Just so. Graphics are a huge part of exploration. I'd much rather explore something beautiful as opposed to something dull and flat.
FAO FRONTIER: List of Graphical Changes / Issues for since Patch 1.3
- Thread starter Obsidian Ant
- Start date
- Status
Just so. Graphics are a huge part of exploration. I'd much rather explore something beautiful as opposed to something dull and flat.
Exactly - and I still have hope that FD team can fix things and more so - improve the look of the game. Still I do have a feeling that xbox has something to do with it, but I also hope I will be proven wrong in the next few updates.
I have already said this a couple pf times before. Pump & Hype PR techniques only work well if you have a track record of good deliveries. FDEV is burning the good will of their user base quite fast, and until they restore it, they should drop these techniques and go back to basic and honest communication.
Graphics should be important when consumer ready VR lands. VR is one market for which Frontier should really be prepared. FPS is important for that too, but let's keep Ultra settings as high as they can be.
Not just graphics, the aesthetics really. And that took several hits since Beta. Station lost their 'atmosphere' before the release and now asteroid fields look like biowaste.
Not just graphics, the aesthetics really. And that took several hits since Beta. Station lost their 'atmosphere' before the release and now asteroid fields look like biowaste.
I have sent a ticket to support asking what happened to galaxy map with filter on. I received a reply that is due to some people having problems with plotting routes in the galaxy core. I have absolutely no idea what plotting route has to do with filter on but Zac says
“On the ships / galaxy map front, I’m not aware of any changes that went in for 1.3.”
There is clearly massive nerf to galaxy map yet FD here says that is not the case and support says that what happened.
Putting aside the range of the filter and in my opinion visual downgrade I am absolutely fine if this was like that from start point . If you set some rules and standards – fine i can play along. But when at some point developer says “yep few percent of those (at the moment amount of people who reached Sagittarius is 500) playing in galaxy centre had problem. Let’s fix it for those breaking the other aspects of the game for everything else”. I’m sorry that it’s a total screw up and disrespect who bought this game. Nerfing a PC game due to developing it on other platform is a fact. I understand that FD has not enough man power for both. But for Christ sake – don’t bloody brake the core of the fun!
In my ticket i was told that
“If you feel this needs to be changed, please report this to our official suggestions forum. These are monitored by the game designers who will be able to further tweak such game mechanics if necessary.”
Clearly this is not again the case if this thread grew to 17 pages and last reply from FD was 4 days or 11 pages ago. It took 2-3 weeks to fix ridiculous maintenance and repair cost to rockets, same for data gathered through exploration in version 1.2 and RES points are not fixed to this point.
FD messed up this game on many fronts and with all these bits takes away reasons to play. Go on FD make it even worse looking with broken mechanics – for me filter range and i will stop playing it completely. The problem is that my voice will not be heard because it’s drowned
“On the ships / galaxy map front, I’m not aware of any changes that went in for 1.3.”
There is clearly massive nerf to galaxy map yet FD here says that is not the case and support says that what happened.
Putting aside the range of the filter and in my opinion visual downgrade I am absolutely fine if this was like that from start point . If you set some rules and standards – fine i can play along. But when at some point developer says “yep few percent of those (at the moment amount of people who reached Sagittarius is 500) playing in galaxy centre had problem. Let’s fix it for those breaking the other aspects of the game for everything else”. I’m sorry that it’s a total screw up and disrespect who bought this game. Nerfing a PC game due to developing it on other platform is a fact. I understand that FD has not enough man power for both. But for Christ sake – don’t bloody brake the core of the fun!
In my ticket i was told that
“If you feel this needs to be changed, please report this to our official suggestions forum. These are monitored by the game designers who will be able to further tweak such game mechanics if necessary.”
Clearly this is not again the case if this thread grew to 17 pages and last reply from FD was 4 days or 11 pages ago. It took 2-3 weeks to fix ridiculous maintenance and repair cost to rockets, same for data gathered through exploration in version 1.2 and RES points are not fixed to this point.
FD messed up this game on many fronts and with all these bits takes away reasons to play. Go on FD make it even worse looking with broken mechanics – for me filter range and i will stop playing it completely. The problem is that my voice will not be heard because it’s drowned
Last edited:
First of all thank you, heres some rep.
This also explains SO much to why i just cant seem to get into exploration anymore. Even with everything just having a downgrade in general. Your map comparison nailed it.
And sadly it will probably be the reason i quit after i hit elite in combat. I used to go 10k ly out somewhere, totally random but to get there i'd hide all systems on the map except non-sequential and use those as my targets from point to point in the direction i'd intended. Then i'd do the same back. Now with the new map style if i zoom out just a bit....i cant see anything, no shiny white dot in the distance anymore. So instead of being able to find a system 700ly's away and go, right thats the net target, i have to stay zoomed in enough that unless one is nomore than 20ly's away it dissapears. This isnt help by with some stars rotating the camera make its dissapear also.
In the first set seems like LOD kicks in making it look the same on both settings, agreed it looks like a bug.
In the second one you can see that on ultra asteroids are more detailed and you can see subsurface scattering (the blue transparency of ice), so there actually is a difference, not a very big one though.
I'm currently 15,500 LY from Sol, and am having the same trouble plotting course. I also look for "non-sequence" stars to use as waypoints, but those are really difficult to spot now... as you said.
I barely "see" 50 LY around me in the Map filter view, which is pretty useless.
I have been twice to Sag A and I had problems only with the second one but it was version 1.2. From what are you saying is that they decreased the filter range to fix the plotting but it is not fixed at all
Great thread, shame the dev answer was as unhelpful as ever, but that's to be expected I guess, why change the habit of the past year?
If these were just changes and not bugs etc, then reverse these changes, your game looks a LOT inferior to how it was in beta, why do you STILL not admit that all these graphics nerfs were made to try and alleviate the stuttering etc people were getting, but it obviously didn't work, so why didn't you put these back to how they were??
Giving us excuses will not appease us, you guys should know that by now, what will appease us is action! can you break the trend and actually start acting on these problems instead of just giving us palm-off answers like we're idiots please.
If these were just changes and not bugs etc, then reverse these changes, your game looks a LOT inferior to how it was in beta, why do you STILL not admit that all these graphics nerfs were made to try and alleviate the stuttering etc people were getting, but it obviously didn't work, so why didn't you put these back to how they were??
Giving us excuses will not appease us, you guys should know that by now, what will appease us is action! can you break the trend and actually start acting on these problems instead of just giving us palm-off answers like we're idiots please.
Last edited:
The problem is that now they can't say - that would just confirm they were holding back crucial information or lying to their customers, which might make things worse. They're currently sitting in a position many devs have known recently and don't wanna go back to.
I don't think they signed any deal with microsoft to downgrade the game due to the Xbox release, but if they did, it's pretty clear they have signed to a no-disclosure clause in the contract. All in all, they're ed : now their customers have lost all the trust they might have had, and if they decide to come clean, they'll shake a pillar they are in no shape to contain.
You would have thought that by 2015, devs knew that selling your soul like this was a minimal gain for a giant loss - I mean gee, even Ubisoft came back on those decisions and stopped all those bul, and are still paying a hefty price for their past deeds. How can anyone making video game still think they might win anything by putting their fingers in this kind of trap ?
All in all, I'm no bul analyst, no business planner, not even a develloper of any sort - just passionate about video games and have seen history repeat itself way enough. FD, you gotta grab the bull by the horn, recognize the problems that are being pointed at in this thread, and include your player base in their resolution. There is no easy path to this, even Path of Exile managed to solve their desync problem, it took them FOUR DAMN YEARS. People just complained about, but never blamed GGG, why ? Because they admitted the problem and gave as much update as they can about its resolution.
Treating your players like whining es who just don't diserve to be listened to is never the solution guys, and it would be really cool of you to realize it before the competition comes knocking at your backdoor with a damn buldozer.
I don't think they signed any deal with microsoft to downgrade the game due to the Xbox release, but if they did, it's pretty clear they have signed to a no-disclosure clause in the contract. All in all, they're ed : now their customers have lost all the trust they might have had, and if they decide to come clean, they'll shake a pillar they are in no shape to contain.
You would have thought that by 2015, devs knew that selling your soul like this was a minimal gain for a giant loss - I mean gee, even Ubisoft came back on those decisions and stopped all those bul, and are still paying a hefty price for their past deeds. How can anyone making video game still think they might win anything by putting their fingers in this kind of trap ?
All in all, I'm no bul analyst, no business planner, not even a develloper of any sort - just passionate about video games and have seen history repeat itself way enough. FD, you gotta grab the bull by the horn, recognize the problems that are being pointed at in this thread, and include your player base in their resolution. There is no easy path to this, even Path of Exile managed to solve their desync problem, it took them FOUR DAMN YEARS. People just complained about, but never blamed GGG, why ? Because they admitted the problem and gave as much update as they can about its resolution.
Treating your players like whining es who just don't diserve to be listened to is never the solution guys, and it would be really cool of you to realize it before the competition comes knocking at your backdoor with a damn buldozer.
I'm continuing a discussion from another thread here.
--------------
No, "that is not that".
My previous image comparison didn't suddenly drop off the planet because of your image.
If I crop sections from that in a similar fashion I get this:
As for the last image of the "console" the resolution looks pretty much the same to me overall (slight UV mapping differences disregarded). The older version does however have more contrast, brighter colours and more "character" with coffee stains all over, but the actual resolution looks the same.
Why your images looks much worse I can't say for sure. All I can say is that my images have both been dumped raw out of the game on the same machine with the exact same hardware on both occasions. It does however look like the top image of yours (which I guess you found somewhere on the internet) have some sharpening applied to it. I'm not saying you have applied that though...
As I said in our previous conversation in that other thread. Certain parts of the model might have "lower texture detail" while others have higher, but this is mostly seems to be a UV mapping issue between the different styles IMO. Not a "lower res issue".
--------------
No, "that is not that".
My previous image comparison didn't suddenly drop off the planet because of your image.
If I crop sections from that in a similar fashion I get this:
As for the last image of the "console" the resolution looks pretty much the same to me overall (slight UV mapping differences disregarded). The older version does however have more contrast, brighter colours and more "character" with coffee stains all over, but the actual resolution looks the same.
Why your images looks much worse I can't say for sure. All I can say is that my images have both been dumped raw out of the game on the same machine with the exact same hardware on both occasions. It does however look like the top image of yours (which I guess you found somewhere on the internet) have some sharpening applied to it. I'm not saying you have applied that though...
As I said in our previous conversation in that other thread. Certain parts of the model might have "lower texture detail" while others have higher, but this is mostly seems to be a UV mapping issue between the different styles IMO. Not a "lower res issue".
Last edited:
Thank you for these images Tinman, it's really interesting to see how the graphical style of the game has changed since Alpha.
I'm not sure how I would define the changes, but I think the old alpha graphics could be described as bit more ''painterly'' and vivid, while also looking more worn.
This is entirely subjective, but I think I prefer the old style. This might be because of nostalgia.
I also think there is a tendency, when graphical style is changed so that some things are improved and some are worsened, to not notice the improvements and only see the bits that got more ugly. That is a pretty human thing to do.
I'm not sure how I would define the changes, but I think the old alpha graphics could be described as bit more ''painterly'' and vivid, while also looking more worn.
This is entirely subjective, but I think I prefer the old style. This might be because of nostalgia.
I also think there is a tendency, when graphical style is changed so that some things are improved and some are worsened, to not notice the improvements and only see the bits that got more ugly. That is a pretty human thing to do.
I'm continuing a discussion from another thread here.
--------------
No, "that is not that".
My previous image comparison didn't suddenly drop off the planet because of your image.
http://i.imgur.com/sieyduM.png
If I crop sections from that in a similar fashion I get this:
http://i.imgur.com/QrZ5wr3.png
http://i.imgur.com/V6Khbpr.png
http://i.imgur.com/tjMK44R.png
As for the last image of the "console" the resolution looks pretty much the same to me overall (slight UV mapping differences disregarded). The older version does however have more contrast, brighter colours and more "character" with coffee stains all over, but the actual resolution looks the same.
Why your images looks much worse I can't say for sure. All I can say is that my images have both been dumped raw out of the game on the same machine with the exact same hardware on both occasions. It does however look like the top image of yours (which I guess you found somewhere on the internet) have some sharpening applied to it. I'm not saying you have applied that though...
As I said in out previous conversation in that other thread. Certain parts of the model might have "lower texture detail" while others have higher, but this is mostly seems to be a UV mapping issue between the different styles IMO. Not a "lower res issue".
I'm starting to wonder if some game assets (like the cockpit) are displaying differently on certain PC's. This might explain the difference between your screenshots and ozrix's ones. It's pretty clear in his screenshots that the new dashboard is of lower resolution, where as in yours they appear to be more or less equal.
Last edited:
So as it stands it is a bug or driver issue...not overall graphics downgrade.
Can we close subject now? And concentrate on actual bugs and reporting them?
Thank you.
I think there are a lot of different things going on Pecisk. The nebula for example seems to be either a bug or a parameter change.
The planets are down to Frontier reducing the texture display (which you can increase via xml).
The Fog, is down to Frontier have changed how it is rendered. However there is also a bug causing the Fog to not be displayed in certain areas of the ring systems - most notably on the dark side of planets.
The asteroid draw distance seems it might be related to the above fog issue (maybe, maybe not we don't know).
The Sidewinder cockpit, I have no idea - but based on the fact that screenshots seem to vary so much it's obviously not down to being a purely subjective personal preference matter. (Closing the topic on this doesn't help anyone fix anything. If it is a driver issue - then discussing it further might help people figure out what's going on. But I am far from convinced it is a driver issue. Who knows, it could be anything causing it).
The fact that shadows are not appearing on asteroids when Ultra / Max settings are applied would seem to be a bug.
The bugs have been reported in the relevant places.
And no reason this topic can't stay open Mr Pecisk (unless you are talking about ending the drawn out discussion on the Sidewinder cockpit - which I personally wasn't involved in beyond the couple of posts in this thread - not sure if you were aiming that statement at me, or if you were making a more general comment). The entire point of these forums is for people to discuss the game, regardless of how we feel about people's opinions or the subject they bring up. So long as they keep it civil then all is good.
Last edited:
To explain myself - I meant subject, not this thread
I am bit tired of console downgrade urban myth which is still propagated and not challenged despite having no evidence.Don't get me wrong, thumbs up for what you are doing, devs need that kind of feedback. Just overall tone about subject matter makes me weary.
- Status