as impressive as that looks in screenshot form. There's the same amount of gameplay implemented in each view. I'd have appreciated some innovation in what you're actually supposed to do with all that pretty landscape and space. Rather than just the same thing you did with it in the 1st image. But i guess you can't expect that much improvement in 30 years. Maybe Elite Next Gen will focus on the gameplay mechanics.
Update 13, Narrative and Access to 4.0
- Thread starter Bruce G
- Start date
as impressive as that looks in screenshot form. There's the same amount of gameplay implemented in each view. I'd have appreciated some innovation in what you're actually supposed to do with all that pretty landscape and space. Rather than just the same thing you did with it in the 1st image. But i guess you can't expect that much improvement in 30 years. Maybe Elite Next Gen will focus on the gameplay mechanics.
Indeed I said something similar, they can make the game work for very different PCs with very different hardware and software, all of which they have to scale performance up and down for, yet they can't make the game work for three very powerful and set in stone, next gen consoles (while I didn't even mention the fact that they can't make it work on the last gen platforms, which they should know inside out by now) ?! :O
.
The concourse and hanger fps I don;t really care about. I'm not going to be doing combat there or anything else game play wise. Its just a place to get thenext mission/shiny weapon or suit/turn in missions and exo samples.I get 30-60 fps in space, 20-ish fps on ground settlements, and 12 fps (and lower) walking around concourses. Who knew shopping was so taxing?
What matters to me fps wise is space, surfaces, settlements and CZs...the places where all of the action is.
The game is great (40+ fps) in those areas I care about, while most hangers I'm getting 15 fps or less...
Both last and current gen consoles use custom cpus. AVX compatibility is a hardware feature in the cpu, if the cpu does not have that particular AVX compability, no amount of throwing software at it is going to work. And honestly, console cpus and gpus are mid-tier PC equivalents at best. Both PS5 and Xbox Series X use custom modified ( i.e. whatever features they think they won't need disabled/removed ) AMD Ryzen Zen 2 cpu's equivalent to Ryzen 7 3700 and custom Radeon RDNA 2 ( i.e. detuned for heat generation and gutting whatever they think they won't need to save space ) gpus equivalent to the 5700XT. Consoles appear "powerful" because they only have to run games specifically built for them and an OS that basically amounts to some menus and a crappy web browser compared to a PC that runs, well, everything.Any idea what they do and could they be added to the consoles firmware in the future?
While again individual PCs can be very different with very different hardware and software, but they've no trouble making it work for them, yet they can't do so for the very set and known three next gen consoles! :O .
(If anybody's thinking, "three?!", the PS5 and two versions of the Xbox series X
Before I go any further; does any of that actually prove me wrong?
But continuing.. That's the game industry in general these days, welcome to a million and one rogue-likes, fps, survival, waifu, etc. etc. etc. games. It's a common theme that what drives the development time and cost of games is asset generation but at the end of it, you push a button and get a reward.
But going back to my comparison, it's not 1:1 but on balance there is way more to do in Elite Dangerous than Frontier. It's really a disingenuous comment to make and could be thrown at many a game, and again, Elite's development is continual, with Frontier it was what you got, though it is more of a testament to the quality of Frontier, rather than a detraction to Elite Dangerous.
Last edited:
Yet PCs have trouble running certain PS3 games like the Last of Us! :O
...To me the PS4, PS5 and Microsoft offerings are genuinely powerful and can't be compared like for like to PCs because they're so optimismed and have completely known qualities which devs can squeeze even bit of performance out of...
They're dedicated gaming machines, while PCs are just powerful machines that are capable of playing games so waste a lot of their power in unnecessary areas! :O
.
It's not really about support, but about lots and lots of things to do in Horizons even if it doesnt get any content
My XB account is in the bubble due to narrative, but if the narrative will be focused on Odyssey or if it will require client 4.0, then i can load the carrier with tritium and move it to exploration - an older plan of mine, always postponed due to things that kept happening in the bubble in the last 2 years
The PS4 and and XB1 support AVX; the PS5 and XSX/S support AVX and AVX2, so this is false. Unless you're talking about AVX512, which is shattered into about 500 extensions - none of which are widely supported on PC, so that would mean very few people on that platform could actually run Odyssey were it such a requirement.
When a console is released, its specs are usually a year or two behind PCs. PC move so quickly that consoles just cant keep up.
If you use a console, you just have to put up with it.
Nothing wrong of course with using a console. It's much more stable a platform. But just dont expect for it to keep up with PCs.
If you use a console, you just have to put up with it.
Nothing wrong of course with using a console. It's much more stable a platform. But just dont expect for it to keep up with PCs.
Don't need and don't want! It's too bad that Frontier has put all their narrative eggs into this one basket, because I just don't have any interest in said basket (Thargoids). The good news is that if Horizons 4.0 doesn't appeal to me, I won't feel like I'm missing out on anything by staying with 3.8.
Now actually read what I said about AVX and realize why your oh-so-great console can't run Odyssey while all the wasteful PC's can. You run gimped hardware, you have to play gimped games.Yet PCs have trouble running certain PS3 games like the Last of Us! :O
To me the PS4, PS5 and Microsoft offerings are genuinely powerful and can't be compared like for like to PCs because they're so optimismed and have completely known qualities which devs can squeeze even bit of performance out of...
They're dedicated gaming machines, while PCs are just powerful machines that are capable of playing games so waste a lot of their power in unnecessary areas! :O
there's a lot to be said for assembly routines hand-tuned for given architectures...which is something that's cost effective to do in something like a console as opposed to a PC where you'd have to either only support a subset of sales due to varying hardware or try and support all at great cost and potentially an impossible task.
However, i'm not sure how much hand-tuning of assembly goes on these days with games on modern consoles. That kind of coding went a long way towards making low powered consoles feel powerful compared to pcs. Especially since this was common at a time when the compared software was compiled from regular code and little optimizations made significant differences since the hardware was slow and there was less concern needed in maintaining hand-optimized stuff since you released once and that's it (no neverending updates that have to be worked on by other developers over time because you're releasing unfinished products) . Current consoles though from sony and ms are just pc's with some custom tweaked hardware of the commercial variety regular pc's have running software that is mostly the same as pc with OS's no longer have the game running on bare metal (just like a normal pc os). Just locked down PC's in a walled garden and limited access as a user.
If a Steam Deck can run Odyssey, then so can the latest XBox and PS5 (strictly from a hardware perspective). I totally agree that PS4 and older XBox are the wrong targets for future games, however. Why Frontier decided to focus on depreciated tech rather than the new generation of consoles is baffling to me. Heck, they won't even tune the current console version of Horizons to take advantage of this new technology (quite the opposite, as Horizons regularly CTDs on PS5 IIRC). Odyssey not running on modern consoles is totally on Frontier.Now actually read what I said about AVX and realize why your oh-so-great console can't run Odyssey while all the wasteful PC's can. You run gimped hardware, you have to play gimped games.
Have you seen some of the potatoes people are running Odyssey on? PS5 and Series X would have no trouble.Now actually read what I said about AVX and realize why your oh-so-great console can't run Odyssey while all the wasteful PC's can. You run gimped hardware, you have to play gimped games.
I assumed given that there is regular AVX/AVX2 support on the XSX/PS5 that it was something more narrow that the person pointing it out had noticed Odyssey using
I think the main reason for them not originally deciding to support the new gen consoles was down to them waiting to see how the install bases for those systems grew, since as I recall, Odyssey development was originally planned to be finished much sooner, and so there'd not be the userbase there to buy what would now, two years on from the console launches, very much be a current-gen version, but which never got started due to all the other problems along the way developing it, and by then there was so much technical debt built up on the project that starting a new gen version from scratch was more than they wanted to take on.
Consoles should be upgradable...like a pc essentially. Ram cpu gpu etc.
That's why we have pcs.
Because we can move up when the time comes rather than having to wait for next console release.
Seems daft they (console makers) never bothered or if they did it never caught on.
Anyways that brings me to the point.
Performance.
Let's face it odyssey is crap in terms of performance. Especially in VR.
Having to throw a big hammer at it to make it work isn't what brazen promised.
Just think that all the gumph about narrative etc pushes what's to me, the principle issue with this game, to one side...
Sorry if I appear sullen and downbeat, I'm out in the black. Has that effect.
No intention of coming back till the game runs ok
That's why we have pcs.
Because we can move up when the time comes rather than having to wait for next console release.
Seems daft they (console makers) never bothered or if they did it never caught on.
Anyways that brings me to the point.
Performance.
Let's face it odyssey is crap in terms of performance. Especially in VR.
Having to throw a big hammer at it to make it work isn't what brazen promised.
Just think that all the gumph about narrative etc pushes what's to me, the principle issue with this game, to one side...
Sorry if I appear sullen and downbeat, I'm out in the black. Has that effect.
No intention of coming back till the game runs ok
Even then I don't think there's any features that consoles from 2020s lack that PC CPUs from earlier than that would have.
Depends on if the point you're making is that the point of the game is to present a pretty screenshot.
is it disingenuous? What gameplay exists in that wide expanse of the surface in the screenshot? If you're on 99.999999% of any planet in the game, it consists of 2 game activities operating under 1 game loop. You shoot rocks and run them over or you stare at non-interactive models that look like plants, both you find by driving around without much concern for where you are driving, optionally looking at a spectrograph that runs continuously with occasionally getting out to stare at the bio thing since you can't look at it from the vehicle. This is exactly the same game loops and rewards on basically every planet with the game not caring at all which one you're doing it on or what in particular you got doing it. Just wide open empty terrain that you can't do anything with except move across it. It doesn't matter what you pick up or look at, it converts to a common currency and the game doesn't care about the details. There's a lot of labels associated with the things you're doing in elite dangerous but the activity itself amounts a few common activities that are entirely interchangeable where the game effectively doesn't really respond or care about the particulars of what you are doing to differentiate them in any way besides the labels provided.
I see a lot of improvement visually in 30 years ...but if you take that way and look at the actual game play the picture is vastly different. There's nothing about trading, mining, travelling or even the combat and missions in elite dangerous that I dont think anyone would be unfamiliar with if they had come straight from these ancient versions of Elite today. Opportunity to depart from previous games existed around powerplay but that was never fully allowed to be realized. Really the social aspect and community content aspect of elite dangerous is a source that could have been highly helpful in adding to elite but it's been limited and cut back in places and overall an out-of-game feature.
What detracts from elite dangerous is that it doesn't use the scope of the game it's created to even a fraction of the degree that the elite games that came before it use their environment. It doesn't attempt to innovate the game mechanics it's copied and pasted from it's previous iterations. It sits on the achievement of the stellar forge and wastes it with uninspired game loops and time sinks. Those copied game loops were decent 30 years ago on the limited hardware available. They feel "minimally viable" now.