Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

[Riverside]

Well, I’ve just read the last 19 pages. Now I’ll ask the question that I expected (from the thread title) would be answered on the first page.
What really gets me about the fss (I’ll ignore here the pointless and tediously long time to resolve geo/biological signals!) is the actual scan mechanism with a hotas/hosas. I have the tuning bound to the hotas throttle or left stick Y axis; no real problem, it’s quite quick to tune into the signals I’m interested in. What gets my goat is the yaw speed around the signal space. I have pitch bound to right stick Y axis without any issue but the yaw bound to the X axis is slooowwwww!!! I look with envy at the yaw speed that Will gets in the FD livestreams using a gamepad. It seems to be that the fss was designed primarily for gamepad/mouse users, who have several parameter optimisations available (sensitivity, power curve...). So does anyone have a way to get round this issue?

The horizontal & vertical control speeds are cumulative so try to move diagonally. I agree it seems to have been designed with a gamepad in mind, I use a Hotas too.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

All the more I'm still baffled why these few specialist explorers tend to bristle against the often mentioned proposal of an exclusive ADS that would suppress any FSS functionality. If they (you?) only could make up their mind and make a decision before any longer exploration trip if they want to use the FSS or the ADS you'd certainly have my full support. But any attempts to explain why a mixed system (ADS on top of the FSS) is a no go, was usually repelled or just ignored - or perhaps just not understood.

If you're looking for a broad range of acceptance (and you should if you want to be successful in your endeavors), you should realize that it's you (again: the aforementioned group of explorers) who has to do this step towards a compromise. Cause those who basically like what the FSS has to offer don't have to defend anything. And without such a broad acceptance I doubt FD will ever re-introduce the ADS in any form or incarnation.

Still trying to punish people for not liking the FSS huh?

There already is a 'broad acceptance', since there are only 2 people pushing the 'mutually exclusive' line, and a whole lot more FSS-supporters who're quite happy with having an optional ADS that works alongside the FSS.

 

[Riverside]

See: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-to-use-the-fss-enjoyably.514074/post-7837436

I find the new, active scanners to be vastly more engaging. I can see a system take shape, planet by planet. I can spot irregular orbits, interesting nesting of co-orbital planets and moons, and all that "interesting stuff", all in real-time, all in a three-dimensional environment that you simply could not get from the flat, 2d System Map. I can tell at range if a stellar body looks interesting enough to warrant flying out towards, and even if it has any interesting features such as geological or biological formations I'm even more interested in taking a closer look at, without a 30 minute flight to spend hours eyeballing something that may or may not even be there.

From the composition reports I can tell at range if it's worth the fuel to fly all the way to a particular planet to search for materials I might need.

And I can spot both singal sources and notable signals without having to spend hours upon hours flying in slowing widening spirals hoping not to miss some little detail.

Most importantly, I feel like I'm using cutting-edge future technology in the process, not relics and antiquities scavenged from junk heaps of the 21st century. I mean, this IS supposed to be a high-tech, futuristic game, isn't it? Who wants old tech in the future?

All good reasons

So imagine the FSS has been removed & replaced with the ADS. How would you feel about that?

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Most importantly, I feel like I'm using cutting-edge future technology in the process, not relics and antiquities scavenged from junk heaps of the 21st century. I mean, this IS supposed to be a high-tech, futuristic game, isn't it? Who wants old tech in the future?

While not wanting to criticize you for liking the FSS, this line has confused me a little. The FSS was designed using input from 21st century astronomers regarding how they use radio and optical astronomy - so it seems to be that we're very much using 'relics and antiquities [...] from the 21st century. It certainly feels that way to me.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

All the more I'm still baffled why these few specialist explorers tend to bristle against the often mentioned proposal of an exclusive ADS that would suppress any FSS functionality. If they (you?) only could make up their mind and make a decision before any longer exploration trip if they want to use the FSS or the ADS you'd certainly have my full support. But any attempts to explain why a mixed system (ADS on top of the FSS) is a no go, was usually repelled or just ignored - or perhaps just not understood and meanwhile I'm tired to repeat myself.

Aside from the Creators have made it clear they do not want this, and that should be enough? How about because...

1. The ADS's Reveal All makes the FSS's One-at-a-Time method of discovery rather pointless.
2. The ADS did not provide the level of detail, per planet, the FSS does. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
3. The ADS did not reveal signal sources. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
4. The ADS was not integrated into ship systems.
5. None of anyone posting here has any knowledge or experience programming for or with the Cobra Engine, thus no one is qualified to speak on behalf of it's capabilities. However it is entirely in the realm of realistic to suspect that these sorts of scanning mechanisms are programatically incompatible, that is to say, they simply cannot co-exist. Someone familiar with the programming for Cobra would have to confirm or deny this.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Well, I’ve just read the last 19 pages. Now I’ll ask the question that I expected (from the thread title) would be answered on the first page.
What really gets me about the fss (I’ll ignore here the pointless and tediously long time to resolve geo/biological signals!) is the actual scan mechanism with a hotas/hosas. I have the tuning bound to the hotas throttle or left stick Y axis; no real problem, it’s quite quick to tune into the signals I’m interested in. What gets my goat is the yaw speed around the signal space. I have pitch bound to right stick Y axis without any issue but the yaw bound to the X axis is slooowwwww!!! I look with envy at the yaw speed that Will gets in the FD livestreams using a gamepad. It seems to be that the fss was designed primarily for gamepad/mouse users, who have several parameter optimisations available (sensitivity, power curve...). So does anyone have a way to get round this issue?

If you move your targeting above or below the orbital line (ecliptic) you can move considerably faster - HTH

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Sure, see my later post after the one you quoted.

Hmm... not a bad start, but probably needs fleshing out. Sounds a bit similar to my own suggestion.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Aside from the Creators have made it clear they do not want this, and that should be enough? How about because...

1. The ADS's Reveal All makes the FSS's One-at-a-Time method of discovery rather pointless.
2. The ADS did not provide the level of detail, per planet, the FSS does. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
3. The ADS did not reveal signal sources. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
4. The ADS was not integrated into ship systems.
5. None of anyone posting here has any knowledge or experience programming for or with the Cobra Engine, thus no one is qualified to speak on behalf of it's capabilities. However it is entirely in the realm of realistic to suspect that these sorts of scanning mechanisms are programatically incompatible, that is to say, they simply cannot co-exist. Someone familiar with the programming for Cobra would have to confirm or deny this.

Shields defeat the purpose of multicannons, so lets remove those too.

Why is the FSS the only thing that is mandatory, when every other module is either entirely optional or comes in multiple sizes/grades?

 

[Ian Skippy]

A, the same two dozen or so disgruntled people are still obsessively upset. Cool story! Can't wait to see this reach another 100+ pages of the same people posting the same things over and over again. Not that it is my problem, I'm happily using the FSS in the DRYOOE region. FWIW, I and 'any true gamer' (if we're going to use the true Scotsman fallacy I'm game!) is ultra happy that the "flying in a straight line over a planet surface for dozens of hours hoping to see a pixel is awesome" never people got what they want.

As for the OP: I sincerely hope that is disingenuous trolling. If you seriously think "I would love to see a video of someone eating something I don;t like just to see how they are enjoying it!" is a serious statement you've got a lot to learn about personal preference, taste and life in general. Some people love flying in a straight line for dozens of hours doing literally all. Somehow they consider themselves 'elite pilots' possessing 'real skill'. That's cool. Others don't. Deal with it.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Why is the FSS the only thing that is mandatory, when every other module is either entirely optional or comes in multiple sizes/grades?

Cargo racks are mandatory for trading and smuggling. Passenger bays are mandatory for passenger missions. Refineries are mandatory for mining. The 'multiple sizes' idea is absurd, and you just snuck it in to have a vague sense of not being daft. Dedicated professions have dedicated modules. For explorers that include the FSS and probes. Deal with it.

 

[Jorki Rasalas]

Is there a rotate binding? Rotate 90 degrees and pitch up down <-- to yaw?

Good idea, but don’t believe there is.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

A, the same two dozen or so disgruntled people are still obsessively upset. Cool story! Can't wait to see this reach another 100+ pages of the same people posting the same things over and over again. Not that it is my problem, I'm happily using the FSS in the DRYOOE region. FWIW, I and 'any true gamer' (if we're going to use the true Scotsman fallacy I'm game!) is ultra happy that the "flying in a straight line over a planet surface for dozens of hours hoping to see a pixel is awesome" people got what they want.

As for the OP: I sincerely hope that is disingenuous trolling. If you seriously think "I would love to see a video of someone eating something I don;t like just to see how they are enjoying it!" is a serious statement you've got a lot to learn about personal preference, taste and life in general. Some people love flying in a straight line for dozens of hours doing literally all. Somehow they consider themselves 'elite pilots' possessing 'real skill'. That's cool. Others don't. Deal with it.

Same 3 smug, self-righteous people saying 'No, you can't have it' in order to mitigate their feelings of inadequacy.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Same 3 smug, self-righteous people saying 'No, you can't have it' in order to mitigate their feelings of inadequacy.

As I've said before, I am more than willing to meet up in-game to settle the question who has the better skills. I have a lot to improve in every area, but when it comes to comparing myself with you I assure you there is little feeling of inadequacy involved.

 

[Faded Glory]

Aside from the Creators have made it clear they do not want this, and that should be enough? How about because...

1. The ADS's Reveal All makes the FSS's One-at-a-Time method of discovery rather pointless.
2. The ADS did not provide the level of detail, per planet, the FSS does. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
3. The ADS did not reveal signal sources. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
4. The ADS was not integrated into ship systems.
5. None of anyone posting here has any knowledge or experience programming for or with the Cobra Engine, thus no one is qualified to speak on behalf of it's capabilities. However it is entirely in the realm of realistic to suspect that these sorts of scanning mechanisms are programatically incompatible, that is to say, they simply cannot co-exist. Someone familiar with the programming for Cobra would have to confirm or deny this.

The only one of your examples that has any relevance is number 1, and it isn't true anyway. If you cannot tell from looking at the energy spectrum if there are interesting things there (at least what FD think players consider interesting) then you're not doing it right... The things that people wanting an optional ADS for aren't more difficult to spot with the FSS, they aren't possible to spot with the FSS without actually scanning the object, and that's pointless if you subsequently find its not what you were looking for.

As I've said before, don't show the energy spectrum in the FSS, just a total body count, and then you're comparing apples to apples.

Some people perhaps feel that reading the energy spectrum is more challenging than reading the system map. Personally I found it just as easy, more definitive for what it does reveal, and considerably quicker to confirm what an object is.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Can you provide a citation? Cause if that is true, if a clear statement form FD exists, so what are we still talking about here?
Note that I really wished such a clarifying statement would exist (it's high time if not) but so far I haven't seen one or just missed it.

It has been posted over and over and over and over and over in every single topic that has been about this. Yes, FD have said they are aware of people not liking it. They said they considered all options, and that what they have chosen is best even if some don't like. Feel free to browse the previous 10000+ pages or use google, or maybe someone else is polite enough to link it again. It doesn't settle anything, because the same ten people or so instantly dismiss FD's own statements. Which makes any honest discussions absolutely pointless.

Anyway, I am out. This is Groundhog Day, again. If I were a mod I'd lock this and link to another topic. I am not, and none of this is my problem, so I leave it to the usual suspects to repeat the same stuff that has been disproven over and over again. Not sure what they hope to gain, but best of luck with it!

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Cargo racks are mandatory for trading and smuggling. Passenger bays are mandatory for passenger missions. Refineries are mandatory for mining. The 'multiple sizes' idea is absurd, and you just snuck it in to have a vague sense of not being daft. Dedicated professions have dedicated modules. For explorers that include the FSS and probes. Deal with it.

I'll give you the refinery - hadn't considered that one. However, miners get 3 different types of tool, plus 2 optional limpets, so they're not sruck with a one-size-fits-all configuration.

Even traders get to choose between regular and corrosive resistant and nobody is saying they can't fit both into the same ship.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Can you provide a citation? Cause if that is true, if a clear statement form FD exists, so what are we still talking about here?
Note that I really wished such a clarifying statement would exist (it's high time if not) but so far I haven't seen one or just missed it.

The original announcement said that traveling explorers were screwed by the new system (paraphrasing there).

However, the joy of the Suggestions Forum is that we can suggest ways in which FDev can un-screw them. Some people forget that basic fact and fall back on whining "But FDev saaa-aaid".

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Aside from the Creators have made it clear they do not want this, and that should be enough? How about because...

1. The ADS's Reveal All makes the FSS's One-at-a-Time method of discovery rather pointless.
2. The ADS did not provide the level of detail, per planet, the FSS does. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
3. The ADS did not reveal signal sources. Adding this to an already over-powered Gods-Eye-View scanner defeats the purpose.
4. The ADS was not integrated into ship systems.
5. None of anyone posting here has any knowledge or experience programming for or with the Cobra Engine, thus no one is qualified to speak on behalf of it's capabilities. However it is entirely in the realm of realistic to suspect that these sorts of scanning mechanisms are programatically incompatible, that is to say, they simply cannot co-exist. Someone familiar with the programming for Cobra would have to confirm or deny this.

Despite the absolute certainty you've used to make your points, every single one of them is categorically incorrect.

1. Some players seem to enjoy the FSS reveal for its own sake and the FSS is significantly faster than ADS based methods, so there would be plenty of reasons for players to keep using the FSS.
2. The FSS is an upgrade to the old DSS as a body scanner, but does not serve the needs of those who are overview oriented and require a proper system scanner - combined the FSS compliments the overview approach while providing no advantage over those who prefer to exclusively use the FSS to fill in the pieces. Using the FSS alone is significantly faster.
3. No-one is asking for the ADS to reveal signal sources - that can be FSS-exclusive.
4. That nicely resolves the problem for those people who hated the ADS - don't fit it.
5. We can see the results - we saw what the ADS did, we see that the FSS honk can distinguish between discovered and undiscovered systems and output different results, and extrapolate the simple conclusion that it would be relatively easy to make the honk reveal unknown bodies in undiscovered systems if and only if an ADS-like module was fitted.

Back to picommander's point - there is some bristling because there is absolutely no need to make the ADS and FSS mutually exclusive.
There seems to be a collective memory loss that even those who want the ADS back also wanted new exploration tools. There is absolutely no justification to deny the use of the FSS out of some form of spite dressed up as 'balance'.
The main objection to the FSS is that it gets in the way because it is an obligatory hoop to jump through. I would be much happier with it if I had a choice about when, where, and how often I use it.

However, if they were to be mutually exclusive, I would choose the ADS over the FSS.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

All good reasons

So imagine the FSS has been removed & replaced with the ADS. How would you feel about that?

I would not like it. I hated the ADS. I hated the DSS. And because of this the furthest I had ever traveled out of the bubble was 6,400 Light Years. I simply could not stomach it. There was absolutely nothing to do, except wrap a hairband around my joystick to hold Trigger 2, and watch Netflix. Exploration under the old system was absolute garbage. There would be no reason to switch from an active, engaging system like the FSS to a totally garbage mechanic without any engagement. While you are so eager to say "Well that's how we feel about the FSS...", I will deprive you of that, because this time it just doesn't work in reverse.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I would not like it. I hated the ADS. I hated the DSS. And because of this the furthest I had ever traveled out of the bubble was 6,400 Light Years. I simply could not stomach it. There was absolutely nothing to do, except wrap a hairband around my joystick to hold Trigger 2, and watch Netflix. Exploration under the old system was absolute garbage. There would be no reason to switch from an active, engaging system like the FSS to a totally garbage mechanic without any engagement. While you are so eager to say "Well that's how we feel about the FSS...", I will deprive you of that, because this time it just doesn't work in reverse.