Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 188

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Frontier is really capable to truly change the face of the planets in 2018?

  1. #1

    Frontier is really capable to truly change the face of the planets in 2018?

    Hi CMDRs,


    I am on ED from the first day but that is my first thread on the forum. I am not a "vocal" player, but after 5 years I intend to participate more actively in the life of the forum.

    I not come here to made evil criticisms or empty compliments.

    I come here just to give my modest contribution and talk about the game I've been using so much in these 5 years... I'm not special, and I'm just a player like all the others.

    I hope this thread can be a place without any malicious comments and free offenses.

    I invite everyone to not deviate from the main discussion and to not fall into free volgarity both against developers and against other users (and me if you can ^_^ )

    NOTE: you can show your interest and support to the topic here too: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...-on-the-ground



    Today I want to share with you my concerns about the new "planetary surface and rock tech".

    From the 2015/2016 the frontier present to all of us the concept and the general idea of what they wanted to try to do with the planets surface. They submit to us that in 2015/2016:

    what frontier team show us in 2015/2016 as an example of what the team want to do and achieve


    Now, that above was only a concept art, and of course it could not be respected 100%, it could not be the faithful image of what the icy planets would be in ED: Horizons.
    We all know as players, that a concept is always different from the final achievement ... so it would be "silly" to criticize that the planets in the 2015/2016 (Horizons) were not identical to the concept released.

    After almost 2 years... Frontier at the "Frontier EXPO2017" has released among the many things a new concept of what might be potentially the icy planets at the end of 2018 (at the end of the "Beyond" updates).

    what frontier team show us in 10/2017 as an example of what the team want to do and achieve


    Now, actually, if you go in the real game... and you try to go on a icy planet you will find such a situation:

    what we have from 2 years until today 12/10/2017


    ...
    let's all take a good breath
    ...

    Without malice, without being sarcastic can you post here your full answer on that question: is it lawful or not according to you to have faith in the frontier today?

    I want to be more specific: do you believe that the frontier is capable of presenting, at the end of 2018, something vaguely resembled the new concept art(frontiereEXPO2017) even if after 2 years there is no adherence between what we see ingame today and what we can see in the first old concept of 2015/2016?

    We all try to answer this question, avoid talking about other aspects of the game like gameplay, rules, etc.

    let's make this thread a worthwhile place. Where everyone can leave a feedback and a thought related only to the topic raised.

    I hope to see many feedback from you CMNDRs

    See you soon.




    OH MY MY MY MY MY MY... MY!



    I add below a post that raises other aspects regarding the surface of the planets 14/10/2017 EDIT: Thaks to CMDR Alec Turner
    I add below a post that raises other aspects regarding the surface of the planets 16/10/2017 EDIT: Thaks to CMDR Deggial
    I add below a post that raises other aspects regarding the color of the planets 19/10/2017 EDIT:

    Originally Posted by Alec Turner View Post (Source)
    Also, I tracked down the real Mars surface photography (from the "OtherWorlds" exhibition at the Natural History Museum) that I was talking about earlier ...
    Thought it might make for some more aspirational and/or discussion reference material. Have to say, aside from the colouration, we're not a million miles away from the second one. Looking at the first one, it'd be nice to see sharper edged rocks in ED (I mean, rocks that look like you could cut yourself on them), I mean it's not like the airless moons we can currently land on have any wind erosion so I'd have thought the rocks we see currently wouldn't ever be rounded actually? (unlike the rocks in the following image)
    As I said before, your post provides some good tips to make some important considerations.
    Thank you for giving me the inspiration. Nasa's photos always make us dream!

    The biggest problem of current planets where we can land is that the FD has built them as if they were planets with atmosphere.
    The entire surface consists of a single and continuous mesh rounded and softened, although there are strong altitude variations, even the surface of the highest peaks is softened and curved ... as if the atmospheric agents had eroded and modified the shapes of the reliefs, which is ridiculous since they are planets WITHOUT any atmosphere.

    But this is just the first incongruous aspect of the surface at ground level.

    Another strange thing is the layout, the shape and the size of the objects (stones) placed on the ground.

    Speaking of the strange rounded shape of the stones ... you are perfectly right:

    Originally Posted by Alec Turner View Post (Source)
    I'd have thought the rocks we see currently wouldn't ever be rounded actually? (unlike the rocks in the following image)
    But let's talk about the distribution and magnitude of these "space stones".

    What is a stone or pebble?
    It's a piece of rock, which was (for various reasons) detached from the original rock, it can be of varying granulometric size and can be deposited near or far from the mother-rock.

    How does a rock to be destroyed in pebbles? There are many natural mechanisms, the most famous being the atmospheric agents. All the many mechanics involved in the natural atmospheric agents can not occur on planets without an atmosphere.

    What generates stones on a planet without atmosphere?
    There are many mechanics that do not involve atmospheric agents, the main ones are two:

    1) impact on the planet of an asteroid
    2) tectonic activity [earthquakes] (not present on all planets)

    The impact of an asteroid is very simple way:

    1A - An asteroid enters a collision course with a planet

    2A -asteroid impacts on the surface, exploding and creating various materials that are fired around

    3A - Fired materials fall on the surface due to gravity

    3A+ - The materials in the absence of wind will fall into concentric circles (about), the heavier and bigger materials will be closer to the impact site, the lighter ones will fall farther



    Tectonic activity is not a mystery, it is more complex but it is still easy with the necessary simplifications:

    The planet is geologically alive (or it was alive) ... it means that earthquakes occur (or have happened in the past):

    1B - There are two small or large plates of the planet crust, these two plates are two independent entities that move over time, these two pieces move one upwards and the other below ... both pieces are contacting each other on a virtual surface, called fault's plain. Along this surface the blocks sway up and down. The intersection between the surface of the planet and fault's plain is called a fault.

    2B - When this sliding occurs, a topographical altitude, a scarp is created. Ascarp that has tectonic origin is called fault scarp

    2C - When slip occurs there is a contact between the two blocks (friction) and, of course, an earthquake occurs. The friction and energy of the earthquake destroys and creates fragments of the rock of the block raised. These pieces fall from the fault scarp downward.

    2C+ - The larger pieces roll further away from the fault, the smaller pieces settle over the fault (burying it) and at the foot of the scarp.



    These are the mechanisms that can produce fragments in a planet without atmosphere.

    From the descriptions of these natural mechanisms we can understand that:

    1 - The pebbles and fragments are located just near some geological shapes: fault & scarp or impact craters.
    2 - These fragments are placed on the ground following precise rules, large-sized stones will not be mixed with small-sized stones ... the stones will be distributed in groups of homogeneous granulometry (small stones with small stones, etc.)
    3 - On a planet without atmosphere the distribution of stones is not subject to modification or selection (there is no wind, there is no liquid water)

    That said, the developers when they created the rules for placing the elements on the ground were inspired by the wrong planet ... they should not consider Mars ... rather the Moon (applying all the useful simplifications).
    See the current state of the planets makes me cry sometimes ... because I realize that up to date the FD did not do a very good job for the surface of the planets (ground level - SRV).
    That's why I'm excited about the idea that everything is being reorganized and that there is finally a desire to create dignitous "rock tech" in order to better dispose elements on the ground by the FD.

    I hope soon to see something better than this:



    I hope that the issues raised are interesting, and that we can talk about this subject.
    So the FD can better understand how much we are interested in their work on the surface of the planets.


    O MY...

    See you!




    Originally Posted by Deggial View Post (Source)
    Bondrewd, you provide two interesting mechanics for "stone generation" on planets without atmosphere in your posts above.

    But aren't there at least two additional ones that would cause the "clustered distribution" of small and larger rocks you question:

    1) What about thermic stress? Constant heating and cooling of rocks during day/night cycles and/or heating from one side (facing the sun) while the other side lies in ice cold shadows (there is no air to distribute heat) will eventually break bigger rocks and create smaller break-offs that will form scattered "nests".

    2) Furthermore, secondary movements due to later impacts and tectonic events will "rearrange" existing distributions that initially might have looked like you explain in your OP.

    Both mechanisms might not be quick, but without other causes of erosion, those stones should have quite a bit of time at their disposal ...
    Very good considerations CMDR Deggial, especially the second: indeed earthquakes can mobilize and alter the position of the inconsistent material easily, especially in low gravity environments. In fact, in my previous post I talk about "the necessary simplifications" ... tectonics is an agent that does not only create geological formations / shapes, but also modifies pre-existing shapes... but in this case, the consequences of remodeling and repositioning objects on the basis of multiple earthquakes would be an absurd calculation ... a calculation that we are far from being able to do in reality today.
    But scientifically speaking, an earthquake is definitely an event that can "select" and "carry" materials very well.

    With regard to the first point, we go on a very "open" way with so many different possibilities.

    Trying to simplify at best, let's try to give easy explanation at stages.




    *Step 1
    The surface of the planets is made of rock, a rock is made up of various minerals.

    *Step 2
    The rocks are divided into three large groups: magmatic rocks, metamorphic rocks and sedimentary rocks.
    Each rock family has a different genesis that characterizes it.

    *Step 3
    - Magmatic rocks are formed by the cooling of a very hot liquid rich in minerals and water (in a gaseous state).
    - Metamorphic rocks are formed when a preexisting rock of other type (magmatic or sedimentary) is subjected to different pressure and temperature conditions.
    - Sedimentary rocks (I explain in a very simplified way) are formed when loose (inconsistent) fragments of pre-existing rocks (Magmatic,Metamorphic and other Sedimentary rocks) are again united in a new different rock (thanks to various chemical / physical processes).

    *Step 4
    On non-atmospheric planets the absence of liquid water (or other liquids) and the absence of atmospheric agents makes it impossible to make the most common chemical & physical processes necessary to create a sedimentary rock.
    For this reason on the planets we are talking about, there are almost no sedimentary rocks (which are rather abundant on our Earth)... on the planets we speak of, there are only magmatic and metamorphic rocks.

    *Step 5
    - Sedimentary rocks are made up of pieces of various rocks and are therefore made up of different minerals. Sedimentary rocks are therefore considered heterogeneous rocks. Heterogeneous rocks are very sensitive to pressure and temperature changes, and they tend to break easily. (great simplification)
    - Magmatic and metamorphic rocks are rocks that have only a certain kind of minerals inside them and are therefore defined as homogeneous rocks. Hardly homogeneous rocks crumble, and they endure very well at only temperature changes (constant pressure). This is because minerals that make homogeneous rocks are similar and have similar thermal response and endurance to physical stress.

    *Step 6
    The surface of the planets without atmosphere is composed of only homogeneous rocks, so it is resistant to thermal hiking of 400-600 ° C (valid only in the absence of liquid water). The only type of alteration that can occur under certain conditions is a surface alteration of the rock called: rock exfoliation.

    *Step 7

    The exfoliation of the rock does not create stones from the rock rather creates the appearance of vertical fractures and in rare cases the formation of rock plates, without atmospheric agents, biological activity (chemical / organic reactions) or liquid water it is impossible to turn plates (which can also be large hundreds of meters) in simple stones.
    A combination of tectonic and rock exfoliation can create deposits of loose material, but these deposits would be limited to rare geological areas of the planet, certainly not present everywhere.



    Your two observations in any case, especially on tectonics, have been very technical! great conversation topic!

    NOTE: Another factor that which can modify and carry objects on the surface could also be the impact of asteroids, more asteroids that over time fall into neighboring areas ... but even here the calculations are astronomical, approximating rock deposits (coming from asteroid impact) to simple concentric circles around a crater is certainly simpler and remains enough credible.





    Speaking in general, I think the FD is doing a good job, but with the planets I believe they have lost sight of the main goal: create something credible.[/I][/B]

    Trying to achieve realism in a game of this scale is counterproductive and I would add it also impossible. In my opinion, FD artists are too much affected by NASA photos.
    I do not want to be misunderstood, the FD has a valid team, a fantastic team ... I think that is the approach to be wrong.

    What do we really know about the surface of the planets of the solar system? We have thousands of terabytes of data, billions of numbers ... but that's not enough to have something realistically reproduced in a game.
    The FD must abandon this non-sense, must have a more "science-fiction" approach, must dare more... the FD must create alien worlds using as a reference those rare places on Earth that seem to come from dreams and nightmares.
    Of course, you can imagine the surface of the planets using both fantasy and some scientific references ... so the result would be credible and plausible.
    A credible approach could make us all happier. The FD on current planets has pursued realism and using anonymous textures and rounded geological forms has created planets that are not realistic or original but only a insufficient imitations of NASA's photos.

    I'm talking to everyone, I love NASA, and I'm a person who loves science ... but you have to recognize when it's necessary to be credible rather than realistic. A game like ED, a game of that scale, can not become a slave of realism ... the art team can not do the impossible: NASA's photos can inspire but not drive to success.

    We have what we need on our beautiful and beloved Earth:



    The artistic team must look at the wonderful examples of some areas of our planet ...they must be free to make red, yellow, blue and green bottles surface planet!
    Use textures of magmatic and metamorphic rocks, abandon photos of Mars... now I want to tell a short real story:

    When on Earth scientists from various universities and institutes of the globe began to receive fragments of samples of the first lunar rocks brought to Earth from the just completed space missions ... scientists called NASA and colleagues ... they thought they were victims of a joke made by NASA: the samples of basaltic rocks received were fresh ... as if they were formed the day before! NASA replied that the samples were original. The scientists did not believe in their eyes ... because they had not imagined that the total absence of erosion or oxidation could have kept so well rocks over time (older than hundreds of millions of years). Also new minerals were discovered that no one had ever theorized to exist... minerals that exist only on the moon!

    This story has to teach us that we of the surface of the planets do not know enough to pursue realism in a game like ED elite.

    I'm not suggesting to make pink planets with red hearts ... but you have to free the art team from the heavy and bulky NASA photos.

    By consulting professionals (there are many prestigious geological institutes in England) you may have information to make the surfaces credible.

    The fantastic thing about geologists is that they love telling stories, explaining to their interlocutors what has happened before, what are the processes involved and what results can happen in the future. FD does not serve NASA photos, FD needs to have a long talk with geologists and visit a mineralogical museum.

    For example ... can an artist make a green planet? of course! he can make it with a beautiful vibrant shade of green bottle. Because? That planet is covered with magmatic rocks rich in iron and magnesium ... these rocks (basalt, gabbro, etc.) are rich in minerals of green color (green bottle) called Olivine. On our Earth Olivine mineral is not very common (especially large crystals), but on other planets a rich basalt crust is pretty common! and then its entire continents could be covered with rocks with so many huge olivine minerals exposed on the surface! The lack of atmosphere would make them remain unchanged and brilliant over time, as it was for moon rocks.

    mineral

    mineral in rock

    SOME INFO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine

    FD you need someone who tells you stories that can inspire your artists, I hope soon or later you will be looking for some good English specialist who can help you.
    MY ELITE DANGEROUS SETUP: https://i.imgur.com/lVrGV0t.jpg

  2. #2
    RESERVED FOR NEWS

    NEWS #1

    CMDR Mengy found a little detail from the video released by the Frontier during the EXPO2017 presentation of the work team of ED... in that tiny pic we can assume to see what is the result of the use of new technology for the generation of the rocks and surface of the planets.



    here is the link to the video from which this picture comes ... everything can be seen around the video time 4:27: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MYu...utu.be&t=4m27s
    I put here also a full preview (go manually to time 4:27):
    MY ELITE DANGEROUS SETUP: https://i.imgur.com/lVrGV0t.jpg

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Bondrewd The Novel View Post (Source)
    After almost 2 years... Frontier at the "Frontier EXPO2017" has released among the many things a new concept of what might be potentially the icy planets at the end of 2018 (at the end of the "Beyond" updates).
    No. That image is as much concept art as anything before it. If you want, it's a challenge to the technical team to sit down and create the tools that let it happen, but it's not in any way meant to be a promise.
    Dem white knights nerfed muh mershn!

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Bondrewd The Novel View Post (Source)
    RESERVED
    I agree.
    It ain't much, if it is dutch...

  5. #5
    It's very much artbook territory, I'm not expecting anything near that. But I'll take any improvement on planetary surfaces happily. Planetary flight/landing is by far my favourite feature from all updates so far.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Shadowdancer View Post (Source)
    No. That image is as much concept art as anything before it. If you want, it's a challenge to the technical team to sit down and create the tools that let it happen, but it's not in any way meant to be a promise.
    While it isn't a promise, I think it is a significant target goal for them that they're working toward, or else they likely wouldn't have "revealed" it as prominently as they did.

    How to navigate the Crab Nebula Labyrinth → https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...bula-Labyrinth
    How to change your HUD panel colors in Windows → https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...ns-of-the-Game


  7. #7
    They have already shown some work in progress clips which are a massive improvement and no beige either! So what are you questioning? How long? Stock answer is SOON which can be up to 3 years away.

    Forum Acronym guide------- Playing Elite Since Xmas 1984 - "Error rewind tape" ------- --------READ THIS >>> Why you have sound in space <<<------ Guide to Exploring>>> HERE---------- MY YOU TUBE CHANNEL

  8. #8
    One thing to consider is that DX11 and 64b are now mandatory. I expect a big leap, but I always feel it is silly to expect concept art. That serves to guide the devs.


  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Shadowdancer View Post (Source)
    No. That image is as much concept art as anything before it. If you want, it's a challenge to the technical team to sit down and create the tools that let it happen, but it's not in any way meant to be a promise.
    Very much this. I will be interested to see if they get closer to the concept art. They are certainly going to try though, which can only be a good thing, as they will get better. They may not get as good as that though.

  10. #10
    Welcome CMDR!


    Now, about this question:

    "is it lawful or not according to you to have faith in the frontier today?"

    Thats not really a question that can be answerd, Faith is... well Faith, you have Faith or not. its Personal believe/feeling there are no facts to it and no right or wrong answers. All I can say is that I am confident that they will deliver good stuff overall, of course probably also some stuff I don't like much or care about. But all in all I believe I will be happy.

    As far as the question goes how cloes they can get to the artwork that is hard to say. There are quite a few artworks which FD nailed fairly well ingame, but its of course not a 100% thing. Comes really just down to faith again until we actually see it ingame.
    The improvments shown for other planets do make me optimistic that they can get somwhere close there in regards to iceworlds, and to answer the threadtitel question: Yes they can drasticly change the face of planets, we learned that the hard way
    My Adventure of being stranded on Planet Wilson: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...eed-Ship-Rats!

  11. #11
    Why do you need faith? Wait and see what they do.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Nutter View Post (Source)
    They have already shown some work in progress clips which are a massive improvement and no beige either! So what are you questioning? How long? Stock answer is SOON which can be up to 3 years away.

    https://youtu.be/uCKUhmbyGdM
    This is how the planets used to look before they nerfed them..


  13. #13
    I'm not holding my breath. I'm more expecting them to find a way to make Earth-likes beige.

    "Trust me, I'm a geologist." -Me.

    "Think about how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by WR3ND View Post (Source)
    While it isn't a promise, I think it is a significant target goal for them that they're working toward, or else they likely wouldn't have "revealed" it as prominently as they did.
    that is a nice point, can we consider the hypothesis that in a certain sense the Frontier has made a "mistake" to associate an ideal concept art with a material roadmap?
    MY ELITE DANGEROUS SETUP: https://i.imgur.com/lVrGV0t.jpg

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Cosmos View Post (Source)
    This is how the planets used to look before they nerfed them..
    No they where not as good as that. If it comes out looking like that, then planets will look better then what they have ever done.

Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast