Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner

[Stigbob]

We don't aim to change that. That mechanic is something that does fit the nature of the FSS. However this is not the nature of our request. We are talking about exploration solely. Not missions.
I'm still thinking that You do not have the clearest picture of the nature of the request of this thread. We don't want to change existing FSS mechanics.
Only to introduce the system map reveal in such a way that it would be optional.
Previously You didn't use the system map to locate assassination mission's target.

That's just me and faded glory nattering about how we scan. Nobody (I think ) is worried about FSS functionality being removed.

The reason they added the FSS as a standard ship feature was to prevent people way out in the black being stranded without now needed exploration equipment. Removal of the FSS would fall into the same already avoided trap for explorers who set off after the upgrade and have filled the spare slot with something else, its not something people should realistically worry about IMO.

 

[Riverside]

That's just me and faded glory nattering about how we scan. Nobody (I think ) is worried about FSS functionality being removed.

The reason they added the FSS as a standard ship feature was to prevent people way out in the black being stranded without now needed exploration equipment. Removal of the FSS would fall into the same already avoided trap for explorers who set off after the upgrade and have filled the spare slot with something else, its not something people should realistically worry about IMO.

Your logic is flawed here, the ADS could simply be integrated into the ship. This would create some frustration however, whereas making it (and the IDS/BDS) available to buy in outfitting would frustrate no one. Can you cite the reasoning for integrating the FSS?

 

[Stigbob]

Your logic is flawed here, the ADS could simply be integrated into the ship. This would create some frustration however, whereas making it (and the IDS/BDS) available to buy in outfitting would frustrate no one. Can you cite the reasoning for integrating the FSS?

Are you quoting the wrong poster ?.

 

[Riverside]

Are you quoting the wrong poster ?.

What makes you think that Stigbob? Do you have another day of pointless pedantry pencilled into your diary btw? Or have you read the thread now?

There is no balancing issue, there was no justification for removing the old modules, it was clearly an oversight that just needs to be corrected. I look forward to your failure to grasp the context of the word 'it'.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I found myself doing exactly that. See, system map is important to me and those I'm trying to represent here. So we did try to perfect our scanning technique to minimise still enormous time requirement to find systems we find worth staying in based not on what is in the system but rather how the bodies are located.

And this is where I believe a lot of people are going wrong. I think people should look at what they are scanning in the FSS and what is happening in the system.

Some people are using the FSS as quickly as possible so they can get to the system map, when the FSS gives you a lot of information that the ADS doesn't. Things such as bizarre orbits, distances from other planets/moons that you can see very clearly in the FSS when scanning. It's like building an orrery map. I get to see the amazing steller forge in all its glory when I am using the FSS. The system map shows me very little. In fact, these days I hardly ever look at the system map. It's become largely redundant.

By rushing through it, you basically miss out on so much.

But at the end of the day it is up to you how you go about it.

 

[Stigbob]

What makes you think that Stigbob? Do you have another day of pointless pedantry pencilled into your diary btw? Or have you read the thread now?

There is no balancing issue, there was no justification for removing the old modules, it was clearly an oversight that just needs to be corrected. I look forward to your failure to grasp the context of the word 'it'.

That has nothing at all to do with what I posted, but I get how upset you are about the video game so I'll explain again.

We know full well it wasn't an oversight. Had it been an oversight they wouldn't have pre-planned adding the FSS as standard and refunding ADS owners to prevent wrecking exploration jaunts already under way.

You might not like it but those are the facts.

 

[M00ka]

I think it is yourself and others who can't accept why the can (should) co-exist.

There has not been even ONE good reason raised why they can't/shouldn't - especially in a form similar to that proposed by the OP.

Here is ONE good reason why the ADS and FSS mechanics can't co-exist - FD made the decision that the ADS is obsolete, and replaced the entire process with the FSS. They are the authors of the game, they are the ones with their jobs on the line if the entire community rejects their plan. They are the ONLY ones who know what is being added in 2020 and how the FSS system will intergrate with those plans.

We, as customers, can cry, praise, bleat, boast, whine, ignore what FD have done, that is all we can do. FD have made the decision and as of now, have not entered into this conversation which to me means they aren't about to apologise and revert back, or adapt and modify.

Nope, as I see it the new exploration system is here to stay, at least until something new replaces it. The only option for those who can't stand the FSS is to leave the game and tell FD the reason why, FD might take notice, or they might not, it is FD's prerogative either way.

 

[Stigbob]

Here is ONE good reason why the ADS and FSS mechanics can't co-exist - FD made the decision that the ADS is obsolete, and replaced the entire process with the FSS. They are the authors of the game, they are the ones with their jobs on the line if the entire community rejects their plan. They are the ONLY ones who know what is being added in 2020 and how the FSS system will intergrate with those plans.

We, as customers, can cry, praise, bleat, boast, whine, ignore what FD have done, that is all we can do. FD have made the decision and as of now, have not entered into this conversation which to me means they aren't about to apologise and revert back, or adapt and modify.

Nope, as I see it the new exploration system is here to stay, at least until something new replaces it. The only option for those who can't stand the FSS is to leave the game and tell FD the reason why, FD might take notice, or they might not, it is FD's prerogative either way.

Yep, also if FDEV made design choices based purely on nobody at all ever getting upset the game would never have been released. Realistic expectations.

 

[Enderby]

I’m sure FD want their players to be happy and continue playing and so are probably weighing up the best options for a nice compromise.

 

[M00ka]

I’m sure FD want their players to be happy and continue playing and so are probably weighing up the best options for a nice compromise.

Maybe FD are looking at a compromise but whose compromise?

 

[Stigbob]

I’m sure FD want their players to be happy and continue playing and so are probably weighing up the best options for a nice compromise.

They can probably do that far more accurately via in game metrics than the forum. It doesn't matter what they do some people are always going to be upset, upset people tend to be disproportionately loud. Filtering them out is a good idea.

 

[Enderby]

Maybe FD are looking at a compromise but whose compromise?

Rather than ‘compromise’, which was a bad choice of word on my part, I should have said that hopefully FD are working to give us more choice when it comes to exploring.

I am surprised that the desire for choice seems to irk others who don’t want it. Seems rather odd.

 

[Stigbob]

Rather than ‘compromise’, which was a bad choice of word on my part, I should have said hopefully FD are working to give us more choice when it comes to exploring.

I am surprised that the desire for choice seems to irk others who don’t want it. Seems rather odd.

The ADS doesn't offer anything the FSS doesn't have. So you can already choose to do it the outdated way if you like. You also now have a bonus slot, which you can always choose to leave empty.

 

[M00ka]

Rather than ‘compromise’, which was a bad choice of word on my part, I should have said that hopefully FD are working to give us more choice when it comes to exploring.

I am surprised that the desire for choice seems to irk others who don’t want it. Seems rather odd.

Okay, we will not use the word 'compromise' but trying to keep everyone happy by giving choices isn't going to work either because simply you can't offer enough choices to keep everyone happy.

A bit of a story (so bare with me) During my 30 years in uniform (RAAF) naturally I had a lot of Officers as bosses. They ranged from kids straight out of the Academy to grizzly old newly commissioned Warrant Officers and damn near everything in between. One of things I learned to admire in an Officer (i.e. boss) is someone who once they made a decision, they stuck to it. Even if it was a bad decision, they stuck to it, whilst coming up with a remedial action to fix what was screwed up. No wavering, no weak back bones, sometimes an admission they screwed up, sometimes not (well not publicly anyway, over a beer the admission would come out). But to have an Officer (boss) who decides based on not upsetting anyone just doesn't work, you can't please everyone, and sometimes you have to make the hard decisions especially if you know the big picture.

To put it in context to this thread and the game, FD decided based on their forward plans for the game that the new exploration tools fit the game better and that there was no need to retain the old system. We don't know if the reintroduction of the ADS will work, sure some have assumed that FD can just add it back but we don't know. Given the number of threads on this issued, FD are well aware that some don't like it, but since they haven't come out and said "Oops we screwed up" and have actually enhanced the FSS since initial release one can only surmise that they like the way the new system is working.

 

[ThatSmileyGuy]

Removal of the FSS would fall into the same already avoided trap for explorers who set off after the upgrade and have filled the spare slot with something else, its not something people should realistically worry about IMO.

I just wanted to clarify that as some posts in this thread led me to believe some people do think that this is our goal. Hence me repeating we don't want to alter anything about the FSS.

But at the end of the day it is up to you how you go about it.

That is what we would like everyobody to understand. Yet it seems that this statement is largery untrue since at the end of the day everyone is leeft with only FSS mechanics.

The ADS doesn't offer anything the FSS doesn't have

At this point I'm even questioning whether You took Your time to read posts in this thread or even engaged in out-of-the-bubble exploration post 3.3 update.
Please, let's make it the last time that someone in this thread has to repeat "no, it does not". Please re-read the thread to have the idea of what is being requested.

why both systems can't (shouldn't) co-exist at the same time?

exclusive proposal

Gentlement, I must ask, for the sake of clarifying some of the statements: do You understand 'exclusive' and 'co-exist' as in "coexist within single ship" or "coexist as available mechanics within the game"?

Things such as bizarre orbits, distances from other planets/moons that you can see very clearly in the FSS when scanning. It's like building an orrery map. I get to see the amazing steller forge in all its glory when I am using the FSS. The system map shows me very little. In fact, these days I hardly ever look at the system map. It's become largely redundant.

Then again, I assume You don't open orrery map with every new body You scan. To be frank, scanning bodies with FSS provides us mostly with just virtual numbers and maybe some information about available materials. Also, regarding orbits it's not really something that is as visible in the new system as it is in the old system. To actually see how bodies are in orbits with each other one has to go through the mini-game. Regardless of whether they find it fun or not. So older system was better in terms of time for finding oddities in for example orbits.

By rushing through it, you basically miss out on so much.

Agreed. But for some that was a valid way of playing they never considered rushing. Besides, to be honest, I don't think I'm personally missing much not reading through the numbers indicating atmospheric pressure on site. That does not change my mind whether I would like to stick to the system in terms of views / vistas.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Then again, I assume You don't open orrery map with every new body You scan.

I open the orrery from time to time. Why would I need to open the orrery with every planet I scan when I can see their orbits in the FSS?

To be frank, scanning bodies with FSS provides us mostly with just virtual numbers and maybe some information about available materials.

And the orbits and postioning with close planets/moons.

Also, regarding orbits it's not really something that is as visible in the new system as it is in the old system. To actually see how bodies are in orbits with each other one has to go through the mini-game. Regardless of whether they find it fun or not. So older system was better in terms of time for finding oddities in for example orbits.

You see the orbits as you use the FSS (unless you are in VR, then it doesn't work properly). While it was faster with the old way to see oddities, you could not see distance between planets and moons, the FSS shows that to you when you scan them and lays it all out for you, but you miss that because you are not studying what you are doing.

Agreed. But for some that was a valid way of playing they never considered rushing. Besides, to be honest, I don't think I'm personally missing much not reading through the numbers indicating atmospheric pressure on site. That does not change my mind whether I would like to stick to the system in terms of views / vistas.

I am not talking about numbers.

That is what we would like everyobody to understand. Yet it seems that this statement is largery untrue since at the end of the day everyone is leeft with only FSS mechanics.

It's no different to when we were all stuck with the BDS/IDSADS. There are still different ways to explore with the FSS.

 

[Para Handy]

I’m sure FD want their players to be happy and continue playing and so are probably weighing up the best options for a nice compromise.

I suspect that is probably going to be an example of wishful thinking.

 

[Enderby]

Well, no law against that.

 

[KellyR]

My only problem with the FSS is you need an axis for it, preferably one that isn't self centering like a joystick. You can tell where each type of signal is going to be on the tuning scale. Each type has its own place on the scale, the stronger the signal i.e. the stronger the gravity well, the further right the signal will be on the scale. If it weren't for an axis being required, I'd be all for it as it will save you the time of not having to fly to each planet.

 

[Stigbob]

My only problem with the FSS is you need an axis for it, preferably one that isn't self centering like a joystick. You can tell where each type of signal is going to be on the tuning scale. Each type has its own place on the scale, the stronger the signal i.e. the stronger the gravity well, the further right the signal will be on the scale. If it weren't for an axis being required, I'd be all for it as it will save you the time of not having to fly to each planet.

Tuning and zoom on the HAT, joystick for aiming it. You just need a button for select target, switch modes and honk.