Patch Notes Update CQC Update (1.4) Beta Build Incoming

[Flak]

I posted about this too, I had 8MB where 1.2MB would be the absolute maximum attainable.
I too thought voodoo at first, but maybe data compression is a more likely cause than voodoo.

When downloading an update/patch, not all files have to be downloaded, only files that have changed. However, I think that when the downloader gets to a file it doesn't need to download, it skips it but counts it's size in the data it's downloaded. This is where the silly download speeds come from I think. So if the game was 1GB in total and the patch only needed to download 1MB, then the downloader would report that it had downloaded 1GB in the time it took to download the actual changes.

This is all theory of course

 

[nopil3os]

I don't know why people don't like this change, if anything it makes more sense it's just different to before.

But I think you're right, although I'd go further. Just don't allow people to deploy the gear above the speed limit. Make people slow down first.

i'd say make people WANT to slow down first. along the lines of "of course you can enter the mailslot without requesting docking permission first. it's just unwise to do so". gear down at high speed? -> badly damaged hull.
why limit ship systems by some arbitrary programming without explanation?

 

[Raiko]

i'd say make people WANT to slow down first. along the lines of "of course you can enter the mailslot without requesting docking permission first. it's just unwise to do so". gear down at high speed? -> badly damaged hull.
why limit ship systems by some arbitrary programming without explanation?

I'd be fine with this suggestion, or with clinton's - although the hull damage would only make sense inside the docking area (with atmosphere), not outside in a vacuum, or when docking at an outpost. I just don't want pressing "deploy landing gear" to result in a instantanious speed loss.

If they want everyone to slow down for docking, then I'd also be fine if anybody going in or out through the slot at above 100m/s was automatically fined for speeding. I'd get fined everytime I took off and most times I docked, but I'd still be fine with the fine!

In fact I'd be proud of it

 

[MarktJones]

I don't know why people don't like this change, if anything it makes more sense it's just different to before.

But I think you're right, although I'd go further. Just don't allow people to deploy the gear above the speed limit. Make people slow down first.

It seemed like it was making the game easier to me. But I like your idea also.

 

[Raiko]

I don't know why people don't like this change, if anything it makes more sense it's just different to before.

But I think you're right, although I'd go further. Just don't allow people to deploy the gear above the speed limit. Make people slow down first.

Clinton, take a quick look at Esvandiary's video (inside the spoiler). This is way some of us don't like the change, as it will remove the choice of landing at high speed by reducing your speed to "safe" levels several seconds before your landing gear is locked down. Since racing is my favourite in-game activity, I just really don't like the change.

I'd be happy getting fined or taking more damage flying dangerously, but again please don't take the choice away.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;Lg8pO25DtUM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8pO25DtUM[/video]

 

[clinton]

Clinton, take a quick look at Esvandiary's video (inside the spoiler). This is way some of us don't like the change, as it will remove the choice of landing at high speed by reducing your speed to "safe" levels several seconds before your landing gear is locked down. Since racing is my favourite in-game activity, I just really don't like the change.

I'd be happy getting fined or taking more damage flying dangerously, but again please don't take the choice away.

I don't understand, why can't you just reverse the thrust? If lowering the gear slows you down faster than reversing the thrust, then that's quite bizarre and in fact makes things easier, not more dangerous.

 

[Frank]

So... erm.. any word about a patch for 1.4?

 

[Raiko]

I don't understand, why can't you just reverse the thrust? If lowering the gear slows you down faster than reversing the thrust, then that's quite bizarre and in fact makes things easier, not more dangerous.

No that's not what I'm getting at.

At the moment (in 1.3) if you're flying fast and you deploy landing gear, your speed isn't affected until your gear is deployed. So you need to slow manually (eg using reverse thrust as you suggest), ideally you can get your speed under control just as your gear locks into place and then hit the pad.

With the 1.4 change your speed reduces immediately when you select your landing gear, resulting in a few seconds of imposed slow flying before you can land. It takes a lot of the danger out of landings, which I'm actually fine with as long as there's an option to override.

 

[Metalstardust]

looking forward to the public release.
two questions:
- are the info-popups of celestial bodies still blocking other celestial bodies on the system map?

Yes they are
But good news two bugs I reported on Gal Map are fixed.

 

[Ben Ryder]

Hi Zac,

Elite Dangerous is supposed to be for everyone?

So why no solo CQC vs NPCs?

Thanks

Ben

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Please can you at least make the changes that Alec noted selectable options, rather than imposing them on everyone?

I understand that they might be nice changes for beginners, but I love my "hot landings", even though I'm not as good at them as I'd like to be, it feels great when you get the timing exactly right during a smuggling run or a race.

I also love setting the throttle to 100% and keeping it there as I Buckyball all the way to Sag A*.

Some of us love to fly dangerously, please don't take the choice away.

^^^ This. Me too.

 

[NeilF]

Hi Zac,

Elite Dangerous is supposed to be for everyone?

So why no solo CQC vs NPCs?

Thanks

Ben

I'd imagine:-
1) AI too hard/tricky?
2) Given the rewards offered from victories in CQC it would be far easier to "farm" them in SOLO then play online against real players I suspect. That said, though, why break the mold for everything else in the game

 

[Adamaira]

I don't like the instant speed drop out of supercruise feature as it breaks the ability to skim suns immediately out of SC to position for next jump and it's irritating.

 

[who?]

Please can you at least make the changes that Alec noted selectable options, rather than imposing them on everyone?

I understand that they might be nice changes for beginners, but I love my "hot landings", even though I'm not as good at them as I'd like to be, it feels great when you get the timing exactly right during a smuggling run or a race.

I also love setting the throttle to 100% and keeping it there as I Buckyball all the way to Sag A*.

Some of us love to fly dangerously, please don't take the choice away.

For bonus points - do this "in game" rather than a setting in Options.

i.e. have a "Disengage Safety Protocol" button in-game, with an accompanying audio message. Ideally with a patronising "well, I tried to warn them" tone...

 

[Alec Turner]

I don't like the instant speed drop out of supercruise feature as it breaks the ability to skim suns immediately out of SC to position for next jump and it's irritating.

(hopefully) this is a glitch and not a deliberate change ...

Hello Commanders!

Just a quick update to say that the throttle choke after using the FSD is a quirk. We'll have a look into what's going on.

 

[ASC]

- Changed how powerplant damage is handled - small chance of instant destruction, otherwise malfunctions and halved power output

Does this apply to combat damage only or all damage?

I'm thinking particularly of exploration. There are times when you jump into a close binary system and can't avoid a bit of heat damage. Or get scooping a bit wrong and have an emergency stop. I just want to understand the risks.

 

[Andovar]

why change this mechanic which we've gotten soooo used to? It seemed to make sense, it was wonderful, it required us to develop this beautiful skill in anticipating that exact moment of deceleration. It was part of the "feel" of docking. If you really have made this change could you either explain why or quickly change it back before anyone notices. These subtleties of ship control are the absolute heart of this game. Please don't mess with them lightly.

I also support the "please put the landing gear 'brakes' back the way they were" petition.

 

[ASC]

I'd just like to have the option to exit hyperspace at 100% thanks, as I only ever do the 'set to 0%' thing if the next star is a non-sequence star, otherwise I always exit at 100%. I'd be happy to select 100% myself during charge-up (like you need to select 0% in 1.3 if that's what you want), but I really don't want to be forced to 0%.

This goes for me too. I'd prefer to be at 100% throttle when out exploring. So making it optional would be great.

 

[Abil Midena]

How are you interpreting that? Co-incide means "happen at the same time" not...whatever you seem to think it means.

I'm hung up on the "non-controlling factions" part. It says this...
Wars between non-controlling factions are allowed and will co-incide with scenarios generated by the controlling minor's state"
This implies that a 'controlling faction' cannot be at civil war if it is in another state, only non-controlling factions can be. If it would have said the following, there would be no questions...
"Civil Wars between factions are allowed to co-incide with other states."
Get it now? If not, go be snarky somewhere else.

 

[Abil Midena]

You can have conflicts between non-controlling factions, but they don't affect system ownership. This change means that appropriate scenarios are created for all conflicts, not just the controlling ones.

Michael

Thank you for the reply Michael. I will just have to wait for the release and find some back water system to test.

As an example...
Currently, if you get a non-controlling minor faction above 70%, a civil war with the controlling faction will start unless either faction is in another state. Then you have to wait for the other states to clear and cool down, and if the conditions remain, a civil war will start.
Based on this, from the 7/23 Dev update...
"One commonly raised issue is that minor factions don't always enter conflict states such as war, civil war and elections. This occurs when the other minor faction is in a state that cannot be overridden, so we are changing the rule so that conflict states can immediately override other states so that conflicts can be entered and completed."
I thought, based on this that with 1.4, the 'civil war' state would over ride other states that the two factions were in, and civil war would start immediately.