The ADS

[Enderby]

The flaw with hoping for a compromise is that to hope for a compromise suggests an assumption that the current situation is not a compromise.

That's a very very unsafe assumption in this case.

Realistically what's being asked for isn't a compromise, it's to change an existing compromise in a specific direction.

Everyone would be much better off working from a realistic assessment of the situation, rather than going with an assumption that makes it sound like it's all clean and easy, and which allows them to assign blame in simply definable good/bad terms.

Glad you explained that, cheers.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Wait one, are you saying there is a new way to surface mine, one that I don't have to use my mining lasers?

No, yet it's an example of an old feature remaining after an upgrade. In any case, given the amount of pathological ADS-phobia in this forum, I'd bet my account they'd still use the FSS if the ADS came back.

 

[Burke]

There surely isnt any equality around i know that, when people didnt like those torpedos... just like that they were gone. Some people were saying wait and see give it a chance but the right people were asking i guess cause off they went.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Already been mentioned. It's a logic fail. If you know the exact coordinates of every planet, why would you be required to search for them all over again in the FSS. It makes no logical sense.

The FSS already knows where the planets are lol.

 

[Mohrgan]

There surely isnt any equality around i know that, when people didnt like those torpedos... just like that they were gone. Some people were saying wait and see give it a chance but the right people were asking i guess cause off they went.

The Illuminati? I thought I lost them when I took that long swing around Star Citizen. From confirmation bias, to conspiracy theories. The pace is quickening!

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

This what I like to see in the FSS. This would be missed in the system map:

I bet a lot of you would have completely missed this in your rush to get through it. You see, so many of you are so caught up by the mechanics when they are inconsequential, I don't even notice them anymore, it's what I find is what is more important.

Saying that I am not sure if the image is good enough for you to see all inclined orbit lines.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

The FSS mini-game aspects seem strange to me for a spaceship piloting game. I doubt Frontier would have wanted to implement it earlier on. That's just of course speculation either way though.

The game isn't just a space ship piloting game.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

The way it was done, almost with a chuckle and a trololol. Nobody can explain why the old system had to go, i suspect cause there was no reason. Changing the modules on player ships was extreme. A more thoughtful developer wouldnt have done that.

Easy. Because it was crap.

 

[Thatchinho]

Glad you explained that, cheers.

You're very welcome.

But sarcastic responses aside to one second, for the avoidance of confusion that post wasn't intended as me explaining something to you personally. It was a general comment about the whole situation coming out of what you'd said, but not directed specifically at you personally. So my apologies if it came across as something that it wasn't intended to be.

 

[WR3ND]

Even if technically correct - totally irrelevant...

Not totally irrelevant. It's strange that you would have the blue world blobs on the FSS view and not the HUD, for example. It feels artificial even within the context of the game setting, not that it necessarily matters so much to everyone playing the game though.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Even if technically correct - totally irrelevant when it comes to game mechanics and gameplay.

Apparently, Max disagrees with you given he doesn't want to do things we already know about.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Not totally irrelevant. It's strange that you would have the blue world blobs on the FSS view and not the HUD, for example. It feels artificial even within the context of the game setting, not that it necessarily matters so much to everyone playing the game though.

For me it feels no more artificial then the system and galaxy maps. I just see them as a VR surround. We have the technology now, can't see why it can't be used in the future. Try to imagine that you are still sitting in your cockpit, but you are surrounded by a VR overlay.

 

[Ezren]

It was marx's argument.

No, I was responding to you. Directly. I edited it because I decided I didn't want to even bother.

I know you have not made an argument. You just comment on responses, not contribute.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Dunno. Consider bringing ADS back maybe. Tiniest bit of acceptance that there might be a problem they didnt see before.

That's not an explanation, that's a capitulation.

I want to know what kind of "We had to remove this because...." you require.

Clearly "It's not what we wanted for the game we own and designed" is not good enough, so there must be some other explanation that ends with a "Ok, I can at least understand why even if I don't like the result."

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Max disagrees with what exactly? That the positions are already known? The point of my post was that WE know nothing at this point, only the internal mechanics do. Don't confound the two things.

Hi Pico, who are you replying to as I can't seem to see them. Pretty sure I don't have anyone on my ignore list.

 

[Ezren]

Hi Pico, who are you replying to as I can't seem to see them. Pretty sure I don't have anyone on my ignore list too.

Gregg Rulz. Frankly you can't be blamed.

 

[Clanky Munge]

Why should i insult you? Because you started first by calling me immature?

I was going to edit my post at the time, saying I wasn't specifying yourself but all the posters insulting those that might actually prefer the fss over the old ads. Some of those posts were irritating me and I was too tired to edit.

Sorry about that

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

post #614:

The ADS

The flaw with hoping for a compromise is that to hope for a compromise suggests an assumption that the current situation is not a compromise. That's a very very unsafe assumption in this case. Realistically what's being asked for isn't a compromise, it's to change an existing compromise in a...

forums.frontier.co.uk

but strange, the link to this post in my original quote still works for me.

Ah yes. I do have him on my ignore list. You are best to as well. Not sure what he is saying about me, but its likely to be untrue.

 

[Sysmon]

Ah yes. I do have him on my ignore list. You are best to as well. Not sure what he is saying about me, but its likely to be untrue.

I have him on ignore too. If you get tired of seeing people having grumps at nothing in particular, you can tick a "see ignored content" box and see it again, without having to "un-ignore". But you don't really want to.

S

 

[Thatchinho]

Even if technically correct - totally irrelevant when it comes to game mechanics and gameplay. Way more relevant might be considerations about how to gain time to render the system bodies. In already explored systems this can be fetched from the local server, at least partially. Unexplored systems still have to be procedurally generated, even when the positions (again: technically) are already known.

All what matters to players is if we are meant to see the positions, not what's actually known on code level.

That's a bit of tinfoiling, but I can see that time for procedural rendering will be getting more and more relevant in the future IF they plan to enhance on planetary types and surfaces, including atmospheres.

The ADS would lead to situations where you'd have to wait several minutes until the honk is solved. All the hidden calculations can barely be hidden by the primitive ADS mechanics. I'm pretty sure the ADS in a future incarnation of ED would be a very frustrating experience, even to those who called for it and that the devs just had to realize that the ADS has no future.

Yeah, the rendering situation's already problematic which can be seen when using the FSS for landable worlds with vulcanism and the long scan times to detect geological sites.

It's almost certainly to be highly exacerbated for more complicated bodies if/when atmos landings comes.

Not sure that's an argument against an ADS style mechanism though - do a black box only, or minimum render type scan, and the more detailed render time is concealed by the time taken flying to the bodies to do the scan. It would largely mean no detection of POIs from a distance though.

(And please please, don't get carried away by the above, anyone, it's just speculation and I wouldn't want anyone to get their hopes up for a potential reason/avenue for a return to the ADS only to see them dashed. Exactly the same approach of limiting the rendering should also work for the FSS so this is just a case of something not being a case against the ADS type approach, not a case for it.)