Earthlike or AT LEAST EARTH. should have moving clouds!!! (we are a month away from 2019!)

[NULUSIOS]

It is very ugly to have static image for popular earthlikes and ESPECIALLY Earth.
I am sick and tired that Greece (which is one of the sunniest countries on the planet - ok at least in this century) is constantly under (static) clouds.
How hard is to add a layer of moving/morphing (at least just moving) clouds?
You revamp graphics for 3.3 but this "detail" (which is not a detail) is left untouched.

---

Rant section: Reminds me of a popular flight simulator, not named flight simulator, that has (or had until last year) zero landmarks of the planet (except if you buy 3rd party add-ons), when it has realistic surface mapping. Flight Simulator II back in 1980-something had few landmarks and 99% of simulators (and any games actually) that are positioned in a "real world" area also have landmarks for the last 30 years+. How hard is to have 10-100-500 famous landmarks -even rough, just for visual guidance- on an already huge install?
Why it is that way? Because of almost zero competition. Which (competition) I believe and hope will HELP Elite Dangerous very soon.

 

[Prorokpl]

It is very ugly to have static image for popular earthlikes and ESPECIALLY Earth.
I am sick and tired that Greece (which is one of the sunniest countries on the planet - ok at least in this century) is constantly under (static) clouds.
How hard is to add a layer of moving/morphing (at least just moving) clouds?
You revamp graphics for 3.3 but this "detail" (which is not a detail) is left untouched.

---

Rant section: Reminds me of a popular flight simulator, not named flight simulator, that has (or had until last year) zero landmarks of the planet (except if you buy 3rd party add-ons), when it has realistic surface mapping. Flight Simulator II back in 1980-something had few landmarks and 99% of simulators (and any games actually) that are positioned in a "real world" area also have landmarks for the last 30 years+. How hard is to have 10-100-500 famous landmarks -even rough, just for visual guidance- on an already huge install?
Why it is that way? Because of almost zero competition. Which (competition) I believe and hope will HELP Elite Dangerous very soon.

And how fast they should move? Do you know that size and distance is so great you won't be able to see the movement by naked eye, do you? And in time-lapses.

 

[comdr0303]

Who sais the clouds will still be moving 1000y from now, knowing that humanity already owns the weather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S-yVYNPiFU
I can see in 100y -yes 100- from now that the clouds would be there where the powers want them to be. We the people already have to deal with the cloudseeding and-spraying and with that all the disseases they mix in these coctails. Sick people do not have the strenght to protest, so keep them sick...so 1000y from now everything would be in a controlled environment, nothing will be like it's now.

Another point, some players like me don't have hi-end gear and it would make it impossible to play this game.
I agree on the other hand, give us moving clouds and stop the ship tails when on approach because these are sooo stupid and add nothing to the game.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

One game I played, I forget which, has several cloud layers, which are static, around a planet. But those layers rotate at different speeds. It's very subtle. But looks good enough to pass.

I may have been X3:R?

 

[Mr. Torgue]

I thought I was just unlucky to have same clouds every time I fly past earth-like planets, not that I always stare at them. But the game needs some serious visual rework mkay, but FD said nothing about it. I'd like to see good visuals for friendship-drive jumps as well, because, well, flat repetitive textures flying past you aren't good at making uhmmersive feel. Star Citizen has quite good but simple jumping visuals, it's not rocket science to create a bunch of particles ramming your ship during jumps, especially when they are already there but only a few. I hope FD will get to it someday.

I guess planets like Earth will get visual revamp as soon as we get atmospheric landings, that maybe 2019 or am I too optimistic? I really want to know what FD are going to release in 2019, especially in terms of visuals.

 

[Para Handy]

Earthlike or AT LEAST EARTH. should have moving clouds!!! (we are a month away from 2019!)

How many days have you parked to check? - We need a time-lapse as evidence. [haha]


Oh nearly forgot, you like these - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NULUSIOS]

Clouds are static. If you leave and visit again, you should see different clouds.

 

[varonica]

It is very ugly to have static image for popular earthlikes and ESPECIALLY Earth.
I am sick and tired that Greece (which is one of the sunniest countries on the planet - ok at least in this century) is constantly under (static) clouds.
How hard is to add a layer of moving/morphing (at least just moving) clouds?
You revamp graphics for 3.3 but this "detail" (which is not a detail) is left untouched.

---

Rant section: Reminds me of a popular flight simulator, not named flight simulator, that has (or had until last year) zero landmarks of the planet (except if you buy 3rd party add-ons), when it has realistic surface mapping. Flight Simulator II back in 1980-something had few landmarks and 99% of simulators (and any games actually) that are positioned in a "real world" area also have landmarks for the last 30 years+. How hard is to have 10-100-500 famous landmarks -even rough, just for visual guidance- on an already huge install?
Why it is that way? Because of almost zero competition. Which (competition) I believe and hope will HELP Elite Dangerous very soon.

Oh this again, there's plenty of information around if you care to look.

Non-landable planets are just place holders, they have no surface or data on which to hang layers of moving clouds, they are just a spherical mesh wrapped in a 2D image, I suggest watching the the tech talks on planet generation using the stellar forge, it's very interesting. Until they do the actual build for landing on them it's rather pointless spending resources on them, they are good enough. Putting layers of moving clouds in would require them to actually do a full planet build that would be basically thrown away when they did more work.

 

[Braandlin]

I am sick and tired that Greece (which is one of the sunniest countries on the planet - ok at least in this century) is constantly under (static) clouds.

You understand that Frontier is a British Company and therefore is under almost constant cloud as they dream for 11 months of the year of sunny greek skies on their holiday?
I suspect the cloudy conditions over Athens are entirely deliberate

 

[dubsdj]

You understand that Frontier is a British Company and therefore is under almost constant cloud as they dream for 11 months of the year of sunny greek skies on their holiday?
I suspect the cloudy conditions over Athens are entirely deliberate

11 months of the year! I will have you know we had a good summer.

 

[NULUSIOS]

Oh this again, there's plenty of information around if you care to look.

Non-landable planets are just place holders, they have no surface or data on which to hang layers of moving clouds, they are just a spherical mesh wrapped in a 2D image, I suggest watching the the tech talks on planet generation using the stellar forge, it's very interesting. Until they do the actual build for landing on them it's rather pointless spending resources on them, they are good enough. Putting layers of moving clouds in would require them to actually do a full planet build that would be basically thrown away when they did more work.

Ah, this reply again.
It's no excuse to have non-landable Earthlike planets just as placeholders.
Bear in mind that I am fully aware of the technical side of this, so don't think that I will get scared off mild use of jargon.
There is no need for detailed hi-res surface data for this - it ain't a (land based) flight sim. A 10 or even a 100 km (!) resolution for the height map, would be enough to make a plausible 3D looking surface.
EVEN NOT using a 3D mesh, just a ball and a 2D image like they do now, it is STILL possible to make an additional layer of either random 3D clouds over the smooth ball that is Earth (or any Earthlike), or even a 2D wrapped sphere image of clouds with proper alpha channel (just play with cloud colors for other earthlikes and/or take care of making the dark side also dark for clouds. Clouds casting a (2D) shadow, from the height we see the planets is also simple enough and a nice touch but not a prerequisite. There are so many low-cost, low maintenance solutions.
I mean it is not even a (single) dev work-hour to make a first version of this.

You understand that Frontier is a British Company and therefore is under almost constant cloud as they dream for 11 months of the year of sunny greek skies on their holiday?
I suspect the cloudy conditions over Athens are entirely deliberate

I believe so too.

 

[varonica]

Ah, this reply again.
It's no excuse to have non-landable Earthlike planets just as placeholders.
Bear in mind that I am fully aware of the technical side of this, so don't think that I will get scared off mild use of jargon.
There is no need for detailed hi-res surface data for this - it ain't a (land based) flight sim. A 10 or even a 100 km (!) resolution for the height map, would be enough to make a plausible 3D looking surface.
EVEN NOT using a 3D mesh, just a ball and a 2D image like they do now, it is STILL possible to make an additional layer of either random 3D clouds over the smooth ball that is Earth (or any Earthlike), or even a 2D wrapped sphere image of clouds with proper alpha channel (just play with cloud colors for other earthlikes and/or take care of making the dark side also dark for clouds. Clouds casting a (2D) shadow, from the height we see the planets is also simple enough and a nice touch but not a prerequisite. There are so many low-cost, low maintenance solutions.

I mean it is not even a (single) dev work-hour to make a first version of this.



I believe so too.

Basically I think you are talking tosh to put it politely. You have no idea how long it would take to do, how many devs required, what exatly is required and what they are actually working on at the moment with atmospheric planets that this would interfere with. Why don't you let them develop the game and you play the game, of course if you have the skills and a working knowledge of the Cobra Engine I guess you could apply for a job at FDEV to do the dev work for them, but I am guessing you don't.

I would rather that got on with what they are doing than take a joyride down pointless street just to satisfy one players desires

 

[NULUSIOS]

Why does someone in every project, that is NOT involved in the project, has to do this every time I wonder.
"You don't know what you talk about (actually the one who says this doesn't) and if you want make it yourself better (which is utter cr*p of an argument)".

My field of expertise is different (in IT), but have been educated in 3D modeling and animation also (and also have worked in major projects that need specialized teams to accomplish). I am 34 years in the field and more than 20 in the business.
My first 3D modeling was on Amiga almost 30 years ago.
What I say is like 101 class in 3D (but ok near the end of the course). I don't expect much, just something better than current state.
Really you can accomplish what I say in Blender in an hour (2D clouds moving independent over a 2D texture 3D ball) or less. I suspect it needs some more time in their own engine, if this isn't something they have hooks to implement. Still a day or a week for a dev.
Doesn't conflict with any work they do on "atmospheric planets" (which I suspect is null, but anyway not the subject here), because that is the point of alternative builds, forks, specialized teams, production builds etc.

I do not care if you believe any of what I write, or if you agree, because really a self proclaimed lawyer doesn't mean anything and I see you as someone talking out of his, you know what. I suspect you do the same. You believe I talk cr*p it is obvious, so move on to next thread please.

I believe I am not the only one that would like this implemented. Singling me out, won't work.

BTW, if you are waiting for planetary landings (which infinitely more complex to implement PROPERLY) to implement something like that, good luck waiting.
You can join me in the queue of waiting for way more basic things, that will never happen.

 

[AldrickExGladius]

Who sais the clouds will still be moving 1000y from now, knowing that humanity already owns the weather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S-yVYNPiFU
I can see in 100y -yes 100- from now that the clouds would be there where the powers want them to be. We the people already have to deal with the cloudseeding and-spraying and with that all the disseases they mix in these coctails. Sick people do not have the strenght to protest, so keep them sick...so 1000y from now everything would be in a controlled environment, nothing will be like it's now.

Another point, some players like me don't have hi-end gear and it would make it impossible to play this game.
I agree on the other hand, give us moving clouds and stop the ship tails when on approach because these are sooo stupid and add nothing to the game.

lol What?

 

[moorison]

There is a difference between a tool like blender (yes you could run games inside blender) and a multiplayer game. The surface of most planets need to be generated on demand, the engine has to keep the planets in orbit, generate NPCs (AI) and scenarios, communicate with other Cmdr's (update their positions and if some packets go missing, smooth the movement) and the servers and keep an acceptable framerate with all the data manipulation implied.
There is no doubt that it can do stuff like more detailed planets, multiple stars as lightsources and more lifelike NPCs, but it would be even more complex and introduce sources of errors that need to be discovered and understood as well. The experience would probably change from a game to a slideshow for most gamers as well.
It is understandable to want to see the earth in all its glory without a distracting static layer of clouds. But I think in the grand scheme it is a game first and then a still very good simulator of orbital mechanics and generator of screenshots.

 

[Sapyx]

Ah, this reply again.
It's no excuse to have non-landable Earthlike planets just as placeholders...

Sorry, but I believe it is a valid excuse. There's no point in the Devs wasting time making Earth-likes slightly more realistic (in terms of weather, or icecaps, or whatever) when they're all going to get a major revamp whenever they introduce landing-on-Earthlikes. Whether that's in six months, a year, two years or whatever. When that happens, whatever tweaks ELWs might be given now are going to get deleted and replaced entirely anyhow.

However they might "tweak" the system, people would still complain. Suppose they went to all the trouble to make clouds move. People would then complain, "I've been watching this hurricane rage over the Atlantic for days now. It's moved about 1600 km, but it only ever moves eastwards. Hurricanes are supposed to move westwards, and they're supposed to rotate, too!"

If we can't actually land in Greece and see the weather for ourselves, I don't see any point in complaining about what the weather down there is allegedly like.

 

[Captain Willard]

The only answer to no living atmosphere on SOL is to throw your computer out the window. Send pics.
A total waste in dev time for minimal effects.

 

[NULUSIOS]

Whatever.
Too much energy spent here.