This thread is in the Odyssey subforum and is clearly referring to the performance of the 4.0 client.
It's not just about on-foot graphics and performance.
Anyone else getting better performance with update 15?
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
It's not just about on-foot graphics and performance.
don't tell anybody but Old Duck is playing Odyssey all the time, he just can't admit it after he told everyone that he wouldn't even try it as a gift.If Odyssey wouldn't be the superior game version a much larger percentage of players would stick to legacy.
Obviously popularity isn't quite good indicator for quality, but the Elite Dangerous community isn't your average Kanye West fan either. And yes, I am not entirely serious.
Depends on what 'flickering' we're talking about. I noticed a significant reduction in shadow flicker, as described here and here, the latter of which had been reported as fixed before, but either wasn't, or was reintroduced with U14. I've also noticed less twinkling of skybox stars.
Aliasing causes edges to shimmer in motion, but this is rarely described as flickering, and U15 did not fix this (I have plenty of 4k video from U14 and prior as well as screen shots).
Yeah, the shadow flickering is what I had assumed that patch note was talking about.. Not any kind of AA. I haven't seen any improvements in AA at all.
The wording of that patch note would be an extremely odd way to describe changes/fixes to AA so I agree with earlier comment that Sally probably misinterpreted.
I am extremely aware it is referring to the performance of the 4.0 client. You can use the 4.0 client with Horizons.
Either way, you can use the SRV, and when I use the SRV, I haven't noticed any pop-in problems.
FWIW, I'm very pleased with the reduced twinkling of stars.
I can't say that I've noticed any improvement with the shadow flickering. I do appreciate that the stars no longer twinkle!
I'm pretty sure that there was some lighting improvement, and I think there was an adjustment of the eye adaption to brightness. Don't think I see any improvement in aliasing..
Last edited:
So its not just me. What i don't get is why white knights used to defend the skybox as amazing, no problems, beautiful, when it sounds like everyone, including overspecced gpu's.. was suffering from this annoying thing. So it must have also been true that the colors were wrong and unappealing and the number of stars was significantly reduced as well? But odd was amazing and a huge upgrade??
Whatever happened to honesty?
The twinkling of the stars was always wrong, but some of us understand it wasn't an intended effect by FDEV but caused by anti-aliasing, which is a problem for FDEV, everyone agrees with that, and honestly I have never had a problem with the skybox in either version, it is what it is, some people seem to think the most minor of changes makes the game "unplayable", it doesn't, it just makes it different. The skybox is amazing in both Legacy and Live, if they are "different" and to you that makes it dishonest then that's your problem and opinion, not mine or anybody else's.
Its absolutely unplayable. Don't tell me you play elite for the.... gameplay? Without the visuals and immersion its more of a lab experiment by frontier than something designed for the recipients enjoyment. Lol. You sound very positive.
You sound like you have some sort of gripe and built up anger towards the game, the developers and everyone who likes the game. We get it, you hate the game, but maybe, just maybe accept the fact that people enjoy the game and still find it amazing despite very minor issues like a twinkling skybox (which I did not notice in VR). Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.
You really sound angry. Maybe it is time to take a break from fueling that anger.
That part right there is most likely an issue with PBR and not something that is easily mitigated or fixed if that is the case.
-it has to do with how PBR calculates light and tbf it is one of the weirdest ways of doing so i have seen.
Not even setting negative values will change the output and if fdev can solve it to be much more natural i would be happy to be proven wrong.
(i know this bc i am making a mod for another game that is supposed to make lighting more natural and i am at wits end with it x)
Unfortunately that’s in practically all video games… it’s this decade’s bloom (or lens flare… remember lens flare? /shudder)
So you’ve never traveled to (or anywhere near) the galactic core?
There is the argument that this simulated adjustment to different light levels is not necessary, because your eye does it anyway. But I say that is not true; most monitors do not have the dynamic range to cause that effect to the amount the artist wants to achieve unless you blow out your colors, sit inches from it and play in the dark. It is an artistic choice to sumulate that, and it is often overdone, but I am not against it in principle.
Things like motion blur and chromatic abberation on the other hand are the devil's work and need to be banned.
It is peak irony that professional photographers do everything possible to avoid chromatic abberation. (it is due to faulty lenses)
Motion blur makes all of no sense as it is just not needed.
Lens flare only exist in lenses, not eyes.
Dynamic brightness & contrast is almost always exceedingly poorly done. The most expensive and well-built TVs don't use it either.
The lighting dilation/dimming can indeed be argued as a nice to have. If done ever so subtly it might even be a boon. (just like bloom)
I think, like most things: if you're noticing it, then the feature has been implemented poorly.
Agreed.
It's beyond nice-to-have; it's essential.
The dynamic range of your screen is incredibly limited, even if you have properly calibrated it, colour matched it, and then adjusted it a third time for the prevailing conditions in the room for the time of day you are playing.
On an SDR display the typical range is about 6-7 photographic stops even after all that. On a pro quality display (which actually I guess most games have the equivalent of now, because kit got a lot better in the last decade) where it has proper proportional response in the blacks, you might get 8 stops. Human perception covers roughly 14 stops, and that's before you factor in that in the dark those 14 stops will cover 14 shades of black, which is something most displays are just fundamentally terrible at showing, and also assumes as others have said that you are playing in a properly dark room.
HDR gets you to a decent 10 stops but further emphasises that your screen must be properly adjusted.
Expensive TVs are designed to show what the director and cinematographer/DP intended. And that absolutely includes "simulating pupil dilation" and further includes judgements about which character's point of view you should be sympathetic with and exposure (plus the tradeoff with aperture and lighting) will be chosen the same way. The game engine has to make those same storytelling choices automatically and frame by frame so you can see it's a hard problem in game design anyway, and on top of that, the technicals in space are a nightmare. With no atmosphere, you need all those 14 stops to deal with shadows, and on our sim gear we just don't have them and will never have them.
Or to put this another way "simulating pupil dilation" is not a fad in simulation, it is completely essential to gameplay. If this game (and racing sims, for example) did not use dynamic exposure you would see absolutely nothing when scooping liquor from the dark side of Mercury, and as soon as you crossed the terminator, you would see a huge 5% grey sphere stretching before you with no apparent craters, dust, anything. Just bleached out greyness.
I thought the compromise was about right in the previous release, and it seems to have been tweaked to flatten contrast now in extreme low light and I do find that annoying; it's a sim; the kit has headlights and night vision because you should need them in that situation and now you don't. (They definitely changed something about rendering low-light situations because now the gamma slider in-game has less effect than it used to as well.)
This!
One thing I think they really got right was exaggerating head movement and FOV change to give you that sense of motion without needing the blur. (At least in pancake it works well, I haven't tried VR)
Problem is many games overdo it to the max. I remember Cyberpunk 2077 overdid it terribly at its release. But yeah. You basically said what I meant much more eloquently
.Now that I thought about it for a few minutes: Agreed, unless it is an artistic choice and done for effect.
There is no FOV change or exaggerated head movement in VR. It would make you puke instantly. Coincidentally, I really hated that FOV effect when changing speed the few times I saw that in pancake. I found it really annoying.