In a lot of way, Horizons is better than Odyssey IMO. I remember that original plan was to add odyssey planet tech into Horizons. I think that would be bad as I personally like Horizon’s planets/lighting better. Maybe now it won’t happen?
Does the Console News mean that Horizons will probably stay the same?
- Thread starter Threeofseven
- Start date
Console will probably stay the same
Well, this was meant to be the next step in the original plan. That fell apart because Odyssey was such a mess and needed fixing. To my knowledge FD haven't revealed a roadmap for this year, so it's bit of an unknown at the moment.
If their aim is as stated "to focus on a single codebase" then there's two ways they could do that:
1) PC Horizons gets the same "critical updates only" treatment as Console Horizons - you can keep the planets/lighting, in exchange for never getting the Panther Clipper or whatever else new gets added later.
2) PC Horizons is removed as a separate thing and just becomes the Odyssey client but with disembarkation and atmospheric landings disabled. Planets, lighting, etc. all get merged but you'll get any new space things added to the client.
I suspect the second option is more likely in the long term but it could easily carry on as the first option for months.
1) PC Horizons gets the same "critical updates only" treatment as Console Horizons - you can keep the planets/lighting, in exchange for never getting the Panther Clipper or whatever else new gets added later.
2) PC Horizons is removed as a separate thing and just becomes the Odyssey client but with disembarkation and atmospheric landings disabled. Planets, lighting, etc. all get merged but you'll get any new space things added to the client.
I suspect the second option is more likely in the long term but it could easily carry on as the first option for months.
My hope and possible interpretation was there was a lot of misdirection and clutching for excuses in the official statement.
You could guess by putting a frontier hat on.
- While there’s acceptable cost to keeping horizons running they will, because they can still keep console users who don’t require more content, pc users who prefer horizons, and pc users who can’t run odd. At minimum this is goodwill, and given the costs don’t escalate or they don’t make the bgs incompatible one day it’s free and arx sales even.
- Adding new content assets to two versions doesn’t many sense and would literally be the same work twice given the new planet tech. That would not be sane so they’re moving on as planned with odd. Not sure about ships.
The only thing I wish I knew was whether they asked if they could get odd work on horizons tech (this is no loss of face it would be great), or even if the planet tech was a problem, or if horizons plus the current state of odd bases could have made it through. Basically was it a choice between planet tech and consoles?
You could guess by putting a frontier hat on.
- While there’s acceptable cost to keeping horizons running they will, because they can still keep console users who don’t require more content, pc users who prefer horizons, and pc users who can’t run odd. At minimum this is goodwill, and given the costs don’t escalate or they don’t make the bgs incompatible one day it’s free and arx sales even.
- Adding new content assets to two versions doesn’t many sense and would literally be the same work twice given the new planet tech. That would not be sane so they’re moving on as planned with odd. Not sure about ships.
The only thing I wish I knew was whether they asked if they could get odd work on horizons tech (this is no loss of face it would be great), or even if the planet tech was a problem, or if horizons plus the current state of odd bases could have made it through. Basically was it a choice between planet tech and consoles?
Last edited:
Both are possible.
And while i do think that 2) may happen (actually i called that it will happen along with U12), they really dont have any reasons to do it
They have to keep the Horizons client for consoles.
So,
Removing the Horizons client from PC will gain them nothing except more hate from the people with lesser computers that will take a performance hit while running the Odyssey client in Horizons mode.
So, it's entirely possible they will keep the PC Horizons client for as long the Consoles will have Horizons running.
Edit: There is also the PEGI thing.
As it is now - whoever has Odyssey is running PG16 content
While anyone that is running Horizons is running a PEGI7 client and has no way to meet Odyssey PEGI16 content - that is shooting humans in the face or running them over in SRV
So keeping the Horizons client (and the segregation from the Odyssey players) gives them extra room in regards with the PEGI stuff
Last edited:
They might want to have all the PC players be able to play in the same 'Open'. In that case you would want to have the EDH for PC compatible with EDO
PC Horizon was planned to be merged with Odyssey. What is likely to happen, we'll get a no DLC Odyssey version (replacing Horizon) and a DLC Odyssey (the one we already have).
Or perhaps we'll get a single Odyssey version, since it's quite easy to disable the DLC feature (no atmo landing module, it's unique, and no "disembark" button).
Or perhaps we'll get a single Odyssey version, since it's quite easy to disable the DLC feature (no atmo landing module, it's unique, and no "disembark" button).
I disagree. They took that option away from themselves when they decided to put odd bases on all landable planets, rather than just new atmosphere types. If odd planets could just be turned off like horizons was for vanilla players, we'd all be in happy land at the moment. Horizons content would stay as is. The new stuff would be additional instead a replacement, so the terrible looks could be isolated and avoided, no need for complaints. Given that space returns to good performance in the odd client, the performance problems could be user managed as well with everyone great and small on the same client. If you can't run it, just don't land there, but everyone is still in the same place.
That sounds like someone in marketing making a call that the new stuff needs to be everywhere and everyone needs to be playing it for metrics like they've previously done.. instead of accepting that odd content would be a bit more special and only available on x% of systems with the right planet types.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
There's also an option 3: Do both.
Keep Horizons as is and also have a non-Odyssey version of the base game (new lighting, menus, system map, etc) with tenuous planets disabled.
This would allow PC players to choose between not being able to instance with Odyssey players with good performance, or instancing with Odyssey players and having bad performance.
Since this third way seems unnecessarily complicated and confusing, while having not a significant upside, I confidently predict that this is what FDev will choose to do.
There's a huge amount to read between the lines here with this. The fact Odyssey is very standalone has huge implications in that regard.
I CBF qualifying half these statements, though the qualification is basically that Console Horizons needs to maintain parity with PC Horizons, for the sake of efficiency, and PC Horizons must be congruous and consistent with Odyssey, also for the sake of efficiency, otherwise switching between the two modes will be highly problematic. Towards that end, any horizons content will remain explicitly Horizons-only, and vice-versa for Odyssey. This means we'll never see Odyssey features included in things like:
Take Megaships as an example. I know people have been all about wanting to EVA out of their ship to interact with the surface of megaships, perhaps opening a hatch and entering the ship and exploring inside. That would almost certainly result in changes to the megaship graphical model, entities and such. At that point, you have a choice:
But then you've created differences between PC and Console Horizons... which will undoubtedly over time result in changes needed to the Console version to support Odyssey features.
Enter the shareholders. You're now basically saying "In order to make changes to our current headline product, we need to make changes to a separate product that isn't going to create any earnings, because the platform won't be receiving the content"... it's wasted money and overheads.... that sort of thing is unlikely to fly.
To avoid all this, any new features and content must deliberately avoid all existing content in the game; to-date we've seen Odyssey is an incredibly standalone experience, so that is reasonably likely to be continuing the way forward.
At this point, I'd reflect on a bunch of people who, while I was naysaying the need for Odyssey, claimed that it would enrich the current space-game experience... salvage missions would have you EVA out, cut open the hatch on a wreck and recover the goods, that sort of thing. Not trying to fault those opinions here, those people have no control over where FD took their development... but it's pretty safe to say that's never going to happen now. Odyssey content will continue to be completely isolated as a "side car" to the space game experience, and that's a bad position for the game's future content.
Not saying this isn't possible to remediate... only that it's financially inefficient and wasteful... it'd be only for the love of the game. Do shareholders want that? Almost certainly not.
I CBF qualifying half these statements, though the qualification is basically that Console Horizons needs to maintain parity with PC Horizons, for the sake of efficiency, and PC Horizons must be congruous and consistent with Odyssey, also for the sake of efficiency, otherwise switching between the two modes will be highly problematic. Towards that end, any horizons content will remain explicitly Horizons-only, and vice-versa for Odyssey. This means we'll never see Odyssey features included in things like:
- Current Guardian ruins
- Current Thargoid structures
- Horizons non-dockable settlements
- Horizons planetary USS
- Non-dockable Megaships
Take Megaships as an example. I know people have been all about wanting to EVA out of their ship to interact with the surface of megaships, perhaps opening a hatch and entering the ship and exploring inside. That would almost certainly result in changes to the megaship graphical model, entities and such. At that point, you have a choice:
- Bifurcate the assets between Horizons and Odyssey PC versions, maintaining two different copies of the same entities for the two different versions of the game, which is an awful place to be in terms of delivering a consistent experience, and also general product maintainability (ensuring changes to core functions work in both product sets); or
- Carry over the changes into the Horizons codebase, which is duplicating effort in some aspects.
But then you've created differences between PC and Console Horizons... which will undoubtedly over time result in changes needed to the Console version to support Odyssey features.
Enter the shareholders. You're now basically saying "In order to make changes to our current headline product, we need to make changes to a separate product that isn't going to create any earnings, because the platform won't be receiving the content"... it's wasted money and overheads.... that sort of thing is unlikely to fly.
To avoid all this, any new features and content must deliberately avoid all existing content in the game; to-date we've seen Odyssey is an incredibly standalone experience, so that is reasonably likely to be continuing the way forward.
At this point, I'd reflect on a bunch of people who, while I was naysaying the need for Odyssey, claimed that it would enrich the current space-game experience... salvage missions would have you EVA out, cut open the hatch on a wreck and recover the goods, that sort of thing. Not trying to fault those opinions here, those people have no control over where FD took their development... but it's pretty safe to say that's never going to happen now. Odyssey content will continue to be completely isolated as a "side car" to the space game experience, and that's a bad position for the game's future content.
Not saying this isn't possible to remediate... only that it's financially inefficient and wasteful... it'd be only for the love of the game. Do shareholders want that? Almost certainly not.
I got Odyssey and gave it a try, I found the VR performance far behind Horizons even after all the updates.
I got upset at Elite because of Odyssey then remembering that Horizons is the game I fell in love with and it’s still there.
Now I mainly play Horizons in VR and only launch Odyssey to check if the performance has improved.
I honestly feel that now the consoles are no longer there is no incentive for Fdev is do more optimization.
So I bet that any meaningful optimization is NO MORE, Odyssey is as good as it will get.
So Horizon’s is the game I love and I am ok with it as it is, for as long as it is available.
ps… I could care less about the FPS shooter stuff
If I want to play a shooter I will go do a shooter built for it, there much better anyway
I got upset at Elite because of Odyssey then remembering that Horizons is the game I fell in love with and it’s still there.
Now I mainly play Horizons in VR and only launch Odyssey to check if the performance has improved.
I honestly feel that now the consoles are no longer there is no incentive for Fdev is do more optimization.
So I bet that any meaningful optimization is NO MORE, Odyssey is as good as it will get.
So Horizon’s is the game I love and I am ok with it as it is, for as long as it is available.
ps… I could care less about the FPS shooter stuff
If I want to play a shooter I will go do a shooter built for it, there much better anyway
Last edited:
Consoles will stay as they are on Horizons with no further updates, Horizons on PC will get the new planetary tech so there will be only one code base to update. Keeping Horizons as it is on PC but continuing to provide updates for Horizons would mean 2 separate code bases so that's probably not going to happen.
IMOP EDH console will stay as is, until FD decides to pull the plug, dependant upon sales and ARX.
EDH on PC will slowly be ‘upgraded’ to with EDO code then dropped so FD essentially has 1 working code base, Consoles tick along in the background.
Older PC rigs will inevitably find it difficult to run EDH on the EDO codebase, pushing them to upgrade / purchase EDO, then eventually FD will replace EDH with EDO as the base game, in the end likely giving it away free to existing EDH players who haven’t already bought it…
IMPO in the end there will be only PC EDO and Console EDH.
EDH on PC will slowly be ‘upgraded’ to with EDO code then dropped so FD essentially has 1 working code base, Consoles tick along in the background.
Older PC rigs will inevitably find it difficult to run EDH on the EDO codebase, pushing them to upgrade / purchase EDO, then eventually FD will replace EDH with EDO as the base game, in the end likely giving it away free to existing EDH players who haven’t already bought it…
IMPO in the end there will be only PC EDO and Console EDH.
Last edited:
Well, it's starting to become obvious the "we cannot maintain two code base"
Post U11, PC Horizons was hit by some nasty bugs like Large Gimbaled Frags not deploying. Console Horizons was not affected.
EDO was not affected either.
So it seems that we actually have 3 code bases if not 4: EDO, PC Horizons, Console Horizons (maybe further separated by XB Horizons and PS Horizons)
So i would expect PC horizons to be phased out sooner than later even tho i always thought that if they keep Horizons on Consoles, they may as well keep it on PC too.
Post U11, PC Horizons was hit by some nasty bugs like Large Gimbaled Frags not deploying. Console Horizons was not affected.
EDO was not affected either.
So it seems that we actually have 3 code bases if not 4: EDO, PC Horizons, Console Horizons (maybe further separated by XB Horizons and PS Horizons)
So i would expect PC horizons to be phased out sooner than later even tho i always thought that if they keep Horizons on Consoles, they may as well keep it on PC too.
They could merge Horizons with Odyssey, I can live without atmospheric planets and I don't give a fig about on foot content, the only problem is that in its current form Odyssey is a plain downgrade compared to Horizons' spaceship gameplay.
Worse looking everything (darker, cartoonish, crap looking effects like explosions and plasma balls) AND worse performance (less frames per second) at the same time. They should fix that before even thinking about any kind of merge (they should have fixed that long ago tbh, they had all the time in the world).
Worse looking everything (darker, cartoonish, crap looking effects like explosions and plasma balls) AND worse performance (less frames per second) at the same time. They should fix that before even thinking about any kind of merge (they should have fixed that long ago tbh, they had all the time in the world).
At some point they will need to merge / migrate PC Horizon with Odyssey simply is that.
What was the point of canceling console development then if they intent to maintain Horizons on PC ?
As console gamer (XB Series X) I would feel screwed otherwise, as the next Gen 9 consoles probably are more capable to run odyssey than many PC players 5+ years old rigs.
They need to continue performance optimisation though to make it enjoyable on as many mid spec PCs as possible.
Personally I dont have any performance issue playing Odyssey in 1440p on a RTX 2070 / Ryzen 7, as i bought this PC to play Star Citizen last year.
In the end there will be always some people complaining that they dont have a good performance on Odyssey on their 10 years old laptops and are "forced" out of the game because they simply refuse, or can't, take the investment into their gaming hobby and ignore technical progress. It's literally the same thing in the console community when people with their 10 year old ancient Xboxes complain about missing features that next gen players have in some games.
Player also need to accept that with the necessary changes on the game engine / renderer some things may look DIFFERENT( not worse ! ) than it does in Horizons. They are still working on the things and, im maybe to optimistic here, they are still in the progress of adapting and polishing odyssey.
It is what it is now, its time to move forward with Elite.
What was the point of canceling console development then if they intent to maintain Horizons on PC ?
As console gamer (XB Series X) I would feel screwed otherwise, as the next Gen 9 consoles probably are more capable to run odyssey than many PC players 5+ years old rigs.
They need to continue performance optimisation though to make it enjoyable on as many mid spec PCs as possible.
Personally I dont have any performance issue playing Odyssey in 1440p on a RTX 2070 / Ryzen 7, as i bought this PC to play Star Citizen last year.
In the end there will be always some people complaining that they dont have a good performance on Odyssey on their 10 years old laptops and are "forced" out of the game because they simply refuse, or can't, take the investment into their gaming hobby and ignore technical progress. It's literally the same thing in the console community when people with their 10 year old ancient Xboxes complain about missing features that next gen players have in some games.
Player also need to accept that with the necessary changes on the game engine / renderer some things may look DIFFERENT( not worse ! ) than it does in Horizons. They are still working on the things and, im maybe to optimistic here, they are still in the progress of adapting and polishing odyssey.
It is what it is now, its time to move forward with Elite.
Last edited:
You are better off to be honest, Odyssey is utter trash.
I was just a tick box excercise so they could say "We have on foot exploration", not sure how long you have been around here, but Frontier are notorious for implementing Minimum Viable Releases into their products, Especially ED.
Eeffectively once the planetary tech is upgraded there will only be one code base, the difference between the two being the Advanced Landing Suite that allows landing on atmospheric planets, I don't think it's a matter of slowly upgrading, I don't think they could do that, there aren't really bits they can "slowly" add to H, it's an all or nothing thing. I suspect the only thing that we are waiting on is the final decision on Consoles and migration, if they are going to allow full migration it would be easier to do that while the Consoles and PC's are using the same version of Horizons. So once that's done then H on PC's will be upgraded to the O code base.
I'm quite enjoying it, mind you I don't do the on foot combat side because I am not interested in that, but I have walked around a lot of settlements, I think "utter trash" is completely wrong.