I prefer the new proposal over what we have. I don't mind a bit of uncertainty. To me, that's all part of exploring.
Saying that I would be also be happy with a straight yes or no and the DSS gives us the number and type.
Also the nav panel and system map needs to be more consistant with what the FSS discovers.
I will wait to see how it works to give a proper judgement. If the very likely is 9 times out of 10 to be correct, that's fine by me. If people don't want to go to a place which may not have a geo/bio site, then don't go to the likely and not likely ones, just fly to the very likely ones as you will be virtually guaranteed to find one.
The others are a much bigger gamble and if you don't want to gamble, move on and leave it to people that do. It gives you choices which I much prefer. It may be able to do be done better, like having a "none", a "maybe" and a yes. So there is only one gamble, the other two are certainties. If you don't want to gamble, move on.
Saying that I would be also be happy with a straight yes or no and the DSS gives us the number and type.
Also the nav panel and system map needs to be more consistant with what the FSS discovers.
I will wait to see how it works to give a proper judgement. If the very likely is 9 times out of 10 to be correct, that's fine by me. If people don't want to go to a place which may not have a geo/bio site, then don't go to the likely and not likely ones, just fly to the very likely ones as you will be virtually guaranteed to find one.
The others are a much bigger gamble and if you don't want to gamble, move on and leave it to people that do. It gives you choices which I much prefer. It may be able to do be done better, like having a "none", a "maybe" and a yes. So there is only one gamble, the other two are certainties. If you don't want to gamble, move on.