when the crater is entering night and you will experience that on the ground. It is just silly to deny there is proper day/night cycles, especially when you compare it with the only 'competition' there is (X-series, NMS, SC).

Btw, yes, really. He gave a line-by-line rebuttal. You could just, you know, unblock that and read it for yourself. If your reason for blocking him was that he didnt provide arguments, well then that reason is gone.

Ok, I'm going to take you at your word on the monitor stuff, because mine is an IPS perfectly calibrated monitor for Skin retouching. I'm not going to change that. Retouching pays some of my bills How-ever, on my monitor, the planetary surface is never dark. In fact I have never thought to myself, whoah I cannot see anything. So maybe it was changed. if It was then it was lost on me and my perfectly calibrated monitor using an X-Rite to 6.7k kelvin (The temperature of skin)

For absolute sure there is light and shadows, but saying those are scientifically measured to be scientifically correct to current known astronomical data is farcical.

As for the 'rebuttal' he gave a one line reply, if he gave further after I blocked him, then so be it. I find him to be far too fanatical in his appraisal of Elite. It is a fantastic title no doubt, but barely worth the scientific accreditation he assigns to it. In my opinion.

Again, in my opinion, and somewhat aligned with your own summations, both Elite and NMS are for different audiences. What is up for discussion is the amount of content present i n one and the lack in the lack in the other. And that is because on one team there are 20 odd devs and on the other 100+.

Anyways, o7, enjoy which ever camp you play in. I play in both and X4, but mostly XPlane presently.

 

[sollisb]

Sorry mate, in any game engine there are obejcts, lights and camera. You see the object the current camera is pointed at, lit by which ever light(s) is lighting it. So in Elite, you are in a ship (object) with a camera, pointed which ever way your ship object is pointing, and what you are the obejcts in the camera view lit by which ever lights are pointing at it.

Too much detail for a Sat afternoon

Unity would be a good start to know more.

 

[Viajero]

I do find it amusing that in an old vid, Braben says something like "our planets wont just be a series of heightmaps"... Seriously, if you want to depress yourselves, go watch the Alpha, Beta, Gamma era vids.

Maybe you missed some of the actual Horizon release dev posts and vids explaining the actual geology principles behind the proc generation in planets? including tectonics principles, crater physics and distribution etc etc.

Source: https://youtu.be/-Et5Ivi_yIg?t=47

 

[Han Zulu]

Again, in my opinion, and somewhat aligned with your own summations, both Elite and NMS are for different audiences. What is up for discussion is the amount of content present i n one and the lack in the lack in the other. And that is because on one team there are 20 odd devs and on the other 100+.

Actually, I think they have less than 20 devs at HG. I heard some number that the 25 people is the whole company, not just developers for NMS. They're working on two other games, plus you have human resources, accounting, etc, so maybe around 10 on NMS?

 

[Han Zulu]

That's true for the graphics but not the game.

I disagree. It's still considered a sci-fi. Not hard sci-fi but soft sci-fi.

 

[Jools]

What are you talking about?

he is partially right and its yet again the "rube goldberg machine" syndrome

The stellar forge, has all the data required, the game simulates the movement of planets, but the game engine is unable to render more than one global lightsource, or to render shadows casted by other stellar objects onto other stellar objects, or makes stars to cast shadows onto their rings, which in turn makes Devs use post processing effects and manually inject lighting changes (like the aforementioned by the OP brightening of the dark side), to compensate for the darkness created by the simulation, which turns all the simulation efforts virtually pointless as ultimately they produce fake and wrong lighting because of the limitations of the renderer.