Seen plenty myself, I will also keep an eye out and post if I see one. They're not that common, but common enough that most explorers will have seen a few at least.
ANNOUNCEMENT January Update - Beta Announcement
- Thread starter Stephen Benedetti
- Start date
Seen plenty myself, I will also keep an eye out and post if I see one. They're not that common, but common enough that most explorers will have seen a few at least.
Deleted member 38366
D
I can confirm that, seen a few dozen of these so far. They're indeed quite rare but on longer Exploration trips there's typically a few of these.
So changes to the market system for mining and the way GEOs are found are not changes? If it were just bug fixes why is market sales and demand for top mining rocks being looked at?? SO glad we are just getting fixes in place of fleet carriers...
Because this, apparantly, is what the community asked for. It's not just bug fixes, they never claimed it was just bug fixes, here is the text;
The "longstanding issues" refers to issues that the players were unhappy about and felt needed rebalancing/fixing before new content was introduced, so yes the marker system and FSS problems fit neatly into that category.
Whereas storing cargo in stations, which doesn't currently exist as a "thing", would be "adding a new feature" and not fixing an existing feature that has problems. This is completely separate from the fact the FDEV currently has no plans to add station storage, so this is more a request or complaint rather than a longstanding issue or bug.
Now whether it was right or not to delay FC's is beside the point, some people would rather they weren't delayed but that's not part of this discussion.
As far as the FSS exists in the non-beta version, we already have a "YES" or a "NO". Why do we need a "Maybe"? If the scan comes back right away, it's a "NO". If the wheel starts spinning around and "scanning", we already know it's a "YES", even if we don't let the scan finish. So we can come back (in the FSS) to those planets/moons that were still "scanning" after finishing all the other objects on the screen. We already know there are sites there, just need to relook those planets/moons to see if we really want to fly out and use the DSS.
I would just say overall we're better off with the current (non-beta) version of the FSS and not implement an additional "MAYBE" answer we're getting in the beta version. Given the stated reason the scan of planets/moons that have sites takes extra time, maybe it's better to just change player actions in the scan, rather than coding in something that doesn't reliably give us the information we need.
I would just say overall we're better off with the current (non-beta) version of the FSS and not implement an additional "MAYBE" answer we're getting in the beta version. Given the stated reason the scan of planets/moons that have sites takes extra time, maybe it's better to just change player actions in the scan, rather than coding in something that doesn't reliably give us the information we need.
You’re already working in terms of Maybes.
Instant = non-landable
Short scan time = landable without volcanism.
Long scan time = landable with volcanism.
That’s all that’s definite in the live version.
.
8k is even more pointless then 4k lol , the human eyes have only enough light receptors to see in 2k , so next time you look at a 4k vid or 4k tv and say " WOW that is so much better "........It isn't =-P
In the spirit of fairness i gave that poster a like because of the ad hominem odor of your reply. Im sure they are grateful
Good for you. Hope it gives you immense happiness.In the spirit of fairness i gave that poster a like because of the ad hominem odor of your reply. Im sure they are grateful
This is misconception.
Posted in error.
Agreed making us fly to the planet and probe it to get information we had 'for free' previously seems like a backwards step.
My preference would be to implement the 'yes/no/maybe' change, but have something to click to initiate the full scan from the FSS if you want to. If that isn't possible, just leave it as it is, I'll just exit before the scan finishes if I'm in a hurry
prove otherwise. with science please
Google is your friend.
We don't see in 2k or 4k resolutions. The details our eyes can resolve depends upon angular resolution, which is about one arc minute. When it comes to TVs and displays, the maximum resolution we benefit from depends more the effective distance we are from that screen. Here's a diagram that shows the relationship between screen size, distance, and effective resolution:
How does this apply to VR? Simple. Because the "distance" of the display in current generation VR headsets is "infinity," we simply need to know the pixel density over its field of view. Anything over sixty pixels per degree is effectively wasted, due to the pixels starting to blur together. My Vive, for example, has an effective field of view of about 110 degrees. That means that it can use a display 6600 pixels wide, or somewhere between 4k and 8k. Keep in mind that each eye's field of view overlaps quite a bit, so the equivalent of an 8k monitor would be ideal.
The reason why I'm personally skeptical about 8k VR headsets isn't that our eyes can't take advantage of the pixel density. It's because of the huge graphic processing requirement for screens that large, while the fovea (which is where the light sensing cells are densest) is so small, with a field of view of only 5 degrees. Until foveated rendering and eye tracking become the norm, this size screen won't really be viable for widespread use.
Is the correct answer.We don't see in 2k or 4k resolutions. The details our eyes can resolve depends upon angular resolution, which is about one arc minute. When it comes to TVs and displays, the maximum resolution we benefit from depends more the effective distance we are from that screen. Here's a diagram that shows the relationship between screen size, distance, and effective resolution:
How does this apply to VR? Simple. Because the "distance" of the display in current generation VR headsets is "infinity," we simply need to know the pixel density over its field of view. Anything over sixty pixels per degree is effectively wasted, due to the pixels starting to blur together. My Vive, for example, has an effective field of view of about 110 degrees. That means that it can use a display 6600 pixels wide, or somewhere between 4k and 8k. Keep in mind that each eye's field of view overlaps quite a bit, so the equivalent of an 8k monitor would be ideal.
The reason why I'm personally skeptical about 8k VR headsets isn't that our eyes can't take advantage of the pixel density. It's because of the huge graphic processing requirement for screens that large, while the fovea (which is where the light sensing cells are densest) is so small, with a field of view of only 5 degrees. Until foveated rendering and eye tracking become the norm, this size screen won't really be viable for widespread use.
There is also the fact that VR screens are magnified so we can see the pixels. The higher the res the more dense the pixels are the less SDE we will get.
My pimax 5k+ is great, but there is screen door effect albeit very small. My 2070 just about copes with it. A pimax 8kX would ruin my GPU.
Lol you obvious don't have a clue do you? It's not about the the resolution other than with the 8kx there is no screen door effect it's so good they dont have to upscale in the software or so so it's easier for the gpu to handle. I mean I am not a res hog and still game in 1080p but for VR it really does matter and you really do see a difference. Oh and 8kx is the actual name of the HMD so when someone say 8kx they are not really focusing on the res anymore than when I say vive I am focusing on the res.
Oh and if you think there no difference between a 4k tv and and regular 1080p tv you need glasses mate and a real 4k content source. I have a old standard 1080p samsung tv and I can tell you there a huge difference between watching Justice League in 1080p on my tv and in 4k on my brother in laws tv..it's like watch something live so much that the effects look kind of meh in 4k so I actually prefer the lower res of my old 1080p. With 4k distance from the tv doesn't matter, with 1080p it really does unless you like seeing the pixels and a ty looking image.
Last edited:
The pimix has a much bigger FOV than all the other HMD so it needs more density thus more res to be good. Also your off about the 8kx destroying your gpu. Your gpu needs lots of upscaling, in the software settings due to the low res... the 8kx doesn't so you can lower that down and have still have a much clearer image and no sde.
Frankly I have given pimax lots of e about some stuff but right now we are still in gen 1 vr hmd including the index and reverb...the pimax 8kx might possibly the first true next gen vr hmd.
Last edited:
You can downscale and have either minimal or no SDE but downscaling can make the picture look fuzzy. You will want it as sharp as possible.
I would say my Pimax 5k+ is gen 1.5. it's a massive step up from the original rift and vive and I am very pleased with it. Software could be a bit more stable though.