100% agreed
[VIDEO] Obsidian Ant: The Importance of Atmospheric Worlds
- Thread starter VR SenseiMatty
- Start date
I don't know what point you are arguing against but it isn't one I made.
Maybe chill out a bit?
Haven't watched the video as I refuse to pander to Influencers and those who blindly follow their ever utterance. But going by the description provided by FalconFly (thank you BTW) I am glad I didn't because it seems to be a very biased opinion.
To compare ED to MS Flight Sim, or well to any other game is in my opinion a very weak argument:
Microsoft Flight Sim: Yep is very pretty and no doubt as accurate as one can be. After all they only have to render ONE PLANET that is already mapped do the nearest inch. For all we know MS snuck in and used Google Earth as a precursor. I will be impressed if Microsoft do the same thing for a million planets and have them all different!
Star Citizen: Again, looks great, but as a tech demo that most of it is unplayable are we looking at game play or just images? Call me when there are more than a handful of systems and we will see how pretty everything looks then.
No Mans Sky: Although not mentioned, a worthy inclusion as yep it has atmospheric planets you can land on. Do we want FD to take that route, shrink the planets, and give them one of only a handful of flora and fauna types?
It seems FD is in a slight problem regarding atmospheric planets. Some want glorious visuals, with babbling brooks, snow covered peaks, searing deserts and deep blue oceans. Some want mega cities covering half the planet, so they can 'explore the delights'. Unfortunately some just want solid ground so they can pew pew in FPS. But the one constant is that some here will find fault with whatever FD does, whatever they don't do, and whatever they are accused of thinking about. They will be the ones complaining that the vegetation on planet X is the same as on planet Y but the gravity of planet Y is 0.2 greater than planet X and it is therefore impossible because they are registered experts in the field. Before you dismiss me, remember we have had players complain that all the icy bodies look the same yet failing to explain how or why they should look different.
If FD do release atmospheric planets (and I hope they do to be honest), they will do their best effort. Yes that won't be enough for some but so be it. I do disagree with the premise that a space game is now required to have atmospheric planets to land on to be considered successful as apparently the Influencer alluded to but of course that is my own personal opinion, it would be rude and foolish of me to try to tell others how to enjoy the game
To compare ED to MS Flight Sim, or well to any other game is in my opinion a very weak argument:
Microsoft Flight Sim: Yep is very pretty and no doubt as accurate as one can be. After all they only have to render ONE PLANET that is already mapped do the nearest inch. For all we know MS snuck in and used Google Earth as a precursor. I will be impressed if Microsoft do the same thing for a million planets and have them all different!
Star Citizen: Again, looks great, but as a tech demo that most of it is unplayable are we looking at game play or just images? Call me when there are more than a handful of systems and we will see how pretty everything looks then.
No Mans Sky: Although not mentioned, a worthy inclusion as yep it has atmospheric planets you can land on. Do we want FD to take that route, shrink the planets, and give them one of only a handful of flora and fauna types?
It seems FD is in a slight problem regarding atmospheric planets. Some want glorious visuals, with babbling brooks, snow covered peaks, searing deserts and deep blue oceans. Some want mega cities covering half the planet, so they can 'explore the delights'. Unfortunately some just want solid ground so they can pew pew in FPS. But the one constant is that some here will find fault with whatever FD does, whatever they don't do, and whatever they are accused of thinking about. They will be the ones complaining that the vegetation on planet X is the same as on planet Y but the gravity of planet Y is 0.2 greater than planet X and it is therefore impossible because they are registered experts in the field. Before you dismiss me, remember we have had players complain that all the icy bodies look the same yet failing to explain how or why they should look different.
If FD do release atmospheric planets (and I hope they do to be honest), they will do their best effort. Yes that won't be enough for some but so be it. I do disagree with the premise that a space game is now required to have atmospheric planets to land on to be considered successful as apparently the Influencer alluded to but of course that is my own personal opinion, it would be rude and foolish of me to try to tell others how to enjoy the game
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Not really arguing for or against anything. Just agreeing with you that there is nothing new about Elite in that vid.
Also, further to the OP, just pointing out a few nice games that don’t seem to really need atmospheres in their gameplay at the moment.
True, but if you watch the video OA makes another type of comparison with FS. He talks about the level of details in modern games. In fact he talks about Cyberpunk 2077 too (which has nothing to do with either).
Well if an Influencer said it, it must be true!
Seriously, how many planets are in Cyberpunk 2077? Any game design company today should be able to make one city or I suspect, a very small part of a city look realistic. Now try doing that for millions of planets, billions of cities.
Deleted member 38366
D
maybe, but ... in vr?
thought so
i'll take my headset now ...
Bland Terrain in VR is still bland Terrain. Just in 3D.
Thanks for sharing though
We don't currently know what the future holds for ED, we only know that something will be coming with a current ETA of the end of next year. I hope it will be atmospherics and ambulation but I really don't mind what it is, at this late stage anything is better than nothing, and hopefully the existing game won't be further eroded without justification.
That's a pretty low bar. I don't play those other games, I don't care how ED stacks up against them, only that they show what's possible.
Well his video's are getting better produced lately.
Interesting that he had no gameplay value, the only reason for atmospheric worlds was keeping up with the industry.
Until frontier can prove that they can build more than vehicle movement mechanics to match or exceed even a modest industry standard, any attempts at something greater will be hollow.
An important point is where you are comparing elite to. As a video game alongside all the others, elite doesn't compete, its an objective flop. Compared to indie cockpit driving simulators, which are a niche genre and experience, elite is a masterpiece, and all the same gameplay elements that compare badly to the greater industry change to make sense and are perfectly placed.
Players and frontier both have a choice on where you want to compare elite to.. getting it right is majesty and getting it wrong (like frontier marketing) is only damage.
Having said.. especially after planet zoo and jwe, the rest of frontier outside of elite (the other mythical 400) seem to have grown up independently, and space legs will be elites first release from a more mature company.. one that produces games that stand up well regardless. There's a chance its going to be good... and there's no lingering Kickstarter excuses to fall back on.
Interesting that he had no gameplay value, the only reason for atmospheric worlds was keeping up with the industry.
Until frontier can prove that they can build more than vehicle movement mechanics to match or exceed even a modest industry standard, any attempts at something greater will be hollow.
An important point is where you are comparing elite to. As a video game alongside all the others, elite doesn't compete, its an objective flop. Compared to indie cockpit driving simulators, which are a niche genre and experience, elite is a masterpiece, and all the same gameplay elements that compare badly to the greater industry change to make sense and are perfectly placed.
Players and frontier both have a choice on where you want to compare elite to.. getting it right is majesty and getting it wrong (like frontier marketing) is only damage.
Having said.. especially after planet zoo and jwe, the rest of frontier outside of elite (the other mythical 400) seem to have grown up independently, and space legs will be elites first release from a more mature company.. one that produces games that stand up well regardless. There's a chance its going to be good... and there's no lingering Kickstarter excuses to fall back on.
I'm honestly surprised FDev haven't got the 'low hanging' planets out the way - Atmospheric barren planets (like current day Mars) and perhaps gas giants? (give us a pressure limit and blind us with smoke and particle effects)
I reckon i'd personally prefer 'atmospheric stuff' over Legs™ - just flying over a beautiful Earth-Like would take me a long time to get bored of....probably....maybe....
But i have to admit, a good Legs™ has to be better than a bad or rushed 'Atmospheric stuff'....so Meh
C'mon FDev! Impress us!
I reckon i'd personally prefer 'atmospheric stuff' over Legs™ - just flying over a beautiful Earth-Like would take me a long time to get bored of....probably....maybe....
But i have to admit, a good Legs™ has to be better than a bad or rushed 'Atmospheric stuff'....so Meh
C'mon FDev! Impress us!
Yeah, I’d got the gist, I was just having a cheeky dig about the start of it being just a video link.
Anyway, sorry about that, wasn’t meaning it too seriously!
On Atmos Landings, yes it’s an important part of what I consider to be full Elite Dangerous. We’re still only part way in the journey to full Elite Dangerous though, with many other things to come as well.
There’s lots of things which need to be factored in to what the optimal path is to full Elite Dangerous.
Atmos Landings is generally IMHO done a massive disservice by talking about it as though it’s a single thing, and that it’s a single step from airless bodies to atmospheric landings.
A key thing is that it all has to be procedurally generated, or to put it in other terms, everyone going to the same place at the same time has to see the same thing, people at a place should see things change realistically with the passage of time (in real time), and people going to the same place at different times should see the same thing but with things having changed realistically as they should have done over the intervening time.
That procedural generation also has to produce realistic simulations of the bodies.
When considering all of the above there’s a derivable hierarchy of complexity for Atmospheric Bodies. That complexity goes up in orders of magnitude as it goes through the hierarchy.
Also, it all has to work on fairly average platforms, and not need multi-million pound supercomputers to run it.
Given that I think it’s important that we all be realistic in our expectations and the question we all have to ask ourselves is are we happy to wait for full Atmos landings which is a very big endeavour and is going to take a long time to do, or would we rather have it in stages, which means we’ll get bits sooner but getting full Atmos landings will take even longer than it would if getting it all at once.
Personally I’ve got no doubt that FD will be able to do it all, but I’ve also got no doubt that it’s not going to be easy or quick.
My preference would be to have Atmos landings come in stages, but I could also take waiting for the full set in one.
On top of all that, there’s then the game aspects that aren’t just playing the simulation of the Milky Way. There’s lots of work there too. Though one thing that I think is worth bearing in mind is that the amount of ‘natural’ gameplay will go up as you go up through the hierarchy of Atmos bodies.
I’m looking forward to it all, but I’m pretty realistic in expectations about it when that kind of stuff is likely to arrive. Will be good when it does though!
Edit - for clarity, while I’m interested in Atmos landings, that’s not to the exclusion of other things. What I’m really interested in is full Elite Dangerous, of which Atmos landings is only a part.
Last edited:
They have to take the no man's sky approach don't they? For trashy entertainment I watched some of the coverage from the recent convention, and all their planets are done by hand pretty much.. at least when there's things to interact with. Their scope is only a few hundred planets? so can probably do that.. with elite its no mans sky or bust.
There's only so much rng pumpkins and mushrooms you can do? I think atmospheric planets is a bad path. And changing the sky out from current planets plus adding a dust storm or two (space engine?) won't be enough.. it will be sad.
Gas giants though are definitely reasonable as changing the colors and the volumetric parameters is potentially enough to be different and pass as realistic. Also its more fantastic setting than ground which to me is more appealing.
I remember the kickstarter and was really sold on David Braben's concept for atmospheric worlds. It had been done crudely in Frontier II but it was good enough back then to really make the large universe look inhabited. A lot of content has been produced instead such as CQC, fleet carriers, guardians, engineering. But I'd trade it all for that original promise.
Nothing in elite is bland in VR, definitly not the planets. Though the SRV makes me dizzy when i hit a geyser and get launched into the sky. It's terrifying!Bland Terrain in VR is still bland Terrain. Just in 3D.
Thanks for sharing though
![[VR] wi03016](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/172/172660.jpg?1591551126){kind=avatar}
ED in VR is perfect it will be a dream to be on atmospheric worlds
It seems to me that all space games that have planets (atmospheric or otherwise) are planet of hats.
I have to admit, at five years into Elite Dangerous being live I did really expect the game to be more developed with regards to planet landings. We only have what was introduced by Horizons all the way back in 2015. In all those years we haven't had a single new planet type introduced to land on, if you had told me that back in 2015 I would not have believed it. I really did expect FDev to trickle in new planet types one by one.
I feel like making all (or at least most) planets landable should be a higher priority in a space game set in a true to scale version of the Milky Way.
I wonder if the spaghetti code issues they've had has hampered development on this issue more than we realize? Maybe the New Era will open some more doors for new planet types to be introduced in the future?
I feel like making all (or at least most) planets landable should be a higher priority in a space game set in a true to scale version of the Milky Way.
I wonder if the spaghetti code issues they've had has hampered development on this issue more than we realize? Maybe the New Era will open some more doors for new planet types to be introduced in the future?
