Last edited:
Anaconda 2.2 vs. 2.3 Cockpit Changes
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
The 2.3 dash looks like it's missing a texture. Like a flat grey-box concept.
Wow that is really bad, so much detail sapped from the Bridge there. Like they've got rid of all he fine details and replaced it with vacuum plastics
CONSOLE PARITY!
Yeah no thanks, Can please stop it with this madness and leave us PCMR who can run the game in all its glory to still be able to see that glory moving forward?
Bad FD STOP IT!
CONSOLE PARITY!
Yeah no thanks, Can please stop it with this madness and leave us PCMR who can run the game in all its glory to still be able to see that glory moving forward?
Bad FD STOP IT!
Have to say 2.3 looks shonky as hell to me. Since multi-crew itself isn't going to be something I'll be using, that's something of a disappointment. That radar sceen in particular, surely that's not intentional? The whole thing looks very 2D though, it's like someone took a BMW 6 series and stuck the dashboard from a 15 year old Vauxhall Astra into it.
Maybe for our fruity friends. You know how salty they can get when their 4 year old iThing isn't getting "Editors Picks" all over the web.
Major geometry "optimization" - there's several places where it's obvious that actual model geometry has been replaced with just applying a normal or displacement map to the model skin. Losing the computer consoles completely was obviously a case of "this is geometry we don't need to render at all, so lose it" The apparent changes to the diffuse texture map, particularly the significant desaturation of its colour palette could be an actual simplification of the texture itself but could also be a shader change. I'm guessing both.
Much of what FD has done here are perfectly ordinary changes that most games featuring highly-detailed surroundings tend to apply before game release. The aggressiveness with which game designers cull out "unnecessary" triangles from the scenes their game must render or shave a few bytes off the size of a texture is positively legendary and is (more than occasionally) a potential point of conflict with the artists who developed and lovingly textured the models in the first place.
IF (and this is by no means a certainty) this was just done on general principles it is a blunder on FD's part because it is a step too far in downgrading the fidelity of the scene without a good reason to do so.
However, DID they have a reason? First off, lets note that by far the greatest amount of geometry they've got rid of is in places where you don't see unless you're looking around - either in headlook mode or using VR. If they noticed a rendering performance issue in VR when looking anywhere but ahead, that could prompt an optimization effort this radical. It's also possible they've got an internal build that has some components of "space legs" already in place and there were issues with that. In the former case they might tell us the reason, in the latter case they will certainly stay quiet.
By far the biggest "gameplay issue' will be the texture changes in the vicinity of the scanner display. Now, this may be simply a side effect. As I noted above they've done a LOT of removal of geometry detail and replacing it with render effects provided by displacement and normal mapping. This is a very efficient way of rendering detail with "acceptable" fidelity without loading your render pathway with tons of small tris. However, it comes with a built-in disadvantage. It's purely a "lighting effect" and on a surface with low specularity that means the only way it shows up is in "shadows" - try it on a particularly dark surface and it renders as precisely zilch. You can't see the effect at all. Instead of getting the lighting effects simulating the presence of the geometry you've removed you get the visual effect of the flat surface. Oops. Easy solution, reduce the colour range of the texture, so that "blacker" bits show up on it! The usual sign that you've gone too far in the geometry optimization is when for your optimized geometry to show properly the texture has to look washed-out. That's exactly what has happened here. It's going to be a big gameplay issue because with the extreme dynamic range of the scene lighting in ED (necessary for rendering "space' with any kind of fidelity at all) there are going to be frequent situations where the scanner will be completely unreadable.
Without a really strong reason for such an aggressive optimization this is a monumental goof on FDs part.
Much of what FD has done here are perfectly ordinary changes that most games featuring highly-detailed surroundings tend to apply before game release. The aggressiveness with which game designers cull out "unnecessary" triangles from the scenes their game must render or shave a few bytes off the size of a texture is positively legendary and is (more than occasionally) a potential point of conflict with the artists who developed and lovingly textured the models in the first place.
IF (and this is by no means a certainty) this was just done on general principles it is a blunder on FD's part because it is a step too far in downgrading the fidelity of the scene without a good reason to do so.
However, DID they have a reason? First off, lets note that by far the greatest amount of geometry they've got rid of is in places where you don't see unless you're looking around - either in headlook mode or using VR. If they noticed a rendering performance issue in VR when looking anywhere but ahead, that could prompt an optimization effort this radical. It's also possible they've got an internal build that has some components of "space legs" already in place and there were issues with that. In the former case they might tell us the reason, in the latter case they will certainly stay quiet.
By far the biggest "gameplay issue' will be the texture changes in the vicinity of the scanner display. Now, this may be simply a side effect. As I noted above they've done a LOT of removal of geometry detail and replacing it with render effects provided by displacement and normal mapping. This is a very efficient way of rendering detail with "acceptable" fidelity without loading your render pathway with tons of small tris. However, it comes with a built-in disadvantage. It's purely a "lighting effect" and on a surface with low specularity that means the only way it shows up is in "shadows" - try it on a particularly dark surface and it renders as precisely zilch. You can't see the effect at all. Instead of getting the lighting effects simulating the presence of the geometry you've removed you get the visual effect of the flat surface. Oops. Easy solution, reduce the colour range of the texture, so that "blacker" bits show up on it! The usual sign that you've gone too far in the geometry optimization is when for your optimized geometry to show properly the texture has to look washed-out. That's exactly what has happened here. It's going to be a big gameplay issue because with the extreme dynamic range of the scene lighting in ED (necessary for rendering "space' with any kind of fidelity at all) there are going to be frequent situations where the scanner will be completely unreadable.
Without a really strong reason for such an aggressive optimization this is a monumental goof on FDs part.
All that and they couldn't clean up the wiring?Part of her 'charm' I guess.
Thanks for posting, OP
It's the only charm the 'Conda has, besides from being f**ing ridiculous.
I would wager this was all done to accommodate multicrew and make it look good from all angles within
But yeah, the 2.3 Version looks like a crapy beta build.
Also, why are the seats now straght forward? It's not like the co-pilots are able to take the Helm...
Also, why are the seats now straght forward? It's not like the co-pilots are able to take the Helm...
Last edited:
To be honest, when I first logged into the beta, I thought someone switched off the textures by mistake. And it's not just Anaconda. I think it's all MC ships.
It's kind of sad. Airfix does better cockpits than this.
It's kind of sad. Airfix does better cockpits than this.
Last edited:
Would still recommend reporting or adding to existing report...
Ah, the light dawns. MC/holo-me avatars. Lots of extra tris and the single area where inefficient modeling and texturing is the bane of render pathways everywhere is figures. It's not that you can't do them efficiently, it's that for some reason folks simply don't. Like they render an ear-ring with hundreds of tris and a 1024x1024 texture when unless you've got a first-person view of zooming in to nibble on her earlobe or something it's never going to occupy more than a dozen pixels on the screen.....
And it explains why the views where the cockpit has been most severely gutted are where the other seats are visible.
I've enjoyed playing with the holo-me in beta but if turning our cockpits into bad cardboard cutouts is the price of having it, I'd say 86 the avatars.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
is this not what ingame graphics settings are for? i am all for reducing geometry in lower settings but for those with ultra rigs, give them ultra eye candy.
You'd think so, wouldn't you. But if there was ever a rule that the world had to make sense, I don't think anyone has read it.
