I have wondered this too but surely they could test this sort of thing in the test/QA environment? I appreciate that you don't really know for sure how something will behave until it's in the live environment but still, textures are textures. Now, if you said to me they were taking this "trial and error" approach with the performance issues (i.e. stuttering etc.) then I might be inclined to agree.
FAO FRONTIER: List of Graphical Changes / Issues for since Patch 1.3
- Thread starter Obsidian Ant
- Start date
- Status
Well the point is: many of us don't really care about open in the first place (I play in open, but just for the occasional chit chat). So that leaves us expecting for better graphics first. Or at the very least, something that will stay true to what we bought in the first place.
Nevermind the light source origin. It's plain obvious that 1.00 rendering quality smashes the others to bits. More details, more subtilities, both inside the cockpit and in the field. The two others are just flat and lacks depth, and the light direction is not to blame.
Go on, re-install the combat training module if you haven't already, and have a blast from the past.
Hang on. Are you saying that the combat training is still intact? I have got to check it out tonight!
As the light direction effects things outside AND inside the cockpit and these pictures are being held up as "See! See! They're breaking the graphics for the XBone!" then the lighting in each of those photos and the directionality of the key light (ie the star) Has a huge effect on EVERYTHING you are seeing. EVERYTHING. Those details, they get picked out by a balance of ambient, key, fill and negative fill. These are the very fundamentals of lighting. Lighting effects perceptual quality. Look at a render of a highly detailed 3D model that uses only ambient light. It looks rubbish. Start adding in key, fill etc and the detailing springs into view.
Yes certain things in the rendering have been altered. Greg says this himself as they were causing performance problems, but to use the above images as direct comparisons as to the degrading of the quality of graphics, well... that's just disingenuous to say the least. Obfuscating and cherry picking are the terms I would use.
Is it plain that the rendering quality in 1.00 is better? No. Your perception and personal bias mean you use this as confirmation by tossing out actual technical reasons that explain the differences in the images. You are far to eager to point "See! See! Muh dumbed down graphics for consoles" then comprehend what the Greg has said.
-first, to take this out of the picture: I personnaly never stated they were breaking anything to fit in the xbox. Just, like many others did with reason, that the visuals took several steps down the ladder. I could not care less about what they're doing for xbox. The only thing that annoyed me quite a lot was this time exclusive thingy.
I'm not going to get dragged into a specialist debate about lighting. I've got my share at work, and when I'm playing a game, I'm not at work. It *is* plain that the rendering quality in 1.00 is better, yes. and it's not my perception. If you prefer what you see in the images below 1.00 (and I'm sure you don't), what can I say... Get yourself some good taste, man
About the cockpit alone, Ben stated that they killed a few lights already. As for external visual, again, I'd like to invite you to turn your ship around and get the same result from the first training mission and its 1.00 version. Good luck. Hint: don't waste your time, you'll fail.
Indeed they are
I would not be surprised if they were removed soon, though.
I totally agree with you. Opinions on which fog type is better are subjective, and as we have seen Frontier confirmed the fog has changed, and they also said themselves that certain systems no longer look as good. There is also an issue with some ring systems...take a look at this:
[video=youtube;z9zQB1x-kjg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9zQB1x-kjg[/video]
You are spot on with lighting issues, I've been around the galaxy enough to see how much difference lighting makes...and it is huge. However none of this back and forth exchange, changes the fact that the fog has indeed been changed - and in my subjective opinion is no longer as good as it was previously. But man, it's a stretch to equate subjective opinion with a console downgrade, I'm with you on that.
I would Rep this, but you had all my rep already. The fog has changed, yes. Greg has explained why. That should really be the end of it.
Aside from the issue with people claiming XBox is involved - I think what bothers a lot of people is that the game has always ran flawlessly on their PC, I am in that same boat. I have never had stutter, or frame rate issues. So to an extent, it feels at the fog has been changed for the worse (subjective opinion), when many of us never had a problem in the first place. Greg has indeed explained why, but I can understand why that explanation may leave some people feeling as though they have had something taken away from them, when there wasn't any problem with it in the first place (for them). Personally, I'd love the old fog back, and I find it mighty frustrating that it has gone. I understand why it has been done, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Two days ago..
No, it would be ending until we don't get advanced graphics options so we can't set up our game for your play style and PC rig ...
and your act on twitter is that we ask some nonsense things from FD...
Last edited:
The problem with fog is that two people in the same instance *must* see the same fog regardless of their settings. Otherwise one may have a tactical advantage over the other (unless the fog is far enough away or indistinct enough to not affect visual recognition). So if Frontier identify a performance issue with fog on low- or mid-end machines, they have two choices: either say "tough luck" to those machines and risk the ire of the 'casual' PC gamer, or find a more performant implementation of fog that risks the ire of the 'hardcore' PC gamer. I'm sure that if they could optimise without degrading quality they would, but there are only so many hours in the day and if they spend all their time developing a performant fog, they'll get shouted down by those who don't care about it. They can't really win, so it's a case of picking the least bad option and in this case that means catering for the masses rather than for the few.Aside from the issue with people claiming XBox is involved - I think what bothers a lot of people is that the game has always ran flawlessly on their PC, I am in that same boat. I have never had stutter, or frame rate issues. So to an extent, it feels at the fog has been changed for the worse (subjective opinion), when many of us never had a problem in the first place. Greg has indeed explained why, but I can understand why that explanation may leave some people feeling as though they have had something taken away from them, when there wasn't any problem with it in the first place (for them). Personally, I'd love the old fog back, and I find it mighty frustrating that it has gone. I understand why it has been done, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
I hope that they manage to eventually come up with a solution that works for everyone.
You don't know what is meaning of "advanced options setup" in game ...
I see the issue has made the online media:
http://www.vg247.com/2015/07/02/elite-dangerous-dev-comments-on-graphics-downgrade-complaints/
Usual idiots posting in the comments as you'd expect.
http://www.vg247.com/2015/07/02/elite-dangerous-dev-comments-on-graphics-downgrade-complaints/
Usual idiots posting in the comments as you'd expect.
That's a very nice shot! This was taken two months ago...
It's possible to go in circles on this, because it is unlikely we will ever get the exact same conditions and planet for two comparison shots - especially when you factor in the planets orbit cycles and that it may well be years before it gets back to the same position the original screenshot was taken it.
However that said, we can see what effect the fog change as had. We can also see that the asteroids appear to be more washed out now, and with less shadows. Lighting is from a very similar angle in these two images. But there are no doubt other factors at play. But you know what - I can show a hundred shots from dozens of different rings all from different light angles and the asteroids always looked vibrant with dark shadows. And now they don't. It's really that simple.
We know they have changed, Frontier have admitted that. Opinions on quality will vary - personally I prefer the old style. But yeah it still does look good when we get to the right locations, that's for sure.
Last edited:
Yes, I do. You missed my first point, the point that if differing graphical effects have a material effect on gameplay (e.g. visibility of other ships) then they cannot be configurable. Whether that's the case with fog I don't know (only Frontier do), but I can see that it could be.
I just want to link back to CMDR Commanders most excellent post about what it used to look like.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=162195&p=2479432&viewfull=1#post2479432
In particular "ring plane". Open up the first image with Beagle 2 landing. This was Alpha 2 or Alpha 3. Elite used to look "OMG holy mother freaking god, that looks amazing". Now it's .... blah. In Powerplay 1.3 Rings remind me of old style LP records. just lots of concentric rings.
Click http://i.imgur.com/5L3g3xq.jpg?1 Go look at what it used to look like. It used to look better than the box art for Frontier : Elite 2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Frontier_elite2_box.jpg
And Frontier's non response at https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=162195&p=2482259&viewfull=1#post2482259 is just disappointing. There is a lot more to image quality than resolution. 16k resolution won't make things look better.
No changes for 1.3 ... well, OK, maybe. But there are huge changes in the quality of the art work from Alpha to Powerplay 1.3
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=162195&p=2479432&viewfull=1#post2479432
In particular "ring plane". Open up the first image with Beagle 2 landing. This was Alpha 2 or Alpha 3. Elite used to look "OMG holy mother freaking god, that looks amazing". Now it's .... blah. In Powerplay 1.3 Rings remind me of old style LP records. just lots of concentric rings.
Click http://i.imgur.com/5L3g3xq.jpg?1 Go look at what it used to look like. It used to look better than the box art for Frontier : Elite 2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Frontier_elite2_box.jpg
And Frontier's non response at https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=162195&p=2482259&viewfull=1#post2482259 is just disappointing. There is a lot more to image quality than resolution. 16k resolution won't make things look better.
No changes for 1.3 ... well, OK, maybe. But there are huge changes in the quality of the art work from Alpha to Powerplay 1.3
- Status