They did at one point though, but only in a way as to support your claim imo. This will never be fixed, because it is not considered broken.
Asteroids and Ring Systems. Is there any hope?
- Thread starter Obsidian Ant
- Start date
- Status
They did at one point though, but only in a way as to support your claim imo. This will never be fixed, because it is not considered broken.
A great constructive post as usual Ant, Couldn't the devs now make some changes to the different versions of the game.
let me explain more. I usually play horizons, where the graphic options are beefed up for the planetary landings, i usually get 35-45fps on planets, but over 100fps in space usually, (except in SC due to the AMD drivers), so quite a difference between the two in terms of performance.
But now we have the 32bit exe for the older machines, and then the 64bit exe and also Horizons. So maybe if if ED graphic options was increased for the Horizons at least, maybe also the 64bit exe, then lower spec rigs could still use the 32bit if needed.
I don't see any need for holding back the graphics for optimization purposes in Horizons when the graphic power is needed for PL anyway, so reduce the gap between space and planets, i would not mind having a max of 60fps in space instead of over 100fps, i realise older less powerful machines might struggle more, so it really needs to be an optional thing in the settings, but it does need something similar to the surface detail slider for space\ring systems as well as planets.
let me explain more. I usually play horizons, where the graphic options are beefed up for the planetary landings, i usually get 35-45fps on planets, but over 100fps in space usually, (except in SC due to the AMD drivers), so quite a difference between the two in terms of performance.
But now we have the 32bit exe for the older machines, and then the 64bit exe and also Horizons. So maybe if if ED graphic options was increased for the Horizons at least, maybe also the 64bit exe, then lower spec rigs could still use the 32bit if needed.
I don't see any need for holding back the graphics for optimization purposes in Horizons when the graphic power is needed for PL anyway, so reduce the gap between space and planets, i would not mind having a max of 60fps in space instead of over 100fps, i realise older less powerful machines might struggle more, so it really needs to be an optional thing in the settings, but it does need something similar to the surface detail slider for space\ring systems as well as planets.
Last edited:
I contacted them about this issue and here is part of the responce :
"Amazing graphical fidelity is something we obviously want to offer to those who can run the game on high end systems. Elite: Dangerous has always intended to be beautiful after all, but balancing this with performance is key. Asteroids for example. It's one thing to have a couple of these in ultra high resolution, but when you run into a procedurally generated system that has thousands of them...
It's obviously something that can be done, but it takes time and is a balancing act. I can't really comment for the devs on what they have in store, but again, probably the forum is your best avenue for discussion on this kind of stuff.
I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful with your questions, but hopefully you'll find more about what you'd like to know on the forums.
"
So it sounds like performance trumps graphics at the moment...
why cant they add ultra settings that work? just give us something that will melt my GPU? and if I have a weak set up or a console I set it to ultra low
"Amazing graphical fidelity is something we obviously want to offer to those who can run the game on high end systems. Elite: Dangerous has always intended to be beautiful after all, but balancing this with performance is key. Asteroids for example. It's one thing to have a couple of these in ultra high resolution, but when you run into a procedurally generated system that has thousands of them...
It's obviously something that can be done, but it takes time and is a balancing act. I can't really comment for the devs on what they have in store, but again, probably the forum is your best avenue for discussion on this kind of stuff.
I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful with your questions, but hopefully you'll find more about what you'd like to know on the forums.
"So it sounds like performance trumps graphics at the moment...
why cant they add ultra settings that work? just give us something that will melt my GPU? and if I have a weak set up or a console I set it to ultra low
I contacted them about this issue and here is part of the responce :
"Amazing graphical fidelity is something we obviously want to offer to those who can run the game on high end systems. Elite: Dangerous has always intended to be beautiful after all, but balancing this with performance is key. Asteroids for example. It's one thing to have a couple of these in ultra high resolution, but when you run into a procedurally generated system that has thousands of them...
It's obviously something that can be done, but it takes time and is a balancing act. I can't really comment for the devs on what they have in store, but again, probably the forum is your best avenue for discussion on this kind of stuff.
I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful with your questions, but hopefully you'll find more about what you'd like to know on the forums.
So it sounds like performance trumps graphics at the moment...
why cant they add ultra settings that work? just give us something that will melt my GPU? and if I have a weak set up or a console I set it to ultra low
Thanks for posting this. The statement about it being possible - especially with thousands of ultra high quality asteroids seems a little odd - as we know it works. We used have exactly that in the game, as the details in the first post clearly show, and it worked fine for many people.
I understand some people had performance issues, but that doesn't really address the question raised which is "Will the quality of the ring systems ever be improved?" Referring you (or anyone else) back to the forum seems circular reasoning, as it is here that the question has been raised in the first place and has so far remained unanswered (with the exception of a reply to previous issues many months ago). Hopefully that suggests we might hear something at some point?
There does seem to be an unspoken implication there though that things are planned to be improved.
Last edited:
I contacted them about this issue and here is part of the responce :
"Amazing graphical fidelity is something we obviously want to offer to those who can run the game on high end systems. Elite: Dangerous has always intended to be beautiful after all, but balancing this with performance is key. Asteroids for example. It's one thing to have a couple of these in ultra high resolution, but when you run into a procedurally generated system that has thousands of them...
It's obviously something that can be done, but it takes time and is a balancing act. I can't really comment for the devs on what they have in store, but again, probably the forum is your best avenue for discussion on this kind of stuff.
I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful with your questions, but hopefully you'll find more about what you'd like to know on the forums.
So it sounds like performance trumps graphics at the moment...
why cant they add ultra settings that work? just give us something that will melt my GPU? and if I have a weak set up or a console I set it to ultra low
Interesting response saying that amazing graphical fidelity is something they want to offer. As far as I am concerned it was already there and is now being taken away bit by bit. A shame.
From the start Elite ran very smoothly on my system but each patch seems to introduce a little more stutter and a little less candy.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
16.0 GB RAM
I never had any stutter problems. However, i understand that if many people are having them, then settings should be lowered. But I don't understand why not allow those without stutter and fps problems to keep the old settings.
Last edited:
That is exactly what I don't understand - It is common in games to have settings which come with warning - may cause issues on some weaker systems etc etc.. If Frontier wanted to they could have made an Extreme settings which gives us the best possible graphics, but may as well cause some issues on Mid ranged system. I'm running 4k DSR at 100-120+fps while landing and I get loads of shadow pop ins, low poly pops near the stations because of bad draw distance ect... I really can't fathom why draw distance is soooo low even on highest settings. All my settings are maxed out - I've stopped by a station today to watch it rotate and I had to leave as soon as I saw the ever lasting drawing changes.... Same with coming to the station - At 6km it shows me the inside, at 5km the inside is black again and around 2km it shows me the inside again???? What is wrong with letting us drive the slider to a point where even high end graphics card choke, just add a warning on the line that we are crossing extreme settings and our performance might suffer...
PS Granite or anybody else. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE If any of you have managed to resolve some of these issues by manual edits in GraphicsConfiguration.xml, please let me know or pm me the file, so I can have a look through it. I've tried tweaking the shadows and draw distances today to improve the look, but I still keep getting loads of pop ins and obvious draw distance issues.
Last edited:
I feel sad that I never got to see those beautiful rings, since I came in too late.
Frontier doesn't seem to respond to anything it doesn't feel like addressing so I think this ill-will towards them will just continue to ferment and ferment.
CMDR CTCParadox
Frontier doesn't seem to respond to anything it doesn't feel like addressing so I think this ill-will towards them will just continue to ferment and ferment.
CMDR CTCParadox
I am so very glad you posted this Ant, an attempt and heartfelt appeal for Frontier to consider this and bringing this issue up again, it has after all been a decent amount of time.
The facts are that we did have these amazing asteroid fields once back in Alpha and Beta (so no excuses really for them not knowing how to do it) but.. presumably in the pursuit of trying to rid the game of this dreaded stutter the asteroid ring systems have suffered considerably as a result, however.. many of us had little issue with this stutter anyway. Again as so many have said on numerous occasions, why there is not an option to give "us gamers with a rig to handle certain ultra high res graphics" an "option" in graphics so we can choose to melt our GPUs I don't understand. There must be other fundamental reasons as to why this can't be implemented.
But.. as always, please Frontier continue to keep up the great work but also continue to keep the community informed, it is the lack of communication that is most worrying of all (on this specific issue).
Thank you too again Ant for re-visiting this issue, you've built an amount of respect in the community, and from Frontier, so hopefully you'll/we'll get a bit of updated feedback.
The facts are that we did have these amazing asteroid fields once back in Alpha and Beta (so no excuses really for them not knowing how to do it) but.. presumably in the pursuit of trying to rid the game of this dreaded stutter the asteroid ring systems have suffered considerably as a result, however.. many of us had little issue with this stutter anyway. Again as so many have said on numerous occasions, why there is not an option to give "us gamers with a rig to handle certain ultra high res graphics" an "option" in graphics so we can choose to melt our GPUs I don't understand. There must be other fundamental reasons as to why this can't be implemented.
But.. as always, please Frontier continue to keep up the great work but also continue to keep the community informed, it is the lack of communication that is most worrying of all (on this specific issue).
Thank you too again Ant for re-visiting this issue, you've built an amount of respect in the community, and from Frontier, so hopefully you'll/we'll get a bit of updated feedback.
Why don't you think it wouldn't look better if it had more detailed ship/planet/station models? If it could use more screens for additional immersion (e.g. comms/galnet/star map/"rear mirror")? If route calculations would be almost instant instead of taking sometimes many minutes? If it were running smooth instead of stuttering?
No, there isn't. It's not a performance issue, it's not an issue of hardware power, it doesn't even get rid of the "dreaded stutter" because that is a design flaw in the Cobra engine. Some of the design flaws have long been analyzed and posted by the community, yet FD isn't doing anything about them.
I wonder why people are constantly defending Frontier.
If you lower the settings, the stutter is still there, courtesy of single threaded main game loop and unneccessary synchronized random asset loading in the middle of playing.
Last edited:
Lol.... It is funny. I thought it was me my system acting up. A brand new 980 SC so k can max out. No I know its not my new card. i.m also getting alot of stuttering from other pcs in open play SC and in norm space. Hope they fix it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Exactly what I have been saying for soooo long. 100% agree
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Exactly what I have been saying for soooo long. 100% agree
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more. I wish FD would make this more of a priority or at least commit to it in some way
I know some people (including me) experimented with this back in patch 1.3 - and they didn't have any effect. However there are more options there now, so maybe something can be changed. Although if it's like before then the asteroid graphics are hard-coded into the game, and xml file changes don't do anything.
Anyone else get the feeling that FD is cornered?
.
If they had come out and said "We need to bring visual consistency during the life of the XBone, this will help fund us until the XBtwo comes out and we can take the next step in our 10 Year plan".......people may have understood.
.
But instead they tried to sneak the downgrades past everyone and use confusing "Spin" to explain it.......but people spotted it anyway, and now they are stuck for a comment........I mean, they pop up in all sorts of threads...but on these "What Happened to the Graphics" threads.......Silence........
.
If they had come out and said "We need to bring visual consistency during the life of the XBone, this will help fund us until the XBtwo comes out and we can take the next step in our 10 Year plan".......people may have understood.
.
But instead they tried to sneak the downgrades past everyone and use confusing "Spin" to explain it.......but people spotted it anyway, and now they are stuck for a comment........I mean, they pop up in all sorts of threads...but on these "What Happened to the Graphics" threads.......Silence........
Good post and good video, Obsidian Ant. You tell the truth.
Frontier Developments - when will you listen? The game is great in so many ways, but you seem determined to kick it squarely in the guts at every turn. This coming year will be a watershed for space games, and you need a product that players will support without qualification. Lead the way with something wonderful, and we're behind you.
In memory of things past:
Frontier Developments - when will you listen? The game is great in so many ways, but you seem determined to kick it squarely in the guts at every turn. This coming year will be a watershed for space games, and you need a product that players will support without qualification. Lead the way with something wonderful, and we're behind you.
In memory of things past:
Last edited:
I think it's Microsoft's task to keep their consoles updated to the current games. If Elite progresses far beyond the capabilities of the XB1, then support should simply be dropped or the game forked (if viable).
Funding is plentyful for ambitious projects, as can be seen with CIG.
Speaking of, I tweaked a little this morning and had a look into Alpha 2.0. Graphics are stunning, the game uses over 4 times (!) the CPU resources and more than double the GPU compute resources compared to E
, and it's smooth. Flawless in space, Arc Corps still needs a bit tweaking though, I think I'm running into a DX11 issue.Did the graphics started dropping after Xbox release? If they are now developing the game for xbox then it could account for the massive drop in quality so when the devs said optimisation, they meant for the xbox and are now porting the xbox version, where most of their dev goes, over to the PC?
There's no reason to drop the quality of these rings since my PC handled them perfectly well with a gtx570 - hardly a top of the range card and now we've had another drop. Excuse me but some of us don't need optimisation because we play on PC's which can handle it.
As another comparison - before I got my new PC I was playing ED on a i5 laptop that's 3 years old with a intel integrated graphics card so basically, a big pile of plop for gaming but I was pleasantly surprised at how smooth it was so what the heck are they optimising it for - a spectrum 48k?????
There's no reason to drop the quality of these rings since my PC handled them perfectly well with a gtx570 - hardly a top of the range card and now we've had another drop. Excuse me but some of us don't need optimisation because we play on PC's which can handle it.
As another comparison - before I got my new PC I was playing ED on a i5 laptop that's 3 years old with a intel integrated graphics card so basically, a big pile of plop for gaming but I was pleasantly surprised at how smooth it was so what the heck are they optimising it for - a spectrum 48k?????
- Status