The last image is blurred by mistake or for some purpose?
AND there are not in the same conditions at all.
Not the same atmesferic dense, not the same height
New Planet Tech is KILLER of Exploration (all terrain is tiling/repeating/not procedural/random)
- Thread starter BlackMaze
- Start date
AND there are not in the same conditions at all.
Not the same atmesferic dense, not the same height
Same location. Still is from a YouTube video. (That's why it's blurry) Here it is:
Not this again...
Yes. The exact same planet looks different because it was generated again after the footage was taken.
So, here's another reality.
Either you want to be negative or you really only seen this one faulty comparison.
There are plenty of ice worlds in Odyssey that look the one on the picture. It's just not exactly the one from the picture anymore.
They are also not hard to find.
Its funny to me, this persistent defensive idea from people defending the game which says "your brain is seeing patterns where there are none/confirmation bias", as if seeing the repeating textures is a brain disorder, instead of....... simply coming to terms with the obviously repeating textures that result from procedural generation across hundreds of millions of planets and systems.
Why not just agree with what everyone plainly sees, instead of calling in the armchair psych brigade to defend the game by trying to make people feel mentally ill? lmao this is so ridiculous., and downright insulting to the intelligence of people who understand how all this works.
This tech (and ALL realtime rendering tech to date for all end-user applications) MUST recycle and re-use textures and assets in order to make the best use of limited (and various) system resources, and its just a matter of how robust the patterns are & how accurate and good the blending and filtering tech is. Its OK to see the repeating textures, that have been present in video games and graphics rendering since the beginning, and to TRY to see the man behind the curtain. Seeing the underlying limits of the tech is ok -- your brand will be ok. lol
I don't mind people in denial too much, if they kept it for themselves. Sometimes a post pop up, and I don't have the issue, or I'm not specifically interested, like for example VR stuff. I don't own a VR thing, so I don't see what I can bring to the conversation.
But it's very annoying when they start acting as if you are WRONG. That the game SHOULDN'T be FIXED. Play the "fun police" card, and explain to you gently as if you were a dog, that you can "fly low and look at the ground and it's pretty" and stuff like that.
We all want to enjoy the game, so why the people having issues are being attacked ?
Alright. But I am not seeing anything like this. Maybe something is borked on my end. Could I ask you to send me the location where you took these? I want to go out and compare. It might be that people are not seeing the same things.
That is what you say, not me
Actually most of the atmospheric ice worlds are like this, given they are not too far away from the main star or it's a very dim system.
Here's a few. The first one comes with blue sky.
Nefertem 5 (atmospheric with volcanism)
Nyanmil 7 (atmospheric with turquoise ground and bio stuff)
Millese A 1 C (non-atmospheric with white plains and soft canyons)
Col 285 Sector KR-W a31-3 B 2 (brown dwarf system. Atmospheric, very dark with spooky purple sky)
Those are all in the Bubble. The Col one might be a few lightyears out, but not much.
Last edited:
It's not you. People have been taking screnshot of specific places with "ultraforcapture", which makes everything better. Also, note how close to the ground the screenshot are. Due to lod issues, ground can be OK, while space is very low poly.
This is the kind of ice world I get
But I'm sure if I took the screenshot on foot it would look different. Wouldn't change the heightmap artifact cliffs in the middle left of the screenshot though.
It differs from true terrain. And true terrain is repetitive, especially on no-life atmo planets, because it has few factors only. Look on Mars or Moon - complete dumb the same if to read this topic. And furthermore, at 1st look you will not tell where is Moon or Mercury by small picture. Guess why? Because in reality there are not too many factors of changes.
To be honest, I don't really like the terrain in No Man's Sky. I like the game and for its purpose it's great, but somehow I always see the same over and over again when traversing those planets.
A little of both, I’d wager. They clearly made some deliberate changes to the planetary tech after the alpha. They even said so, since people were complaining about how SRVs handle on rough terrain. I think in reducing the amplitude of the noise that leads to rough terrain there were unforeseen consequences on the overall look of planets, making them look a lot more flat on average from orbit. I would also be willing to bet that some changes were made to improve performance. The reduction in Mie scattering in many places might be a consequence, intended or not, of this performance pass. What I find puzzling is that the new system after these changes weren’t tested in the alpha. The overall look is poorer as a result. No one really complained about repeating planet regions forming patterns in the alpha. I think this is because the tiles were better hidden in the system used pre alpha and during the alpha. The changes made for the release build just caused a general degradation in the quality of the rendered planets. They should have done a few more passes before release. Perhaps in a real beta. The alpha accomplished the main mission of ensuring that the code runs in a multiplayer setting. But exploration is a huge part of gameplay, and having good planet tech is a primary component of that gameplay. A perfect thing to test in a beta to get gameplay feedback from more people than the few eyeballs who do testing within FDev.
Last edited:
NMS is a great example of how to recover from a botched release. Frontier really could learn lessons with what Hello Games did.
Wait, should I now get all dramatic, because on test/alpha/whatever servers planets were reshuffled/generator formula changed and release planet with the same numbers looks differently?
It's not like EDO has no real issues and we have to invent some more desperately like that...
It's not only looking differently. It's looking worse. One is quite pretty, the other is a low poly beige thing on smooth hills with no noise or efforts.
Actually, that math works in reverse, and nobody in their right mind tries to break down the retail cost of their games to an hourly rate. If we do this for them, then investors will also see it this way, and before you know it EA games next $129 sports franchise game won't be $129, it will be $129 to buy the base game and $20/month from that point on. Then, as usual, other publishers will follow suit in a new arms race to the bottom of their customers' tolerance.
Developers NEED their games to be able to generate replay value or open-ended experiences, or their games are reviewed poorly and people dont want to play them. Some games created by single developers or extremely small teams can rack up 1000s of hours of playtime, some of these games are less than $10, they are in working order and supported by their devs, and some even offer free DLCs. OG Minecraft anyone?
In order to COMPETE with games made with budgets far, far smaller than Elite's, which cost much less than Elite and yet generate the same playtime, as well as DISTANCING themselves from the greedy publishers who make games with far larger prices than Elite, which provide less than 10 hours of gameplay and charge $40 for DLC, Frontier is obligated to create something that has better value than their industry peers. If not, that isnt the customer's problem.
Invisible hand of the markets? Meet the very visible hand of the consumer. We have clout, too, and its time to remember: the sellers market economy turns to a buyers market suddenly and without warning. All this extra boldness and confidence in CEOs and investors, to push harder and squeeze everyone tighter now than every before, will soon dissolve into the silence of market-failure, and Im pretty sure anyone who reads any economists know what I mean. =P
New challenge lets see if this thread can overtake the screenshots thread in number of posts 
There have been half a dozen comments which attempt to suggest the repeating textures are brain disorders, cognitive biases, and yours, which says "confirmation bias".
This is not a COGNITIVE nor PSYCH issue, to be managed in that way, and it is offensive that anyone would try to push that narrative.
So?
I have been in ice worlds in EDO that look similar to the "demo version".
So what if they are under different coords?
Do you guys even follow EDO screenshots thread, or is some cognitive dissonance too much to handle?
The part of problem where EDO allegedly can't generate beautiful and detailed landscapes is false,
the other part that it's too repetitive is true.