Anyone else getting better performance with update 15?

I remember when planets became invisible in SuperCruise* just over a year ago and some forumites were saying how they shouldn’t be visible anyway and then it got fixed in the latest Update 😁

*turns out the white dots were getting stuck to the skybox
———

My personal fav though is how the entire system is lit according to the light level falling on me (yes I am the center of the universe).
I could’ve sworn this was an acknowledged issue but my Issue Tacker search has failed - however there is this recent report that I’m about to add my confirmations to:
 
I remember when planets became invisible in SuperCruise* just over a year ago and some forumites were saying how they shouldn’t be visible anyway and then it got fixed in the latest Update 😁

Lol its plain as day if you actually play the game. Who on earth would say that? Luckily for me i couldn't play odd until update 14.. and this issue, as as well as the seemingly defective filtering that was also fixed.. was a showstopping defect. I actually refused to play elite with the dots not in supercruise. Some people are here for the grind progression and the visuals dont matter to them..?? Why you wouldn't play any other game for that i don't understand.
 
Quite a while back I had an argument with a player about twinkling stars, he complained they didn't twinkle enough so were unrealistic, and wouldn't listen to my explanation that stars twinkle due to scintillation in the earths atmosphere and wouldn't twinkle when viewed from actual space, he just wouldn't have it.
I don't blame him. I myself find it increasingly hard to take your posts seriously. Once you go to space and witness this for yourself, then I'll find it much easier to accept your opinion.

#ForumLogic
 
I guess if we got a free or a discounted $15 trip to space most of us would take up the offer. :D

Now do stars twinkle on low atmosphere planets?

In fact talking about stars has anyone noticed how they aren't points in space, but rather some kind of multi corner geometrical shapes? Something I never realized that I saw until I played in VR. It does look rather good, but is far from how it would look in real life. Now that I've seen it it's hard to unsee, just have to ignore it just like I need to do with aliasing.

Regarding the point shown for bodies and stations in SC, IMO they are far too bright. I always thought it was a bug due to playing on Linux. Now I head canon it away with it just being another indicator shown on my hud and not the actual light bouncing off the target.
 
In fact talking about stars has anyone noticed how they aren't points in space, but rather some kind of multi corner geometrical shapes? Something I never realized that I saw until I played in VR. It does look rather good, but is far from how it would look in real life. Now that I've seen it it's hard to unsee, just have to ignore it just like I need to do with aliasing.
It’s not something I remember seeing in my Rift CV1 possibly due to the resolution, but it was fairly visible in the Rift S and quite obvious in the Quest 2 - some stellar objects have a crosshair type object over them, a circle with lines coming out of the cardinal points.

Another thing that you may not be able to unsee in VR is the bit of orphaned blue pulse from the space compass that pulses away over on the right side of the radar - a position it’s not occupied since about Alpha 😁 Don’t look, forever will it draw your eyes!
 
I don't blame him. I myself find it increasingly hard to take your posts seriously. Once you go to space and witness this for yourself, then I'll find it much easier to accept your opinion.

#ForumLogic

It's not an opinion, why don't you ask an astronaut or maybe someone who actually studies these things;



and finally, NASA

On a clear, dark night, our eyes can see about 6,000 or so stars in the sky. They seem to twinkle, or change their brightness, all the time. In fact, most of the stars are shining with a steady light.


But that's ok, you are certaoinly entitled to your own opinion, fortunately facts remain the same regardless of peoples opinions.
 
Oh, you should have seen the skybox stars in early Elite Dangerous, then: They had a distinct, matte, sharply outlined pin-cushion-shaped aperture flare -- looked exactly like the sprites you'd see in some old Commodore 64 demos, "glinting" off predetermined locations along the edges of some scener group's logotype. :9

The tone mapping in Odyssey is indeed terrible, IMHO, I am sad to say.

I do happen to highly like that the lighting is stark: If I see some sort of cylinder drifting in space, it is blindingly bright on its star-ward side, and black on the other, with a relatively narrow penumbra -- this is good, and as it should be!

Unfortunately this comes with utterly crushing the whites, when shoehorned into SDR gamut -- there is always something shiny that loses all definition because of this, and often it is impossible to read the number on a locker in a settlement, without moving around to view it from a different angle, because the white figures can not be distinguished from the background, whose diffuse colouring is about medium level, but the specularity of the material turns it solid white in view. :7

Oh how I wish we could see how the game could look on an HDR capable display, without that aggressive tonemapping.

The imperfectly implemented adaptive aperture problem is exacerbated in VR: Because you can look around freely, it becomes doubly obvious that just turning your head a scant degree or two, causes the entire universe to sway up and down in brightness around you, like it was routed through a dimmer switch, and on top of that, it does this separately for each eye, so you often find yourself with a bright nebula in one eye, and a dark one in the other - really upleasant to look at.

It also seems to me that frequently this adapting works contrary to how it should: Sometimes you look toward the sun, and for some reason the milky way background behind it brightens, instead of, as you would expect, go black, as your simulated irises contract. It's peculiar...

The whole: "the entire star system is lit depending on whether I am in line-of-sight to a light source or not" thing is also highly annoying, with planets and moons turning on and off like light bulbs when you move around, but I guess that is just the limitations of how one have so far chosen to implement the lighting. (This happens on-foot too: Enter a building at an offline settlement during daytime, and the interior will go from inexplicably being just as lit-up as the exterior, to the darkness it should be, after you've been inside for a few seconds, and the game catches up to the situation. :p)

Elite Dangerous, with its procedurally generated, and constantly moving universe (forget about prebaking lightmaps, etc- (save, possibly, for some interiors)) needs raytracing and global illumination more than any other game.
 
It's not an opinion, why don't you ask an astronaut or maybe someone who actually studies these things;

[...]

But that's ok, you are certaoinly entitled to your own opinion, fortunately facts remain the same regardless of peoples opinions.
iu
 
But that's ok, you are certaoinly entitled to your own opinion, fortunately facts remain the same regardless of peoples opinions.
Another important law of nature, when considering posts on this forum especially, is... um... Poe's Law... !

(In other words, Old Duck was being sarcastic, and the anecdotal person who originally talked about stars twinkling in hard vacuum is not in this thread at all, so I would suggest a lie down in, ironically, a dark room, for a little while...)
 
It also seems to me that frequently this adapting works contrary to how it should: Sometimes you look toward the sun, and for some reason the milky way background behind it brightens, instead of, as you would expect, go black, as your simulated irises contract. It's peculiar...
It is due to how PBR (if that is what they use) calculate I/O lightsources: i tried making a mod for another game that has the exact same issue(s).
(i know they moved some things to PBR, so that is why i presume they also used it for the lighting. Fixing scalar ranges is needed in any case)
 
Hmm, one might expect something dubbed: "physically based rendering", would be about making things more realistic - not the other way around... :p I've never thought of it in other terms than the material properties standardisation that goes with it...

At any rate: The starfield should not be affected by local light sources - if anything, it should be emissive itself (...although perhaps that is part of what you meant?).

I figured this was solely a matter of the tonemapping of HDR input to SDR, in post, and governed by a histogram of the frame...
 
Hmm, one might expect something dubbed: "physically based rendering", would be about making things more realistic - not the other way around... :p I've never thought of it in other terms than the material properties standardisation that goes with it...

At any rate: The starfield should not be affected by local light sources - if anything, it should be emissive itself (...although perhaps that is part of what you meant?).

I figured this was solely a matter of the tonemapping of HDR input to SDR, in post, and governed by a histogram of the frame...
PBR uses one point of light calculation: the player or "camera". Hence it applies to any and all surroundings at the same time all the time.
-it is what makes it so frustrating to work with, because it often does the opposite of what you want it to. Even at negative values.

-in any case, i would not mind being incorrect and i of course hope the attenuation/grading is something they can fix.
 
Another important law of nature, when considering posts on this forum especially, is... um... Poe's Law... !

(In other words, Old Duck was being sarcastic, and the anecdotal person who originally talked about stars twinkling in hard vacuum is not in this thread at all, so I would suggest a lie down in, ironically, a dark room, for a little while...)

I never assume. Once when I was having a discussion and it drifted into the area of plate tectonics I was laughed at by an entire room full of people when I explained that continents moved around due to continental drift, they were serious though, they thought I was silly for thinking that, so I don't automatically assume when discussing matters of fact that a person is being sarcastic, when it comes to fantasy, where Poe's Law originally applied of course, it doesn't matter that much.

So missing the point doesn't really bother me that much, I just think back to that room full of laughing people when I was discussing one of the most well known fact of modern geology and think, "well even people who have demonstrated being quite intelligent can sometimes miss out on what I think is commonly known information."

;)
 
stars twinkle due to scintillation in the earths atmosphere and wouldn't twinkle when viewed from actual space

Not only that - you don't need to move your head to observe actual scintillation, it just happens because the air above you is in motion. In Odyssey stars only twinkle if you move (pitch/yaw/roll) your ship. It's not only totally unrealistic, it also looks awful.

Most probably it has something to do with the buggy implementation of anti-aliasing, since I could get rid of (most of) it even before the update by simply turning SMAA off and using the combination of FXAA +1.25x supersampling instead.
 
Hmm, one might expect something dubbed: "physically based rendering", would be about making things more realistic - not the other way around... :p I've never thought of it in other terms than the material properties standardisation that goes with it...
It is half the approach to materials (which does tend to tempt the asset team into laziness - if your developer makes you a lovely brushed aluminium there is a sudden temptation to make 97% of the cockpit out of brushed aluminium...) and half the fact it's implemented in shaders, which has advantages and disadvantages.

It's effectively a way of templating materials creation and offloading the majority of the code to make it work onto the GPU where it ought to be, but that's all it is - it doesn't specifically demand that you have one light source or many and it doesn't have to use the same frame of reference as other pieces of rendering either.
 
Most probably it has something to do with the buggy implementation of anti-aliasing, since I could get rid of (most of) it even before the update by simply turning SMAA off and using the combination of FXAA +1.25x supersampling instead.
Different AA approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and there simply isn't one that will work well for rendering point sources of light and work well for rendering beautiful matte Falcon de Lacy llama leather on the flight seat and work well for a transparent window with part reflections seen side on. And most games don't have to render anything that resembles a starfield; the optics of astronomy are pretty unique.

The only answer I can think of for the stars is to render those separately and use appropriate AA that works for tiny dots that will only ever move in-frame in predictable ways based on ship motion. Since it's 99% black there are dozens of algos that are fast enough for that case.

Then compose that with everything else after the everything else has been post-pro'd. (Another possibility is they have already done that and got it wrong :) )
 
The update fixed the problem for me with the fuel-scoop text being blurred/darkened while fuel-scooping at least.

I'm on a laptop (ASUS G15 Advantage Edition) and the GPU (6800M) is identical to a Radeon 6700XT, but running at a lower clock. Anti-aliasing for orbit lines still don't seem all that great for me, though I'm running an older driver (22.2.3, which even predates the 22.5.1), as newer drivers have broken Anisotrophic filtering for me (the last one I can see I downloaded was 23.3.2 which was a disappointment as well).
 
Anti-aliasing for orbit lines still don't seem all that great for me,
MrVaad has you covered:
 
Different AA approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and there simply isn't one that will work well for rendering point sources of light and work well for rendering beautiful matte Falcon de Lacy llama leather on the flight seat...

AA has always been bad in ED, still it was (is) perfectly capable of NOT making stars twinkle in legacy Horizons.

I did not mention FXAA+SS because it's inherently better than SMAA, it's just that it happens to mitigate that annoying fake "scintillation" in Ody, for some reason.
 
The star twinkling varies considerably with GalaxyBackground texture size vs. display resolution and FoV, as well as any upscaling/downscaling and/or sharpening filters used. It may have improved slightly with U15, but it's definitely still present.

Regarding the post process AA modes, the game's MLAA options are pretty clearly all-round inferior (quite dramatically so, in many areas) to the FXAA and SMAA implementations, so I generally rule those out. When it comes to SMAA vs. FXAA, FXAA is slightly stronger on edges at the cost of a little more blur; the difference is quite subtle at higher resolutions. FXAA does a better job with the star twinkle, but messes with text more.
 
Back
Top Bottom