FAO FRONTIER: List of Graphical Changes / Issues for since Patch 1.3

[nexxo]

The fact that some refuted this example does not make it any less valid. Yes, the lighting is different, the source is not at the same place, alright. But it is undeniable that there is a loss of quality between the two versions. Is it due to the lack of dust? Maybe. Light sampling reduced? Maybe. I don't know, I can only observe. Have you been able to find the same depth as in pic 1 anywhere in 1.3?

Sorry, but I cannot see a difference in quality between those two pics. They only look different because in the top picture the rocks are lit from behind (also making the dust stand out) whereas in the lower they are lit from the front.

On a sidenote, I'd go as far as saying it's a bit dishonest to showcase the original training missions as a valid demo for the final game. The first pic was a decisive part of what got me into the game. I'm not saying I would have skipped it if I saw the second instead, but it is certainly not as impressive.

They are exactly the same quality. And there are still high-quality dense rings out there. I'd look at the "Around the Galaxy in 88 days" thread: an explorer log by Maia Posidana. She's got a thing for rings so there are a lot of pictures of them. Some are real eye candy.

Incidentally she also shows an egg-shaped moon in close tidal-locked orbit with its bigger twin. Looks like the Stellar Forge can now generate flattened spheres --that is a new thing.

 

[EdzUp]

This right here. Stutter/lag/frames per second and so on are the bane of "3d" games. Sorting these issues are paramount. No matter what game engine your using, you gain performance by cutting graphical finesse.

This forum was full of "perfomance" threads some time ago. Now the issue is graphics. Go figure...

Performance first. Graphics second. (Content third?... <shudder>... )

We want to fly around not see a slideshow

Indeed. One of the things that makes Space Engine look so much better than E: D (subjective opinion obviously) is the light from multiple stars.

Jeez I thought that was in there, surely it is had multiple light source rendering in star flight waaaay back in 2001 :/

 

[ffr]

I'm a little confused as to why they decided then at that transition from 1.2 -3 to do these changes all in one go and at that point. One would have thought it would have been a gradual process, dialing back certain little things to gain improvements (or not), but the huge swoop of changes after 1.2 to 1.3

Clue: ED PC 1.3 release June 5, ED Xbox release June 15.

- - - Updated - - -

Incidentally she also shows an egg-shaped moon in close tidal-locked orbit with its bigger twin. Looks like the Stellar Forge can now generate flattened spheres --that is a new thing.

Stellar Forge is not generating flattened spheres. The flattening is due to projection distortion and has been present for at least a year.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

The fact that some refuted this example does not make it any less valid. Yes, the lighting is different, the source is not at the same place, alright. But it is undeniable that there is a loss of quality between the two versions. Is it due to the lack of dust? Maybe. Light sampling reduced? Maybe. I don't know, I can only observe. Have you been able to find the same depth as in pic 1 anywhere in 1.3?

On a sidenote, I'd go as far as saying it's a bit dishonest to showcase the original training missions as a valid demo for the final game. The first pic was a decisive part of what got me into the game. I'm not saying I would have skipped it if I saw the second instead, but it is certainly not as impressive.

Problem is, you can't make 'undeniable' claims about loss of quality, because I don't see any there. Let's be clear here - there are people on Internet who love knee jerking. This includes claiming devs downgrade graphics for some evil/devil reasons (usually console). Of course optimization, changing specs, market can change visual appearance - and let's not touch on bugs, which imho has been major venue of visual downgrades in 1.3 (shader detection doesn't work as it should imho).

 

[Insomnia]

Sorry, but I cannot see a difference in quality between those two pics.

The old demo is about the only thing we can show because that's not been changed.

Fact is it looked better before. And I HATE it when developers are forcing graphical optimizations, that strongly affects the visuals, without give us even the slightest thing to say.
And I dont wanna be a jerk. And I dont think it's a conspiracy against consoles..... sigh
After Witcher 3, I'm very much on my guard about these things.


I wont argue anymore.


Edit: After some time with both versions I found that assets are still intact and textures looks the same. I apologise. Picture removed. The difference is in the lighting and the haze. Nothing else.

 

[CMDR Commander]

I must agree with this. The flat white lighting is a bad design choice --it kills the atmosphere.

It will look even worse when we are finally able to land on planets. Imagine if instead of an ominous view below you get a landscape lit with safe and bright fluorescent lamp lighting. And it's the same on every planet. Laaaaame.

Stellar Forge is not generating flattened spheres. The flattening is due to projection distortion and has been present for at least a year.

Not sure if it's true tbh. I remember Kumai, a moon of Apasam having an oblate spheroid shape in beta. Some gas giants too.

 

[nexxo]

Stellar Forge is not generating flattened spheres. The flattening is due to projection distortion and has been present for at least a year.

Maia Posidana seems to have found one:

- - - Updated - - -

The old demo is about the only thing we can show because that's not been changed.

Here's a pic of what's missing:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5625/20227244384_45e5c36695_o.jpg

1. Completely missing assets on meshes. Check 1.3.8 pic for reference. And no, the lighting in that aspect does not have impact on the visibility of the missing assets.

2. Variations in textures. Latest ones looks "flat" (boring word I know^^).

3. Dust? Haze? I loved the overblown haze before so these new settings are like a needle in the eye.

These are my 2 (or 3) cents.
Fact is it looked better before. And I HATE it when developers are forcing graphical optimizations, that strongly affects the visuals, without give us even the slightest thing to say.
And I dont wanna be a jerk. And I dont think it's a conspiracy against consoles..... sigh
After Witcher 3, I'm very much on my guard about these things.


I wont argue anymore.

Hang on, isn't that the "before" picture?

 

[MrJWalk]

I've got an issue with graphics (I think) and I don't know if it's unique to me or if it's a known issue. I don't even know how to search for it. The walls of the station are vibrating. Like, paint mixer vibrate. When I turn my head all the way, I can see my seat do it as well.

 

[Insomnia]

I've got an issue with graphics (I think) and I don't know if it's unique to me or if it's a known issue. I don't even know how to search for it. The walls of the station are vibrating. Like, paint mixer vibrate. When I turn my head all the way, I can see my seat do it as well.

I have this too. Try reporting it in the bug reports section. It does increase aliasing when stuff is vibrating.

 

[Bacalao]

This right here. Stutter/lag/frames per second and so on are the bane of "3d" games. Sorting these issues are paramount. No matter what game engine your using, you gain performance by cutting graphical finesse.

This forum was full of "perfomance" threads some time ago. Now the issue is graphics. Go figure...

Performance first. Graphics second. (Content third?... <shudder>... )

Unfortunately some of us have had major stutter problems since 1.3 anywhere around a star/planet/asteroids. It's quite bad at times and as I've tried all the remedies I could glean from threads here, I don't know what else to try.

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

Sorry, but I cannot see a difference in quality between those two pics. They only look different because in the top picture the rocks are lit from behind (also making the dust stand out) whereas in the lower they are lit from the front.

No, that's not all. In the first there is depth. You have a nice rendering of distance, mostly thanks to the dust cloud. In the second you have a gory mess of pixels that does nothing to tell you what you are looking at, and give you a sense of depth. Really, you can't see that?

And I looked at that thread and found nothing matching the sheer beauty of what you can find, say, in the older "screenies" thread. But that's all about opinion, I guess. Btw, the devs themselves stated they have removed a few lights in the cockpits, and considerably downgraded the fog effect.

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

I tried to get the same light pos as in the 1.3 pic. More or less. Still much better to me, but that's only a question of taste, in the end.


This kind of sight used to be common. Now, not so much.


And finally, an over the top fog use, for a really cool effect (IMHO)


The same ring, 1.3:

Granted, the angle is not exactly the same, but that's not the issue here. In the first pic, the sun was below the field too.

 

[nexxo]

No, that's not all. In the first there is depth. You have a nice rendering of distance, mostly thanks to the dust cloud. In the second you have a gory mess of pixels that does nothing to tell you what you are looking at, and give you a sense of depth. Really, you can't see that?

No, that really is a consequence of the position of the lighting.

And I looked at that thread and found nothing matching the sheer beauty of what you can find, say, in the older "screenies" thread. But that's all about opinion, I guess. Btw, the devs themselves stated they have removed a few lights in the cockpits, and considerably downgraded the fog effect.

They stated that there were problems with it in some systems. Frankly every release since the Alphas look slightly different; there is all sorts of experimenting going on with the galaxy brightness, star shapes, gas giant clouds, ships-in-supercruise trails etc. Hopefully effects will be dialled up again in the next release.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried to get the same light pos as in the 1.3 pic. More or less. Still much better to me, but that's only a question of taste, in the end.
View attachment 57332

This kind of sight used to be common. Now, not so much.
View attachment 57333

And finally, an over the top fog use, for a really cool effect (IMHO)
View attachment 57334

The same ring, 1.3:
View attachment 57335
Granted, the angle is not exactly the same, but that's not the issue here. In the first pic, the sun was below the field too.

Yes, but so was the point of view. In the last picture it is above the field and that changes things again.

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

No, that really is a consequence of the position of the lighting.

See pic above.

edit: you did

Gee, how stubborn can you be? No, that's not the pov. I know that system, my jaw just hit the floor when I first saw it. Now, no matter the pov, it looks like the last pic. That's all. Same for the training mission. Pov has nothing to do with that. Fog is another story.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

See pic above.

edit: you did

Gee, how stubborn can you be? No, that's not the pov. I know that system, my jaw just hit the floor when I first saw it. Now, no matter the pov, it looks like the last pic. That's all. Same for the training mission. Pov has nothing to do with that. Fog is another story.

Totally agree. This is not a point of view issue at all - and Frontier have confirmed that in this very thread. The fog has changed, as have a number of other things.

Hopefully soon, they will be put back to the way they were (or better).

Look at this video at the 1.33 marker (linked) https://youtu.be/YAjrQaFAR2w?t=1m33s and the ring systems look very different. From outside the ring, there is a smooth blending - much different to the harsh (usually white) banding we currently have. Inside the ring system the asteroids are very, very dense. However there is a lot of pop-in on the asteroids and they are clustered in groups. Yet look closely at the asteroids in the distance, they look the same colour as the ones in the foreground...again something that isn't true any longer.

Interesting thing is, that the asteroids / ring systems in the linked video had just undergone a massive "downgrade", prior to that they looked better (no pop-in or strange clusters). However within a few more patches Frontier returned them to their former glory and them some - things looked at their best every.

I'm hoping this is exactly what is going to happen this time. Frontier have "downgraded" graphics before, right before an "upgrade" that makes them even better. Trouble is, we don't know if that is what is happening with 1.3 or not. All we know is that there are a few bugs. Nothing else has been confirmed one way or the other.

[video=youtube_share;YAjrQaFAR2w]https://youtu.be/YAjrQaFAR2w?t=1m33s[/video]

Go to 1m 33s in the video to see the ring systems from Beta.

 

[nexxo]

You are talking about different things at the same time: fog, density of rocks, banding between rocks in the foreground and background. And comparison pictures are pointless if the lighting and POV is not the same.

Indeed things have changed a lot, but I remember people complain about rocks popping in and disappearing, and indeed whole clusters and holes popping in and out. The fog was to an extent a clever way of covering that up. Getting rings right is tricky --no other game has had them because of the technical challenges involved, and it is one of the things I suspect took a lot of work and is still a work in progress. So yes, hopefully Frontier will continue working on the eye candy.

I did like the system lighting being the same colour as the star better though. The generic flat white lighting they have now was a bad idea.

 

[Boff'in]

Fan Expectation vs Reality.

Beta1, did have some more graphical flourishes and touches.....of course this rev's up expectations.


But these dropped out in the run up to the gamma and the retail release of the game because our surveys says.....

It was better for all round performance for everyone, as was discovered by the beta's...........that's why we have beta's to TEST the game.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The grounding Models for any game are usually very high detialed.
Lower resolution versions are cranked out from those super-high-res models, for real-time rendering (for the games).

They probably went too high first, in the beta's.
and culled it back for release.

But this is the Silver Lining. Those high-res-models still exist.

In the fullness of time, you will get them back.

Of course Frontier are going to to do asset-upgrades over the fullness of the games development, similar to WOW, Eve...etc etc...

 

[Soulstain]

I would just like a response that they intend to return it the the graphical glory we had. FD intends the game to be future- proof. The eye candy should be getting better not worse.

 

[Insomnia]

I just recorded 2 videos of the same combat training mission, and I can honestly say that the Demo looks way better, but it also perform worse than the 1.3.8 version.
The demo was actually alot more fun to play even though I had 7-10 FPS less than v.1.3.8. The demo simply gave me more immersion.
Uploading to YT now but It'll take a while.

 

[Kristov]

Granite, no offense, your videos are a huge part of why I got into Elite Dangerous, but I noticed early on that there are a number of issues with the graphics in the game, especially in some of your early videos, and the ultra widescreen video you linked here clearly shows them.

In the rings, you've got entire sections of rocks suddenly appearing or vanishing, shadows changing all over without an actual light source change, and other oddities of that sort.

I've dropped into a few rings myself in the past few weeks, I don't have those things happening as they do in your video. I see them appear at distance suddenly, which is to be expected, draw distance is what it is(mine's maxed out), but in your video, those popping/vanishing aren't at the draw distance limit, they are closer, as rocks can clearly be seen behind them as they pop/vanish.

I can see that the graphics have changed over the course of the game's lifetime so far just watching your videos, some things are obvious, but I'm left to wonder how many of the things I can visually tell are different are due to the GAME'S changes and how many are due to the addons you run, and other people noticing the same in their own gameplay, how many of you are also running those addons?

I run nothing extra with Elite, and my game has some pretty highly detailed stuff in it. The cockpits of my ships are gloriously detailed, from carbon fiber patterns to scratches, dents and stains, the leather's grain on my Courier, and so on. I've maxed things out via manual editing of files, as the ingame settings don't actually go to Ultra for most settings, something that IS a bit...mucked up, and I definitely agree FD should fix that.

As an aside, Granite, could I trouble you to send me a copy of your graphics settings xlm? My own version is oddly totally blank, and any changes I make get removed every time I start the game. I've had to use another file to make the changes, but it's missing almost everything shown on yours from your video on editing your graphics to get the most out of them. I'm not worried about my system handling the ultra settings, as I max out well over 120fps and drop down to 60s whenever I'm in a really busy/visually intensive area. If you could be so kind as to just PM me a copy of your settings, I would greatly appreciate that. And please keep making your videos, they got me to get the game and I've directed friends and family to them, FD should be paying you, your videos are wonderful advertisments!