Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
The best analogy I can think of is that some people like jigsaws and other people like colouring books.

The FSS is for the jigsaw people, building up a picture of the system piece by piece.
The ADS was more for the colouring book people - starting with an outline and filling in the detail.

Yes, the old ADS provided too much detail too start with - most people admit that, but if you don't like jigsaws, it was still better than the FSS.

My ideal would be a toned down ADS that provides a less detailed overview.
Selectable targets so that I can choose to fly to targets before scanning.
And the option to use the FSS while I'm on my way.

Best of both worlds, a choice of methods to mix and match as you see fit.
As long as that ADS is an optional module that would be fine. The idea of having the pinpoint coordinates, knowing where they are and then having to find them again in the FSS would destroy it for me.
 
As long as that ADS is an optional module that would be fine. The idea of having the pinpoint coordinates, knowing where they are and then having to find them again in the FSS would destroy it for me.

Like I said, a mix and match approach as you see fit.
If the FSS is completely your jam, then don't fit an ADS.
 
One honk didn't explore the system - it just drew you a map. To explore the system you had to actually fly your spaceship around it.

Wasn't that the early days of space exploration though? An orbital scan for basic composition and installations, is/was low res.
The resolution is higher now, and to explore the system you actually have to fly your spaceship, to map for geological sites and so on.

Probes are the new old discovery system? Drink one finger?

My ideal would be a toned down ADS that provides a less detailed overview.
Selectable targets so that I can choose to fly to targets before scanning.
And the option to use the FSS while I'm on my way.

Get you and a qualified yes. But what's wrong witrh - if you want to select a specific planet type without going through the whole lot - tune a planet frequency, resolve those and ignore all the rest, you're there. Represented in a different way graphically yes but same thing.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what signal I'm trying to pick up or maintain.

Trying to get that 1.733Gbps signal through two walls and a floor on my 4x4 MIMO 802.11AC network, which requires eight antennae be in precisely the correct orientation, can be quite a chore.

I'm sure the Yugoslav radar operators who managed to detect and shoot down an F-117 (one of the most advanced and stealthiest aircraft of the era), with SAMs directed by 30+ year old Soviet radar sets tuned to frequencies well below what they were specified to operate at, were performing an even greater feat.

The FSS tuning mechanism in ED is a bit more simplistic than I'd find truly engaging, but interpreting it correctly can still provide much of the information the old system map ping could.

Let me correct myself, do you find turning the n o b of the car radio amusing?
 
Wasn't that the early days of space exploration though? An orbital scan for basic composition and installations, is/was low res.
The resolution is higher now, and to explore the system you actually have to fly your spaceship, to map for geological sites and so on.

Probes are the new old discovery system? Drink one finger?

You already know whether there are geological/biological sites from the FSS.
Mapping performs no purpose on non-landable bodies, or on bodies which have no geological/biological sites - it doesn't provide any actual information, just a tag and some extra credits.
 
Get you and a qualified yes. But still not convinced enough to hate the FSS in it's current and as happens first form. If you want to select a target without going through the whole thing, select a specific planet frequency, ignoring all the rest and you're there. Different graphical yes but same thing.

That only works if you're mainly interested in body type.
 
That only works if you're mainly interested in body type.

Then be specifc in why you would choose one target - in your suggested upgrade - over another?

You already know whether there are geological/biological sites from the FSS.
Mapping performs no purpose on non-landable bodies, or on bodies which have no geological/biological sites - it doesn't provide any actual information, just a tag and some extra credits.

Again I think it depends on why you prefer flying up to because if it's the headspace of "I actually want to see the planet I diiscovered up close' those are two reasons to go there. They don't have to fit your headspace to be valid as reasons to go, they're just game provided reasons to go.
 
Again I think it depends on why you prefer flying up to because if it's the headspace of "I actually want to see the planet I diiscovered up close' those are two reasons to go there. They don't have to fit your headspace to be 'valid' reasons to go, they're just game provided reasons to go.

Oh sure, it's totally about how I personally have fun. The FSS gets in the way of my fun, by not allowing me to separate locating a body from resolving it's characteristics, leaving me with only mapping as a reason to visit a body - and since I don't feel that mapping actually performs any significant purpose, and requires no skill whatsoever, it's just a time-sink to me. For this reason, I don't think that the fact that the FSS is quicker to be a point in it's favor - which was the comment I responded to which started this discussion.
 
Oh sure, it's totally about how I personally have fun. The FSS gets in the way of my fun, by not allowing me to separate locating a body from resolving it's characteristics, leaving me with only mapping as a reason to visit a body - and since I don't feel that mapping actually performs any significant purpose, and requires no skill whatsoever, it's just a time-sink to me. For this reason, I don't think that the fact that the FSS is quicker to be a point in it's favor - which was the comment I responded to which started this discussion.

Respectfully though, I think you're assuming - even if all explorers do it the same way - the FSS/DSS are only for explorers. The DSS does serve a specific purpose if you're into volcanics for example and I also think it's a bit much to say there's no skillage in it at all. Potoato worlds might be simple to probe but ringed gas giants do take some doing, especially if you test yourself to do them quickly.

I do take your point about data appearance but to migrate that across I think classification of planets is a bit of an unknown quantity presently, mostly because atmospheric planets are a totally unknown quantity still. Classifying planets includes atmospheres and for me is most likely why the data comes in the honk by default, because we have to assume when models for atmos come in, things like storm systems would come under the (detailed) probe view. At the moment it obviously doesn't but the data is for now still held in the (programming) 'safe space' of the ADS, that's likely where the database always was held.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom