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

[Ian Skippy]

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.
[...]

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

I think its a matter of context. When compared with other mainstream space games (X-series, NMS, SC, Rebel Galaxy) the galaxy of ED is 'scientific' in that the scale and time is 1:1, planets rotate/orbit, system composition can become relatively complex, and the flight model is a 'simulation' in that docking isn't a cutscene or automated, crashing is actually possible, it has 2nd order controls and so on. But that is dependent on what you compare it with. If ED was a 'realistic' depiction of a future in which humans explore the galaxy, there wouldn't be any humans in the spaceships themselves, and if it was a 'simulation' in a true sense of the word 99.9% of us would be unable to get it from the docks and prepping for launch would take hours.

As for content, I see ED as somewhere between Space Engine and NMS. One has fantastic space generation and pretty much no gameplay, one has atrocious space generation from a physics point of view but tons of stuff to do, and ED sits somewhere in the middle. To each his own and all that: I consider all three to be respectable products worthy of one's time.

Funny you mention X-plane, I just got IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad. Puts things into perspective; ED is a space simulator compared with NMS, but an absolute arcade game compared with a modern flight sim. First hour mostly consisted of crashing and reading tutorials with sentences where none of the verbs or nouns were familiar to me.

 

[Ian Skippy]

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

Its just a matter of definitions. To some Star Wars is the best sci-fi has to offer. To me its not sci-fi but Futuristic Fantasy. Maybe Shakespear had something to say about this.

 

[sollisb]

I think its a matter of context. When compared with other mainstream space games (X-series, NMS, SC, Rebel Galaxy) the galaxy of ED is 'scientific' in that the scale and time is 1:1, planets rotate/orbit, system composition can become relatively complex, and the flight model is a 'simulation' in that docking isn't a cutscene or automated, crashing is actually possible, it has 2nd order controls and so on. But that is dependent on what you compare it with. If ED was a 'realistic' depiction of a future in which humans explore the galaxy, there wouldn't be any humans in the spaceships themselves, and if it was a 'simulation' in a true sense of the word 99.9% of us would be unable to get it from the docks and prepping for launch would take hours.

As for content, I see ED as somewhere between Space Engine and NMS. One has fantastic space generation and pretty much no gameplay, one has atrocious space generation from a physics point of view but tons of stuff to do, and ED sits somewhere in the middle. To each his own and all that: I consider all three to be respectable products worthy of one's time.

Funny you mention X-plane, I just got IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad. Puts things into perspective; ED is a space simulator compared with NMS, but an absolute arcade game compared with a modern flight sim. First hour mostly consisted of crashing and reading tutorials with sentences where none of the verbs or nouns were familiar to me.

Again, pretty much agree with your comparisons.

I'll go watch a review of IL-2...

 

[Patrick_68000]

If the game is going to be limited to only what Apollo crews could do, it's going to be quite dull, especially as there's no landing on the Moon.

Apollo 13 ?

 

[Ignition]

Elite Dangerous launched in December 2014. It had many major free and paid updates that exponentially improved the base game. However, aside from the desired space legs, there's one aspect that disappoints the most. We can only land on desolate, barren planets. We've waited almost 5 years for more lively planet types.

A certain other game launched 1 1/3rd years after ED and has 10000 times more variety in land-able planets. It has many different kinds of alien creatures, vegetation, you can even travel underwater in a submarine. The procedural generation of planets in ED is very basic comparatively.

We want more than simplistic planets covered with monotonous dirt and rocks! ED's planets have endless sand, dirt and rocks as far as the eye can see. Sometimes, if we're lucky, we find a little primitive flora. We want more natural features, explore alien forests, jungles teeming with life. If Frontier plans to take another 10 years to release more land-able planet types, that's too slow.

So why is ED very primitive with procedural planets? Why aren't there more terrains, creatures, plants etc? It seems that Frontier is focusing too much of their resources on other IPs (Planet Zoo, PC and JWE).

Not only its primitive, but we can't do anything in the whole planet, just keep shooting rocks

 

[Viajero]

If the game is going to be limited to only what Apollo crews could do, it's going to be quite dull, especially as there's no landing on the Moon.

I have this feeling that if we get space legs next year, some of the intro trailers could include moon landings and some reference to Neil Armstrong famous words.

I think it could make a fitting continuation to this :

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKWIJ-H-WxI

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Thanks for the coherent reply.

Just as coherent as your own.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Not only its primitive, but we can't do anything in the whole planet, just keep shooting rocks

I'm always disappointed when I see grown men lie about computer games. Why not just say:"despite the existing planetary missions and dogfights I hope for more planetary gameplay."? Being honest is not only a virtue in itself, it'll make people take you seriously.

 

[Ian Skippy]

ED trying to straddle the line between 'fun game for all' and 'simulation for the kinds of people who play simulations' is starting to show, tbh. I don't think the issue is that the devs are bad, it's just that their fanbase is clearly segmented and they haven't made it clear which segments they care about. The only real statements are those made by David Braben ages ago, which even if they haven't changed aren't immediate and don't make a definite statement on who's 'welcome' to the ED table.

I think it's a game where many can have fun, but no-one is specifically catered to.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

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?

They use a lot of freelancers.

 

[babelfisch]

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

So... Where is the science part in NMS?

 

[babelfisch]

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

Looks like a very good simulator but we were specifically talking about 'space-sims' like Elite.

 

[Han Zulu]

They use a lot of freelancers.

Oh, they do? Didn't know that.

 

[Han Zulu]

So... Where is the science part in NMS?

Gathering material, manufacturing, etc. Now, with logic switches and wiring in bases, one guy made a 4-bit adder (that's part of the curriculum of computer science).

Also, there's some things like inertia and drifting when you fly in space. Kind'a cool to take a turn that way. And there's some gravity in place. One guy just today posted a video of low-grav planet where his vehicle jumps just by driving over hills. And so on.

When it comes to soft sci-fi, it doesn't have to be accurate science at all, but give a feel of being "scientific". The mining and manufacturing by itself is within the realms of its own lore of "science". It behaves like a form of science. So soft sci-fi would allow for things like that. That's why in Mass Effect having magical powers are still within the lore of its science.

 

[babelfisch]

Gathering material, manufacturing, etc. Now, with logic switches and wiring in bases, one guy made a 4-bit adder (that's part of the curriculum of computer science).

Also, there's some things like inertia and drifting when you fly in space. Kind'a cool to take a turn that way. And there's some gravity in place. One guy just today posted a video of low-grav planet where his vehicle jumps just by driving over hills. And so on.

When it comes to soft sci-fi, it doesn't have to be accurate science at all, but give a feel of being "scientific". The mining and manufacturing by itself is within the realms of it's own lore of "science". It behaves like a form of science. So soft sci-fi would allow for things like that. That's why in Mass Effect having magical powers are still within the lore of it's science.

Let's agree to disagree. I do appreciate the detailed and reasonable response though. If I would look on it from a different perspective it's possible that I would see it like you do. Maybe tomorrow...

 

[Raino]

I decided to wait for the end of 2020 to complain furthermore.
They said they have 100 people working at the game and the full production started more than 1 year ago. It means that they have roughly
460,000 hours of development for the New Era.
With such manpower, it really takes a high level of incompetence not being able to release Legs and Atmospheric Planets.
And if they fail it's also clear that the game that Frontier is developing is not the same that we want.

i think you are ignoring einstein here

it is all about dilation ...

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Looks like a very good simulator but we were specifically talking about 'space-sims' like Elite.

Ermm, that was a space simulator.

 

[Han Zulu]

Let's agree to disagree. I do appreciate the detailed and reasonable response though. If I would look on it from a different perspective it's possible that I would see it like you do. Maybe tomorrow...

I understand. To finish my point, the concept of sci-fi is quite vague really. It's a bit like "I know it when I see it", and depending on person, it might not be the same conclusion. So we disagree on this point. So what? No big deal.

 

[Urbanski101]

I have this feeling that if we get space legs next year, some of the intro trailers could include moon landings and some reference to Neil Armstrong famous words.

I think it could make a fitting continuation to this :

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKWIJ-H-WxI

Stunning work of fiction, shame it's not representative of the game.

I prefer the edited for realism version of their trailers.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwoXcpqp3Ew

 

[Han Zulu]

Stunning work of fiction, shame it's not representative of the game.

I prefer the edited for realism version of their trailers.

It's strange that missing butterflies and missing triceratops caused so much stir a few years back, but these promo videos aren't causing any outcry? Different expectations I guess.