Asteroids and Ring Systems. Is there any hope?
- Thread starter Obsidian Ant
- Start date
- Status
May I suggest that this could be an optional feature in graphics settings? Highly capable GPUs are becoming ever cheaper and more ubiquitous, and it would be a good future proofing of the game --not to mention a good showcase.
I think that this is a priority issue.
Take the 1:1 galaxy: it seems a gratuitous tour de force, pointless for all its vastness, because no player --not even all the million players combined-- can ever visit all of it. But that is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of the game: space is BIG. Really big. No other game to date gives you that mind bogglingly, frankly transcendental experience of being in space. That is Elite Dangerous: like its forerunners, it's not a game with levels and scores and three lives; it's a universe that you inhabit and explore.
When I played ELITE in 1984 in my bedroom at night, I would look up from the screen to the starry sky, and it would feel infinitely vast, yet somehow closer at the same time. It's like we've been dreaming of going there for 30 years, and all of a sudden, we are there.
Similarly the graphic quality of the rings may seem a relatively small technical issue in the context of the whole game. But I would argue that like the 1:1 galaxy, like the geologically correct planets, like the shimmering stars with coronae and flares, it is a fundamental part of the Elite experience. Elite Dangerous is space. Space is Elite Dangerous.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply Zac and for talking to the team! 
It's nice to know at last, which aspects of the ring systems were changed and for what reason. It also gives us some indication as to what improvements we are likely to see, along with which parts may possibly remain as they are. This update from Frontier, was much clearer and far more specific than we have had previously, and I appreciate that.
It's nice to know at last, which aspects of the ring systems were changed and for what reason. It also gives us some indication as to what improvements we are likely to see, along with which parts may possibly remain as they are. This update from Frontier, was much clearer and far more specific than we have had previously, and I appreciate that.
It was apparently good enough for release, and every ring roid picture they put out to market it.
Hell they still use older dust screenshots to make the game look appealing on Steam...
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the info.
however may I ask why remove them? why not just add a special ''ultra high'' option that when you select it it has a pop up ''may cause FPS drops''
Well the marketing team are different to the render team
Where one person thought "Oh! That's pretty let's use it" someone on the render team saw it and thought "OMG! Too much overdraw!"
....for 6 months after release...Come on Kerrash. I know you like the game. I like the game for various parts. People were wowed by the ring fields in the beginning. They were compelling environments to fly within. Now...they look broken.
Is there any chance that the improved quality of the 64 bit OS stack used exclusively since Horizons will solve area that were previously seen as stability risks, such as asteroid shadows? In other words, do you retest and revisit such decisions as the game evolves?
Well the marketing team are different to the render team
Where one person thought "Oh! That's pretty let's use it" someone on the render team saw it and thought "OMG! Too much overdraw!"
That is the problem right there. In their quest for efficient code the render team is making bizarre aesthetic choices all over the place. I mean, really bad, bad decisions. Beauty is sacrificed for marginal gains in frame rates.
The render team need to sit back for a moment and ask themselves: "Does it look beautiful?" That is the primary purpose of graphics: to look pretty.
Last edited:
Thank you, Zac, for taking the time to reply on this. I'm glad you realize this is an important topic.
However, I simply don't understand "removed for optimisation". This is a modern game with graphics options. Many people did not have any problems, yet some did. So isn't the answer to give people the options to balance between high quality and performance?
We have graphics options. Those of us who have never had any problems playing in ultra simply don't understand why you would "optimize" across the board (reduce the quality of the game for everyone) rather than optimize for lower graphics options, and allow ultra to experience the game at its best.
Use the graphics options to make everyone happy. What else are these options for:
Certainly some did, plenty did not. Isn't the answer still to use the graphics options to make the game enjoyable for a diverse set of PCs? The people who had problems can alter their graphics, the people who didn't have problems can keep playing in ultra without a reduction in quality.
Those options were/are already in the game. Yes they should absolutely take the time to optimize to allow more people to enjoy the game. They can and should do this without lowering the quality for people who have always been able to play without graphics problems.
People had problems with shadows in ring systems?
RING SYSTEM SHADOW QUALITY
-High
-Medium
-Low
-No Shadows
Problem solved. Don't just remove something because some people can't play with it. Don't lower the quality of the game for everyone. Use the graphics options.
Asteroid fields where resource hog (stuttering with 760 GTX is no good), it is quite clear why downgrades took place. My question is variation of asteroids - I guess it was cut down due of Zac mentioned changes, so there's hope they will come back at some point. I agree about ultra settings, catch is, FD goal is to make game playable for average player, that's where big bucks comes in. People with ultra powerful rigs are very few.
Saying this, I would like to see full concept of the asteroid fields realized at some point, even as ultra high setting. Hearing FD is still considering to return back to visual style of concepts is good enough for me.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You don't know for sure, only FD QA knows. Remember, forums are echo chamber, majority of people send their complains directly to FD. Also tweaks sometimes aren't possible, due of way how code is implemented. Then it should be rewritten anyway, and thus old form of shadows were removed. Don't act like knowing FD removed it because it was easiest way. No developer - and especially visually aware developer like FD - remove beautiful things from game unless there's no other way. I like your idea about special shadow setting for asteroid fields (it could be renamed to "shadows in intense object fields" or something, to cover future uses).
Sometimes making 'ultra' and rest of settings are just making two implementations. I guess FD wasn't ready to do that then - considering that it is very costly.
Saying this, I would like to see full concept of the asteroid fields realized at some point, even as ultra high setting. Hearing FD is still considering to return back to visual style of concepts is good enough for me.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You don't know for sure, only FD QA knows. Remember, forums are echo chamber, majority of people send their complains directly to FD. Also tweaks sometimes aren't possible, due of way how code is implemented. Then it should be rewritten anyway, and thus old form of shadows were removed. Don't act like knowing FD removed it because it was easiest way. No developer - and especially visually aware developer like FD - remove beautiful things from game unless there's no other way. I like your idea about special shadow setting for asteroid fields (it could be renamed to "shadows in intense object fields" or something, to cover future uses).
Sometimes making 'ultra' and rest of settings are just making two implementations. I guess FD wasn't ready to do that then - considering that it is very costly.
Last edited:
That's a lie. Everyone can run Combat Tutorial Demo and check for themselves.
And recently in a beta build you could turn on shadows in real time, it didn't affect FPS at all.
Older comparison
Last edited:
I think FD are reluctant to put the graphics back to where they were previously at because so many people had trouble just getting the game to run.
With the reduced graphics I think more people will get into the game. Too many people were having consistent stuttering and crashes, which prevents those people from playing. The reduced graphics and optimized engine won't get the game to work for everyone, but for a much wider audience at least.
I think FD already knows how to make the graphics better, but they want to improve the engine for better performance. I think it's more important to have a game that is capable on running on as many machines as possible, than it is to have a game that looks the best as possible. The graphics are already pretty good, improving them any further would only improve the game experience for a very very small amount of people. A huge number of new players would be hurt if FD put the graphics back to where they were previously.
People need to understand: it's simply not possible for the game to accomodate an infinite range of machine performances. If the high-end "ultra" graphics are improved, the "low" graphics will have to be improved as well. Increasing the gap between "ultra" and "low" takes a lot of work, and the gap can only grow so large.
TL;DR I think it is far more important for FD to work on growing the playerbase and optimizing the engine than it is for them to improve the graphics (and yes, I know the graphics used to be better)
With the reduced graphics I think more people will get into the game. Too many people were having consistent stuttering and crashes, which prevents those people from playing. The reduced graphics and optimized engine won't get the game to work for everyone, but for a much wider audience at least.
I think FD already knows how to make the graphics better, but they want to improve the engine for better performance. I think it's more important to have a game that is capable on running on as many machines as possible, than it is to have a game that looks the best as possible. The graphics are already pretty good, improving them any further would only improve the game experience for a very very small amount of people. A huge number of new players would be hurt if FD put the graphics back to where they were previously.
People need to understand: it's simply not possible for the game to accomodate an infinite range of machine performances. If the high-end "ultra" graphics are improved, the "low" graphics will have to be improved as well. Increasing the gap between "ultra" and "low" takes a lot of work, and the gap can only grow so large.
TL;DR I think it is far more important for FD to work on growing the playerbase and optimizing the engine than it is for them to improve the graphics (and yes, I know the graphics used to be better)
You can't just add an "Ultra settings - may crash on some machines" option because people will use this setting regardless of their hardware capability and *will* complain when the game crashes despite the warning. This is unacceptable from a QA standpoint. I agree with Kerrash that FDev doesn't really have any choice here but to wait for the render team to have some time to solve the stability issues first. It's always a matter of priorities, and FDev cannot possibly lay out any plans that will satisfy everybody.
Last edited:
What......sigh. That is the WHOLE purpose of graphic options, so people can change settings to cater to their respective PCs. Why would making Ultra actually ULTRA affect those using Low/Medium/High? Ultra has nothing to do with the other settings, that is what makes OPTIONS valuable to a range of systems. These are client side changes. It has been this way for ages with PCs.
There is a possible gameplay connection to this. The forum has spoken of LOD models in the past. As a crude example, think of having a fight with someone and you are outside and at either ends of a tube, like Rama. If you have your settings on Ultra, and your game loads the highest level of model, you may well see a very round end to the tube.....where as your opponent with his settings on Low may see more of a 50p shape to the tube....this may also affect the collision/hit detection objects and allow some people to fire on others who can't hit back..........or they may shoot at you, and see their shot blocked by an invisible wall......in multiplayer games you really don't want people to be able to get an advantage with graphics settings.....like turning off shadows etc.....(I know people do it but my point stands)
- Status