On the contrary, the "new" SRV was Forza Horizon 4 mode. It behaved like an arcade car, and even self righted itself if you made a booboo. That's what the uproar was about.
Please commit to rerolling the planets...
- Thread starter Aashenfox
- Start date
Yep. And the change was made to be able to cross bumpy ground more easily, without killing the srv after 500m.
Or because they already knew the terrain pop-in is so bad you don't have a chance trying to avoid rocks at high speeds
I didn't mind either model, and was saying we should keep both and have the option to toggle, but just like with the scanner minigame, we only deal in absolutes.
Tread carefully, old friend, this is tantamount to heresy to some!
(Having fond memories of the drivel I had thrown my way during those happy alpha days wheenever SRV handling and Odyssey was mentioned in the same paragraph!)
And if you wanted the true trifecta, you also mentioned canyons
I understand that they want to preserve something that is important to them. But FDev chose a compromise that did not satisfy either side.
I have to admit, pretending like it never happened is hardly a compromise. Also it makes you wonder why it was so easy to pull the code and go back to the old ways. But at this point, it's kinda moot. I really wish they had kept it in like a "beginner" option at least, so people can try it out. It was gone so fast in the alpha, that not many noticed it at all.
I think it would be nice to add a little more variety in mountain height, and bring back large canyons with a little more frequency, etc.
But I don't agree with the "should have waited until confirming every planet was an upgrade on Horizons". I'm sure there's no way to avoid there being some boring, flat planets, short of making all planets ridiculously jagged and mountainous.
In fact, I want there to be some boring planets, to make finding beautiful ones rewarding. There were plenty of dull worlds in Horizons. Even with a re-roll that massively reduces their number (fingers crossed), I doubt there's any objective way to ensure the boring ones are always the same boring ones from Horizons.
So yeah, I think there's major room for improvement in Odyssey's planet geometry, but it's not something to be urgently rushed into (and potentially ballsed-up again), and furthermore it's not even the most pressing issue with the look of the planets. There's also the tiling surface textures seen from medium distances, the "Minecraft effect", the rate of asset popping/phantom shadows/invisible rock glitches, and the some big tweaks needed to the lighting system to give more visual contrast to surfaces (like we saw in the preview footage before release).
Those changes without geometry changes would have a groundbreaking (heh) impact on planetary visuals, IMO even greater than changing geometry alone.
But I don't agree with the "should have waited until confirming every planet was an upgrade on Horizons". I'm sure there's no way to avoid there being some boring, flat planets, short of making all planets ridiculously jagged and mountainous.
In fact, I want there to be some boring planets, to make finding beautiful ones rewarding. There were plenty of dull worlds in Horizons. Even with a re-roll that massively reduces their number (fingers crossed), I doubt there's any objective way to ensure the boring ones are always the same boring ones from Horizons.
So yeah, I think there's major room for improvement in Odyssey's planet geometry, but it's not something to be urgently rushed into (and potentially ballsed-up again), and furthermore it's not even the most pressing issue with the look of the planets. There's also the tiling surface textures seen from medium distances, the "Minecraft effect", the rate of asset popping/phantom shadows/invisible rock glitches, and the some big tweaks needed to the lighting system to give more visual contrast to surfaces (like we saw in the preview footage before release).
Those changes without geometry changes would have a groundbreaking (heh) impact on planetary visuals, IMO even greater than changing geometry alone.
There is an RSS tracker for dev posts: https://ed.miggy.org/devposts.html
Frontier have been very active on the forums lately.
It is week end every week and has been for the last month or two since the original thread was opened.
I think you're right that prioritising the visuals and performance bugs is most important, because that's the largest source of discontent for many. I agree completely, but worry that the geometry changes risk being forgotten as they seem regarded as less important.
The geometry changes are really needed to turn the nice-looking and well-performing planets into places that are compelling and challenging to fly, as in Horizons good terrain was actively used a lot by those of us who enjoy more extreme flying. Without them, that whole activity and challenge is lost. Planets should be more than screenshot generators.
Deleted member 182079
D
As someone who really disliked the Alpha SRV handling, I think that's very harsh on FH4 - its driving model, while obviously simcade-ish, is very satisfying and has sufficient nuance to differentiate between different drivetrains, weight, and ground surface (amongst other things). Ridge Racer feels like the more apt comparison.
Imo, the new tech removed one of ED USP - the planet gen, which was very good in Horizons. I can't see myself revisit the same canyon, ridgeline, plains again and again. And come the unification of the two strains we can say good-bye to real procgen.
The thing is, smoke and mirrors need to be subtle enough so they don't get noticed by the average audience. Which I totally am.
The thing is, smoke and mirrors need to be subtle enough so they don't get noticed by the average audience. Which I totally am.
But who would be tasked with deciding if every planet was an upgrade? And could we wait the 50,000 years or so it would take to visit each and every one of hundreds of billions of bodies to see them pre & post update?
I even thought that a real driving assistance would have been added when a CM opened a topic for specific suggestions on this driving model.
Hah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I was paraphrasing a statement in the original post and trying to say I don't think it can work that way.
It was supposed to be supportive!
One occasionally wonders if the players who make such a generalised statement actually considered what they were saying - although, it may, of course, just be a "don't change what I like" statement.
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
It used to be if it's not broke, don't fix it. Now it's, hold my beer...It was supposed to be supportive!
One occasionally wonders if the players who make such a generalised statement actually considered what they were saying - although, it may, of course, just be a "don't change what I like" statement.
It is a difficult situation, either the game remains static and unchanged (which for an alleged MMO is a death-knell anyway) or 'improves' and alienates some of the players who are averse to any change at all. (there does appear to be one or two who post such a sentiment on the forum)
The situation is exasperated by the new tech not delivering what was expected (even by Dr Ross, it seems!) and being accompanied by considerable performance issues, leaving most of us (I'd love to say all, but would be risking the wrath of the few) with a DLC upgrade that doesn't deliver on many levels.
Do we embrace change and go forward, or remain for the the rest of the game's life with "the same" because change might inconvenience some playstyles?
The game I bought (back in early 2015) included an intention to add bolt-in features to it. We regularly see this (carriers as a recent example) where the initial implementation is okay but could be improved. Sometimes those improvements come later, sometimes not but that's adding to the existing game. When a part of the existing game is changed it may be one where some players see an improvement, others see the change as bad (changes to AI difficulty for example); the change cannot always be one where everyone sees an improvement. An example of a positive change that is intended to disrupt an emergent playstyle might be closing loopholes like mission board flipping.
But then there are changes where it could have been done in a way that doesn't make things worse at all. Those are a problem because the implication is that those affected players don't matter.
It can be easy to overlook a playstyle when making a change, but there seems to be rather less thought put into that consideration over the past couple of years.
Last edited: